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

Post by mikulas_florek » Wed, Mar 01, 2017, 3:16 PM UTC

codelitt wrote: post #70

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/

I sure hope so. I think one of the barriers may be the compatibility with a lot of the devices coming out in VR. For example, to build something for the Hololens, Unity3D is the only option. IIRC, for Oculus, the only OSS game engine that targets it is Torque3D. I'm not sure how much cooperation these engines need from the manufacturers to begin targeting them, but that can be hard for OSS projects to do.

Post by vvanders » Wed, Mar 01, 2017, 3:20 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #52

mikulas_florek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider that an advantage, simple things have their appeal. Unity without any 3rd party plugins is very basic, and a lot of these community engines are at the same level.

I was arguing from the point of view of those that think "engine == code" and disregard these engines without everything else that surrounds the eco-system or understanding of how many studios work, which is quite common in the HN Web & FOSS culture. Good luck with your project.

Post by mikulas_florek » Wed, Mar 01, 2017, 3:37 PM UTC

vvanders wrote: post #73

pjmlp wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was arguing from the point of view of those that think "engine == code" and disregard these engines without everything else that surrounds the eco-system or understanding of how many studios work, which is quite common in the HN Web & FOSS culture. Good luck with your project.

Yup, back when I was in games our ~70 person team was about 10 developers and the rest were artists/animators/designers. Tooling cannot be understated and most of our goal was to be a force multiplier on the majority of the team who actually do the creative work. That's what these engines bring and while hobby engines are nifty they're not going to be making strides into that space until they have a compelling toolin…

Post by plafl » Wed, Mar 01, 2017, 3:44 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #64

moron4hire wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proprietary, closed, vertically integrated tooling in Unity and Unreal are what make them such terrible tools for use in a professional development environment. All of the best programming tools are free, open source software. Yet somehow we're meant to believe game programming is "special" in some way that it shouldn't use the same ecosystem as every other area of software development. Yeah, right.

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.

Post by corysama » Wed, Mar 01, 2017, 4:04 PM UTC

antoinealb wrote: post #12

mikulas_florek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xenko looks very professional, pity it's GPL.

Apparently they allow you to keep your game's source closed. From their FAQ: > Yes, you can sell your game without any constraints as long as you use the binary version distributed on the website. If you modify and recompile the engine yourself, you can still sell your product, but you have to open the source code of your game and the modifications made to Xenko as stated in the GPL license.