Sorry your browser is not supported!

Hi all. It's great to hear about the new FPSC project in the works. Everybody knows something like this has been long awaited, and it will be fantastic to have new life breathed into the brand. I'm sure everyone has been eagerly watching the preview videos, and wandering what features will come out of the project, and how our pledge money will be sent. And it's in that vein that I make this post; about what FPS Creator Reloaded really needs to be any kind of success.

I'll try and keep it short. FPSC is a great idea, with lots of potential, but in my opinion, FPSC 1 and X10 have failed. They haven't reached their potential despite the brilliant work of the people at TGC. This is due to the defining characteristic they lack: tool-functionality.

FPSC is designed to do 1 main thing: cut out the learning curve and hassle of making a game, creating the easiest, most functional production pipeline possible. But that is where it's tripped up most. A production pipeline takes into account these things for example, and far more, and so I think, should FPSC:

1) Completely integrated tool set for importing raw 3D assets and making them game ready: an asset-wizard that makes importing files, checking they are compatible and converting them to assets en mass near automatic.

2) An open-source, object orientated approach to engine modification. No feature list is ever going to cover everything each new user wants. Thus, a brilliant new approach would be a focus on changing the way FPSC works, so that people could create and use different modules for the software almost as easy as making games with it. Creating software that is built in a way such that people in the community can easily adapt/build new modules for it, and plug them in (the open-source structure) means the power to improve FPSC would grow exponentially!

3) Game management tools. When you build a game, you want people to play it. A complete game packaging tool set is a must, but also, you want to be able to manage your game after release; server data, update protocols for users, ability to monitor the statistics of your game's performance, etc.

This is just scratching the surface of what a pro tool for engineering a game is like. The main point is, new graphics, smarter AI, new effects are good, but I think the first and best goal of Lee and the team should be to craft FPSC into the best, most functional, production pipeline software for hobbiests there is. Graphics should wait; if you put six months into making a game that doesn't work, but then switch to a software like Unity and spend one month making a game that does, will you ever turn back?

This is not at all an attack on FPSC. I love the idea, and want to see it work. This is a real and serious plea to Rich, Lee and the rest of the good people at TGC, as well as to the user community, especially those generous enough to pledge. This is a big opportunity for FPSC; we need to make the most of it. FPSC Reloaded should be a re-branding of the word functional, and then it really will be the game-creating program we've all wanted for years.

Comments, thoughts; what is your take on this idea?

Thanks,

This has always been an issue, and I fear that with the new version being DX9 dependent, it will remain an issue. I can only hope they address it.

Brian.

Hi Guys,

If you want a solution to packing your FPSC games right now, I highly recommend this one:

http://www.thegamecreators.com/?m=view_product&id=2256

It handles standalone executables just fine and the author has made sure that it works well with FPS Creator.

For Reloaded, we will be adding media encryption to protect custom media once distributed. We did not add an installer feature because Smart Packer does such a good job, but during Reloaded development if there is a strong need for a simple 'make installer' option, we can look at this. The installer would include the DX9.0c DLLs required so you can install an FPSC app on a fresh install of Windows XP and above. If we get any of the stretch goals, you can hold me to this feature if you like

Thanks for your replies guys. It's good people are drawing attention to the packing issue, and thanks for your solution Lee.

A question for Lee though. I have seen in the Kickstarter video and on the forums that you plan to make some upgrades to features for improved game play, e.g. better physics and lighting. But what are your plans for upgrading features to give a better production process inside FPSC? This is a good post, which I'm sure you've seen, on the idea: http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=200956&b=21

The point is that the people want to see a new FPSC (not necessarily a re-write), one that makes making its development process its ultimate goal. For example, I remember trying to use FPSC 1 in the old days, and wanting to import my own models. You would have to take your .x file, paste it into the FPSC folder on your drive, edit an existing file of a character by hand to swap the name of the file to your new one, save, and then use it in FPSC. IMO, FPSC R needs to reverse every major area of its tool set that works in that manor; using back door solutions to make things work. What you really need, for creating assets for example, is something like a simple app in FPSC, that you activate and it takes you through a wizard of asset creating. 1) Select the folder containing all the .x files, 2) Select what kind of objects they will be in FPSC: weapons, characters, terrain etc 3) The wizard takes all the files and does everything it needs to do to make the game ready. There's a problem with one or more assets? The wizard tells you 'Your missing the animation sequence for weapon xxx123.x' for example. Etc.

What I think would be the best solution for FPSC R is to take a top down look at it, compare it against other production pipelines and see what it takes to make this what we all need, and will pay for, it to be: an extremely effective game-developing system.

This is not at all an attack on FPSC; I love the idea behind it, have done for years and really want to see it work. This will also be an absolute winner for TGC if you can make FPSC functional. Look at what has happened with the YouTube revolution; the system changed so that suddenly what it required to produce high enough quality media that people would watch condensed into just an average digital camera, average editing software and creativity. Then what happened? People from all corners of the globe took it and ran with it! Now creating videos that get huge hits is the new thing.

It could be the same for game making to! If you could make FPSC R into a functioning tool set, sell it from say £50 - even £100, people will buy it from all over. People don't want to try and spend a hollywood budget on a single project, they want to have creative power with affordable tools, graphics second.

If these issues were made the main concern, I would be tempted to pledge a lot of money, but otherwise, not at all. I really, really hope these areas are addressed.

What are your thoughts Lee? I would love an open discussion about this topic between the good people TGC and the community.

Thanks

We will be adding a new item in the IDE called something like 'Import Model' which will allow you to select a model created in a third party modeller (format to be decided) and allow you to view it. If you like what you see, the import dialog will allow you to scale it, name it, assign it properties and ultimately include it in your personal asset library. You can then use it like any other default asset for one game, or as many games as you like.

To this point, only those who delved into entity FPE files and complex model format restrictions could achieve importing geometry and textured objects into an FPSC scene, but with the availability of low cost and free modellers, anyone can produce decent 3D artwork and should have the power to bring those creations into your game easily.

Once imported, your model gains the benefit of being light mapped by the engine and integrated into the game with polygon perfect physics and occlusion applied to your geometry.

We are not planning a full tool pipeline to compete with the likes of Unreal SDK as it could take our small team years to get something out the door, but we will identify those areas of most importance and ensure that process is made as simple as possible.

That's debugging information, and shouldn't be used outside of a debugging environment. If your game is actively monitoring performance, performance goes down. Though I do agree that an update mechanism is sorely needed, integrating it into FPSC itself and the executables it creates would create unneeded bloat and might even be technically unworkable(how does a running executable rewrite itself from an HTTP/FTP download?).


If it takes you 6 months to edit some text files to create FPSC entities/segments/etc, you're doing something wrong. Your point is valid about the game not working, but that's a separate issue from the production pipeline.

Yes, a better production pipeline is needed(and part of what you're asking seems to be already planned), but the core engine needs an update more than an expansion of duties. External utilities should make up the production pipeline(as they do in UDK/Unity, IIRC), as that way it's a lot easier to update the pipeline when the engine changes or a new process is needed.

When FPSC Reloaded comes out and all the intricacies are figured out(format of the entity files, segment files, etc), I might create some Python scripts to take a model and a texture file(or whatever else that file needs) and attempt to make a generic entity or segment from that file. However, most entity creation takes time because some entities need to have custom characteristics(physics settings, lightmapping settings, default scripts,etc) that no wizard will ever be able to replace unless it walks you through the conversion process of every model.

Easy there patrick! Those are big requests and I havent seen them integrated that flawless in any engine outside of FPSC and I have tried a lot of big-name engines.

To be honest... over everything I have tried, I prefer FPSC to manage content and get media ready. You raise some valid points though and I'm sure Lee will give it concideration.

Thanks everyone for your replies, it's great to hear that a new IDE for media importing planned. I hope it works on somewhat of large scale, i.e. being able to tell it to import say 10 character files, automatically apply the animation files you've prepared and the textures, etc, then alerting you to any problems with the files, rather than having to import each model into the IDE manually and doing them one by one.

Thanks Dar13 and Wolf. I realise it may seem like quite the feature list I suddenly unloaded, but it's only because I walked away from FPSC a long time ago, because I realised functionality is its biggest flaw, and I'm just hoping to generate some chatter and thought before the deadline on deciding whether to do this project passes.

Good suggestions so far, and I agree completely with the idea Dar13 said of software compartmentalising its different areas of functionality, even so far as essentially outside programs linking together. But I still whole heartedly believe that updates to graphics and effects must come second until the average user of FPSC R can use it as an efficient game-making tool system.

This is because there are 2 primal qualities that determine the success of projects exactly like game making, as I'm sure we are all well aware: quality of your project management * skill in using the craft. I.e. the effectiveness of your pipeline, and your skill in the craft (making textures, thinking of ideas, etc) are the two main areas that decide the majority success/failure from everything from the smallest to the biggest project. FPSC R could work as we (the community and TGC) want it to; a fantastic game-making tool that sells huge, by drawing on this systems engineering approach.

The point is, game-making, indie sized and upwards, has certain development processes, questions that each new game design has to answer, specific parts of the cycle that need to be addressed so that the process of actually making a functioning game, with a relatively good amount of time, expertise, money etc can be done. FPSC doesn't allow that development process to happen well yet. That is what we should focus on, the ability to actually make a game, without worrying about the graphics yet.

Thoughts?

Not going to happen, animation info is held within the rigged model itself not created and applied by the game editor or any kind of plug in for it unless a common format and bone hierarchy is chosen. This sounds more like an option for a finished game rather than something usable during game creation.
How can any software tell how many frames a sequence is and even what sequence it is (sit,melee or whatever) or distinguish between bone naming conventions during import of already rigged and animated models.

With different characters and model formats not to mention proprietary methods each modeling program uses, your not going to get any kind of generic format to work off. Same with animation info, do you use .bvh or .bip or .csm, then you got the problem of bone assignment,vertex weight and hierarchy, limiting you to one kind of specific skeleton which means you wont be able to use quadrupeds etc, there are so many different character types and forms with differing limb structures you just couldn't anticipate them all to do something like you suggest.

Maybe you are thinking of the way that some animation sites claim to be able to accept your model and apply animations to it and you simply upload model and they send it back all animated but even these have limited bone structure and you still have to assign where these are located. Its a bit hit miss really as its a guess at envelope and vertex weighting and also dependant on it being a properly created animatable mesh and not a mesh pulled from Poser or whatever other character creation software you might find (illegal anyhow), your still going to have to either create or buy your models for this purpose and they may or may not rig properly.


I dont know of any game engine or editor that does that for you. FPSC is the closest thing you will find to doing what you require, but you seem to think its lacking in this department compared to other engines which in reality need far more work to get the results you expect.

Again you compare FPSC to another engine, truth is if you spent six months on an FPSC game your going to take a lot longer to create same game in Unity and your not going to get the ease of use with Unity you say here, I dont understand the comparison.

I will be happy just to have a couple more format options for import rather than a quick way to apply a bunch of animations created by someone else which may or may not fit the needs of any characters I want.
When it comes to static entity's it should be simple enough to do this and even UDK convert to their own proprietary format during import for use in the engine (Fpsc converts .x to .dbo) so its not specific to FPSC and I dont have any problems doing this myself anyhow when it comes to .x for static or animated.

I dont mean to come down on you and much of what you say makes sense but you cant expect the software to do it all at the click of a button.

Could I ask one question? First of all, sorry for my bad english, I'm from Quebec. So I would like to know one important thing that I think everyone wants to know: What it has to do with existing FPSC users? Will it be shared as a major upgrade or will it be a completely new software that people who already bought FPSC will be forced to buy or are you gonna make it free for us? I thank you in adnvance and again, I'm sorry for my bad text.

Your English isn't that bad.

It is a separate piece of software, which is fair considering the significant amount of work that will be going into it.

Will there be features in the model imported to import characters that already have textures and animations?

All new functionality is explained here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tgc/fps-creator-reloaded

Yes, because you bought FPSC already, you are forced to buy any new versions of game creation software TGC makes... or surrender your first male-born child. You should have read the contract.

Brian.

omnomnomnomnom... oops