LÖVE

1) Apathetic. rude liked that it works, but otherwise used the words "filthy 3D" to refer to it.
2) We wrote a matrix library, among several others.

Huh. Well, even if the devs think it is "filthy 3D," more options are better, right? I think it's pretty cool.

Thanks

Yeah, they aren't outright against it, and we do need to credit slime for writing the Vertex Buffer branch in the first place. Unfortunately, a few extra things we'd like to see implemented that would improve performance aren't likely to be added to love any time soon, if ever.

We had a pull request rejected last week because a small feature we wanted wasn't "within scope", so while this is a cool project and it's leaps and bounds better in terms of performance than any attempt at 3D in love prior, you won't be putting out the next Call of Duty in love with any expectations of performing well. It will, however, run simple 3D games quite well.

davisdude wrote:- What do the devs think about it? (If you know. Don't put words in their mouth )

3D like this in LÖVE is cool because of its technical challenges, but there won't be any official direct API support for it. It's pretty far outside of the scope of LÖVE's API.

If you want to create a 3D game there are a large number of incredible engines/frameworks/tools out there for you to use, but LÖVE isn't and won't be one of them. Even if LÖVE were to gain some basic 3D functionality it would be by far one of the worst tools for making 3D games, and that wouldn't change unless it grew in scope by an order of magnitude, which is not only impractical but also a bad idea.

tl;dr: Use UE4 or Unity!

Says you!

Says me too. Love is not suited to 3D.

Which is why my next projects will just be 2D. Maybe with simple 3D positioning. But not full on 3D rendering.



But it sure is fun to play around with.

You're missing out, then.

Edit: To be more clear, I think you are being far too dismissive. LOVE is very much capable of rendering 3D, after all, LOVE is OpenGL. The only real downside to using LOVE over something like Corona is that LOVE doesn't go out of its way to expose 3D capabilities. We need to use some raw OpenGL for that, but that by no means that LOVE is incapable. We have a very usable demo doing some pretty cool things at extremely performant speeds with minimal optimizations.

Your attempts at 3D in LOVE were quite different than ours, and didn't have the same advantage ours does (namely vertex buffers), so i can understand why you are a bit hesitant, but to outright dismiss our work and LOVE in general is quite unnecessary.

Okay. When you release a fully playable game with a large open 3D world, that works on OS X and Linux, we'll all be very excited and happy and very eager to find out how you did it all.

Until then it's just another tease like Oysi's impressive 3D engine which he wouldn't even share because of fear of code theft.

I'm sure people will feel the same way about the game I'm making too. And that's understandable.

We have no interest in hiding code. Everything we're creating will be released under the MIT license, which is quite liberal. We even released an early build in the OP of this thread, though it's come a long way since then. We're probably about due for a new release soon, once we improve the UX a bit more.

As I said in another post, I make no illusions that LOVE is useful for the next Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. What it is useful for, and what we're currently working on, is indie games. I'm not sure exactly what sort of performance Oysi's 3D engine could manage, but I highly doubt it could pump out over 8 million triangles without a hiccup on a mid-tier gfx card. That sort of performance should be more than enough for indie devs, and we haven't even tried to optimize it yet.

As for Mac and Linux compatibility, I believe we've fixed the issues with compatibility but we haven't had a chance to compile LOVE for those OSs yet. If you want to build the custom LOVE and help test it on a non-Windows platform, feel free to shoot me a PM and I can give you all the info you need. We'd appreciate it, actually.

Jasoco wrote:Okay. When you release a fully playable game with a large open 3D world, that works on OS X and Linux, we'll all be very excited and happy and very eager to find out how you did it all.

I think no one expects it to rival unity or other real 3D engines, but for me the possibility for really simple 3D would be more than OK. I do not have the time to play with full 3D (models, worlds, etc), but would like to play with something easy and not time-consuming (and love2d is perfect for this)