3 ms·

Thank you Blender! I'd like them to bring back some more of the game engine components. I use Unity, but seeing what Blender can do, via their demo movies, I'

Thank you Blender! I'd like them to bring back some more of the game engine components. I use Unity, but seeing what Blender can do, via their demo movies, I'd love to see a Blender Game Engine!

haxiomic 5y ago
Definitely, I’m very interested in blender as a better Unity There’s armory3d which is impressive but it’s still early days
TT-392 5y ago
There is a project called UPBGE, it is a fork of the old game engine and being actively maintained. https://upbge.org/ https://upbge.org/
- 999900000999 5y ago
  Thank you, however as far as I know it's only one dev. Blender would probably need to pull this back into the core product for it to be useful. A powerful mature engine with Python, one can dream.
prox 5y ago
There is a lot of effort to get Godot in that spot. 4.0 is going to be really good, especially for 3d.
- 999900000999 5y ago
  How does Godot handle terrain ? Unity is mainly useful since if you're willing to drop a few thousand dollars on assets, plus about 200 hours of your own personal time, you can have a shipable game in a month or so. Godot looks really neat, but at least with my skill level I need a starter kit to get going on most projects. Then again, I know Godot's gotten a ton of funding lately so we'll see what happens.
  - moron4hire 5y ago
    Eeeeh, maybe if you're extremely experienced in Unity you can have a shippable game in a month. There's a lot of jank in Unity that is non-obvious to inexperienced Unity users. I don't even mean inexperienced programmers. Between un-/under-documented features, surfing the wave of continuing to use "deprecated" features versus their incomplete replacements, and the general architectural problems baked deep into the core of Unity, it takes a lot of Unity-specific expertise to get a good game together.
    - 999900000999 5y ago
      It took longer than a month but I have shipped games for Unity before. Nothing groundbreaking, but if you want to make something simple, Unity is pretty easy. Now if you're pushing for a AAA title, are doing something really innovative, it might be a bit harder
  - prox 5y ago
    There is a dev who specifically works in that area, can’t think of his name right now, but he works on terrains. There is already a free add on for Godot 3.
    - follower 5y ago
      Perhaps https://github.com/Zylann/godot_heightmap_plugin https://github.com/Zylann/godot_heightmap_plugin ?
DonHopkins 5y ago
I too would love to have a Blender game engine. But removing it was the right (though painful) decision. It caused a code maintenance nightmare by duplicating and reimplementing a lot of other code, and removing it makes adding new things to Blender much easier (like Interactive Mode). Back when I was using 3D Studio Max, I wished it had a fast sleek efficient minimal game engine runtime called "3D Studio Min", but that never panned out either. https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/106972/what-will-happen-with-blender-2-8-game-engine https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/106972/what-will... >As for the reasons for removal we can conclude it was an old and aging component, it was largely unmaintained, suffered from several bugs and limitations, and the Blender Foundation probably lacked the energy, motivation and manpower to maintain it properly. >"Adding new things to Blender gets much easier that way. The Blender Internal code started in early 90s. Over 25 years old! Functionally, EEVEE can (and will) completely replace it." -Ton Roosendaal >It was also very architecturally outdated, lagged severely behind the current industry standards and modern technologies in many ways, it would be very hard to bring it up to date. Modernizing it or introducing new features would end up being more work than a full rewrite from scratch. [...] >What About Forking It? >UPBGE is a third party fork, whose objective is updating and modernizing the BGE with better technologies and features, with the end goal of eventually merging it back with main Blender development branch. >I fear its future is uncertain at this point unfortunately. While I believe Blender developers won't actively do anything to purposefully break Blender trunk codebase compatibility, I speculate it will naturally become increasingly hard for UPBGE developers to maintain their code working, as features are removed and main Blender development deviates further from the current design. [...] >There have been talks about replacing the old game engine with a newer better integrated "Interactive Mode". It would be a more integral part of Blender, as opposed to a separate component with a lot of duplicated code that re-implemented a very limited subset of supported features we currently have. >This is not meant to be a direct replacement of the old BGE, nor a discrete game engine in the traditional sense with wide publishing capabilities, rather more of an integrated real-time "presentation tool" or interaction mode with a physics simulation sandbox environment, that runs directly inside Blender's viewport on currently supported platforms. >On 28 May 2018 Ton Roosendaal announced in the Developers Mailing list that a portion of the 2.8 Code Quest funds were reserved for the development of a new and improved real time rendering system or "Interactive Mode" and Benoit Bolsee, a developer historically known for his involvement in real time side of Blender, accepted a grant to work part time on this for one year. https://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2018-May/049438.html https://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2018-May/0... https://www.blender.org/2-8/quest/ https://www.blender.org/2-8/quest/ https://code.blender.org/2013/06/blender-roadmap-2-7-2-8-and-beyond/#Blender%20Game%20Engine https://code.blender.org/2013/06/blender-roadmap-2-7-2-8-and... >I speculate this will probably feature a new node based workflow and logic system, real time physics, and integrate well with other upcoming features like "Object Nodes" also known as "Everything Nodes" in one way or another.

Thank you Blender! I'd like them to bring back some more of the game engine components. I use Unity, but seeing what Blender can do, via their demo movies, I'd love to see a Blender Game Engine!

haxiomic 5y ago

Definitely, I’m very interested in blender as a better Unity There’s armory3d which is impressive but it’s still early days

TT-392 5y ago

There is a project called UPBGE, it is a fork of the old game engine and being actively maintained. https://upbge.org/ https://upbge.org/

999900000999 5y ago
Thank you, however as far as I know it's only one dev. Blender would probably need to pull this back into the core product for it to be useful. A powerful mature engine with Python, one can dream.

prox 5y ago

There is a lot of effort to get Godot in that spot. 4.0 is going to be really good, especially for 3d.

999900000999 5y ago
How does Godot handle terrain ? Unity is mainly useful since if you're willing to drop a few thousand dollars on assets, plus about 200 hours of your own personal time, you can have a shipable game in a month or so. Godot looks really neat, but at least with my skill level I need a starter kit to get going on most projects. Then again, I know Godot's gotten a ton of funding lately so we'll see what happens.
- moron4hire 5y ago
  Eeeeh, maybe if you're extremely experienced in Unity you can have a shippable game in a month. There's a lot of jank in Unity that is non-obvious to inexperienced Unity users. I don't even mean inexperienced programmers. Between un-/under-documented features, surfing the wave of continuing to use "deprecated" features versus their incomplete replacements, and the general architectural problems baked deep into the core of Unity, it takes a lot of Unity-specific expertise to get a good game together.
  - 999900000999 5y ago
    It took longer than a month but I have shipped games for Unity before. Nothing groundbreaking, but if you want to make something simple, Unity is pretty easy. Now if you're pushing for a AAA title, are doing something really innovative, it might be a bit harder
- prox 5y ago
  There is a dev who specifically works in that area, can’t think of his name right now, but he works on terrains. There is already a free add on for Godot 3.
  - follower 5y ago
    Perhaps https://github.com/Zylann/godot_heightmap_plugin https://github.com/Zylann/godot_heightmap_plugin ?

DonHopkins 5y ago

I too would love to have a Blender game engine. But removing it was the right (though painful) decision. It caused a code maintenance nightmare by duplicating and reimplementing a lot of other code, and removing it makes adding new things to Blender much easier (like Interactive Mode). Back when I was using 3D Studio Max, I wished it had a fast sleek efficient minimal game engine runtime called "3D Studio Min", but that never panned out either. https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/106972/what-will-happen-with-blender-2-8-game-engine https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/106972/what-will... >As for the reasons for removal we can conclude it was an old and aging component, it was largely unmaintained, suffered from several bugs and limitations, and the Blender Foundation probably lacked the energy, motivation and manpower to maintain it properly. >"Adding new things to Blender gets much easier that way. The Blender Internal code started in early 90s. Over 25 years old! Functionally, EEVEE can (and will) completely replace it." -Ton Roosendaal >It was also very architecturally outdated, lagged severely behind the current industry standards and modern technologies in many ways, it would be very hard to bring it up to date. Modernizing it or introducing new features would end up being more work than a full rewrite from scratch. [...] >What About Forking It? >UPBGE is a third party fork, whose objective is updating and modernizing the BGE with better technologies and features, with the end goal of eventually merging it back with main Blender development branch. >I fear its future is uncertain at this point unfortunately. While I believe Blender developers won't actively do anything to purposefully break Blender trunk codebase compatibility, I speculate it will naturally become increasingly hard for UPBGE developers to maintain their code working, as features are removed and main Blender development deviates further from the current design. [...] >There have been talks about replacing the old game engine with a newer better integrated "Interactive Mode". It would be a more integral part of Blender, as opposed to a separate component with a lot of duplicated code that re-implemented a very limited subset of supported features we currently have. >This is not meant to be a direct replacement of the old BGE, nor a discrete game engine in the traditional sense with wide publishing capabilities, rather more of an integrated real-time "presentation tool" or interaction mode with a physics simulation sandbox environment, that runs directly inside Blender's viewport on currently supported platforms. >On 28 May 2018 Ton Roosendaal announced in the Developers Mailing list that a portion of the 2.8 Code Quest funds were reserved for the development of a new and improved real time rendering system or "Interactive Mode" and Benoit Bolsee, a developer historically known for his involvement in real time side of Blender, accepted a grant to work part time on this for one year. https://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2018-May/049438.html https://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2018-May/0... https://www.blender.org/2-8/quest/ https://www.blender.org/2-8/quest/ https://code.blender.org/2013/06/blender-roadmap-2-7-2-8-and-beyond/#Blender%20Game%20Engine https://code.blender.org/2013/06/blender-roadmap-2-7-2-8-and... >I speculate this will probably feature a new node based workflow and logic system, real time physics, and integrate well with other upcoming features like "Object Nodes" also known as "Everything Nodes" in one way or another.