Aoutdated very much so, especially when it comes to shaders, barely functions
even still, it's another option and many successful games have been released with it
even still, it's another option and many successful games have been released with it
Aopengl 2.1 (up to shader model 3)
d3d11 (up to shader model 5 iirc)
there is ofc the compute fork too but not too many people are aware of that
d3d11 (up to shader model 5 iirc)
there is ofc the compute fork too but not too many people are aware of that
Ryeah, I would avoid it then for anything more complex than a simple 2d game :(
Li dont think anyone has tested compute fork on mobile devices
Ayeah
Ai see no reason why it wouldn't work but i don't think it's cpt-max's priority
RNot to mention OpenGL is deprecated on apple platorms
A(it does use opengl es for mobile)
Rso any bugs incurred are unlikely to be fit
Pthat’s a fabrication
Pwhat are you going to use on android
PVulkan? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Rmeant apple platforms
Pah
Rto which the response apple wants you to give is metal
Rmy bad
PI love metal
PI really wish it wasn’t apple only
Adeprecated yes but so many apps use opengl i don't think they're gonna remove it anytime soon
Lmetal is a really good api from what ive heard, but the only problem is apple only
RI don't want to own apple products, so I don't and have never used it
ALDarling is planning on making DXVK but instead having it be Metal -> VK, but thats a long ways away
Await
Lwhat
Amoltenvk is the vk to metla thing i forgot
Lyeah
Pthe thing is with metal
Pis objective-c
Rwhat game are you looking at making?
Aah apple, how we love that you choose stuff no one else uses because why should you be able to easily port applications
Aive only seen a bit of objective c and it looked HORRIBLE
RI think before we can make a really good recommendation would really depend on A: your experience with engine dev and rendering. B: The game you want to end up making and C: the full extent of what you are expected to target. D: what the team after you will be doing
RLike IMHO, I aint going to suggest you build an engine to get a framework down, and then leave the entire rest of your team to pick up the pieces of an early incomplete game engine base
Rto write their next game
RCompetent game engines by one person can take weeks or months of hard work by an experienced dev and typically they are good for basically one game
RBecause Silk.net is not an engine, it is not a framework, it is just wrappers and bindings
Rthat is all
JNothing too too crazy, it's a serious mobile game that's supposed to help the players with living in a more sustainable, eco friendly way:
A simple 3D environment where you can do some simple customization (Terraforming terrain, putting down plants/rocks/other props, some animals): An extremely simplified version of Equilinox basically
Then a GUI that informs the player of the impact their real life actions have and challenges them to change something about it. Performing this challenge (Manually inputted) unlocks one more plant/rock/prop/animal.
I have a fair bit of experience with framework level game dev and the rendering stuff: At the very least I'd be able to setup the 3D environment rendering and UI rendering needed for this game with OpenGL. Anything beyond that would be new for me.
I've also already made a few serious mobile games (With way bigger scopes), but that was with Unity, so this is on a completely different level
The goal of making this game is not so much the game itself, but for the company to get experience with game development, and perhaps setting up the very very basics of software that can be expanded upon.
I realize that Silk.NET is just wrappers and bindings, for me that's exactly what makes it so appealing: Getting the ability to implement higher level concepts the way you want, getting control over that. The obvious downside being that building that takes an insane amount of effort, time and knowledge. But if it's feasible to setup the described game with Silk.NET within 9 months, then it's at least worth investigating that possibility.
A simple 3D environment where you can do some simple customization (Terraforming terrain, putting down plants/rocks/other props, some animals): An extremely simplified version of Equilinox basically
Then a GUI that informs the player of the impact their real life actions have and challenges them to change something about it. Performing this challenge (Manually inputted) unlocks one more plant/rock/prop/animal.
I have a fair bit of experience with framework level game dev and the rendering stuff: At the very least I'd be able to setup the 3D environment rendering and UI rendering needed for this game with OpenGL. Anything beyond that would be new for me.
I've also already made a few serious mobile games (With way bigger scopes), but that was with Unity, so this is on a completely different level
The goal of making this game is not so much the game itself, but for the company to get experience with game development, and perhaps setting up the very very basics of software that can be expanded upon.
I realize that Silk.NET is just wrappers and bindings, for me that's exactly what makes it so appealing: Getting the ability to implement higher level concepts the way you want, getting control over that. The obvious downside being that building that takes an insane amount of effort, time and knowledge. But if it's feasible to setup the described game with Silk.NET within 9 months, then it's at least worth investigating that possibility.
ROK, making sure, the other two you listed were engines, so it did cross my mind you possibly would not be aware
Lfor an actual experienced developer, creating something like that in 9 months is 100% possible
Rmhm
Rtotally
Rwhere I am concerned is in this bit:
"The goal of making this game is not so much the game itself, but for the company to get experience with game development, and perhaps setting up the very very basics of software that can be expanded upon."
"The goal of making this game is not so much the game itself, but for the company to get experience with game development, and perhaps setting up the very very basics of software that can be expanded upon."
Rnot sure this is exactly the best way of going about it. If it works and they can further actually use it, it is a powerful option
Rmy worry is more will they be able to use it and extend it as needed on their own
Rbecause one game is likely not going to set up a complelely usable engine that will be flexible enough to make different games and themes and be easy enough for unexperienced devs to use
JYeah I totally agree. I could just use Unity and you have something that will (probably, hopefully) be pretty solid for the next dozen years or so.
Essentially starting the development of a inhouse engine is a huge task, and if it's written by me, an intern, barely a junior programmer, there's obviously going to be some questionable code in there
Essentially starting the development of a inhouse engine is a huge task, and if it's written by me, an intern, barely a junior programmer, there's obviously going to be some questionable code in there
JThat said, for them this is also just inventarization for if they even want to expand to doing game development. It could also be that I setup the most holy code you've ever laid your eyes upon and they decide to not do anything with it anymore
Rnot exactly saying that