The best you can do with the engine are hello-world games, or simple games that look like they were taken from the 10’th place of a game-jam.Ĭompiling Ogre3D is(was?) another fun story. Unless you’re a good game-developer or part of team of good game-developers ( and I mean really good). And the worst of all, most of those third-party libraries are likely to each use a different design and you’ll have to deal with integrating them into your game and adjust your style to each. And while people call it a game engine, I fail to see all the components of a game-engine without third-party ( possibly outdated/maintained or soon to be) libraries. And not to mention that Ogre3D is just a rendering engine. And from what I could grasp, Ogre3D was nice for hello-world applications but as soon as you began to scale a bit, you would’ve hit the issues of an old game engine design. I’ve only briefly been interested with Ogre3D a way back. Does this mean that those two engines were used as a design reference? Is it likely that the new improvements in OGRE will come to Urho? I read that Urho 3D is “Greatly inspired by OGRE and Horde3D”.
But I don’t want to go through all the work of doing that just to get worse performance. After the initial work, this would be beneficial to the project if Urho really is well-suited. Someone on a forum suggested the idea of porting it to Urho3D. I don’t even think it’s such a great engine anyway. It’s a pain having to work with an abandoned game engine with zero support.
I have been putting work into getting it to work with OGRE 1.10 (previously it was 1.9).
The reason I’m asking is because I’m trying to revive an abandoned open-source game project Lips of Suna. I know that OGRE 1.10 supports OpenGL 3.x, and I believe that OGRE 2.1 is OpenGL 4.5.īut does Urho perform better than Ogre 1.10 on OpenGL despite this? Howabout Ogre 2.0, or 2.1? So does Urho prioritize Direct3D? The OpenGL version is behind. The Urho3D front page lists support for Direct3D11 and OpenGL 3.2.
0 kommentar(er)
