Show HN: Lumix Engine – Open source C++ 3D game engine

Post by mikulas_florek » Wed, Mar 01, 2017, 5:19 PM UTC

laythea wrote: post #99

mikulas_florek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfectly valid question. You are right, while there is a high chance that UE and Unity will be maintained, there is no guarantee. In any single person project, especially noncommercial, the chance it will not be maintained is much higher and Lumix Engine is not an exception. The only "proof" that it will be maintained is that I already worked on this 4+ years (as you can see on github) and that I'm making a commerci…

I do not wish to appear overly cynical (and apologies if this does), but what is stopping me investing all my time/effort into this, and finding out the licensing terms have changed such that it becomes more on par with commercial offerings? Seems like the only benefit would be short lived, whilst I would take on a lot of the disadvantages of not going to a more commercial offering immediately. I'm genuinely interest…

Post by derefr » Wed, Mar 01, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

trueSlav wrote: post #51

pjmlp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of work still needs to go into those engines to achieve feature parity, specially in regards to GUI tooling. Just check Unreal's 2017 roadmap.

Whoever thinks that all these random 3D engines are worth anything to anyone but hobbyist programmers is delusional to say the least. "gui tooling" (or as I like to call it: "the engine") represents maybe 80 to 90% of value of an engine like Unity or Unreal. I'm sure that anyone who's actually done some project in one of these can confirm what I'm saying. The amount of money and time spent on the tools of UE is simpl…

Post by ergo14 » Wed, Mar 01, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #40

cyborgx7 wrote: post #3

Maybe I'm just now getting aware of it but I just recently learned of Godot[1] and now this as well. Seems like we have the chance to replace Unity as the "Community" game engine with a free open source version. [1] https://godotengine.org/

A lot of work still needs to go into those engines to achieve feature parity, specially in regards to GUI tooling. Just check Unreal's 2017 roadmap.

Post by laythea » Wed, Mar 01, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

mikulas_florek wrote: post #101

laythea wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not wish to appear overly cynical (and apologies if this does), but what is stopping me investing all my time/effort into this, and finding out the licensing terms have changed such that it becomes more on par with commercial offerings? Seems like the only benefit would be short lived, whilst I would take on a lot of the disadvantages of not going to a more commercial offering immediately. I'm genuinely interest…

You/I/Anybody can not change the license retrocatively. It means that current source code is MIT and it always will be. I/Anybody might fork the engine under different license or even close source it, but that won't change the fact that current source code is still MIT licensed. Me close-sourcing it is the same as me abandoning it - you can still continue using/developing it under any license you wish.

Post by favorited » Wed, Mar 01, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

moron4hire wrote: post #81

pjmlp wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the values of the game industry are rooted in the demoscene, commercialization of game related IP assets and consulting work related specific hardware and design knowledge, without any religion about freedom of tooling, this is what most FOSS advocates fail to understand about the industry.

Given that every other industry has moved to FOSS software for their tooling, it's the game industry that has a "religion" about proprietary software being necessary to make money.