Bye

Well, I doubt your OS is the problem there.

Hey, jedimace1:



Was the review you wrote here: http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=78#reviews



Great Engine
Posted by: Jedimace1 at Oct 1, 2008 
Proves that the "Java is slow" idea is completely wrong! This is a very stable engine in development with the best, supportive community I have ever come across. This is a much better engine then many I have seen, beating a lot of them in performance(even faster then Torque, I have run both on the same computer), support, ease of use, and features. It has some of the best water effects I have seen, and it is all very easy to use and completely functional.


before or after you got jME running?

Just curious...

Didn't Jedimace1 the one who said jME was slow?

I had JME working. Yes, JME is faster then Torque. Torque was my least favorite engine out of every engine I have tried. This engine is also fully features, something a lot of engines can's boast. I think it averages out to the best, but yes, it is slow compared to some things. Out of all the engines I have seen, it is the best.

Momoko_Fan said:

Didn't Jedimace1 the one who said jME was slow?

Yes, I did. It is too slow for my needs at the moment, but there are ways to make it faster, i.e. occlusion culling, portals, display lists, or VBOs on all objects, including animated object. The list goes on. But even though it is too slow for me, it is closer than everything else that is this easy to use.
Jedimace1 said:

I had JME working.


And yet, apparently, did not know that Java was needed to compile and run it. Hm.

Jedimace1 said:

Momoko_Fan said:

Didn't Jedimace1 the one who said jME was slow?

Yes, I did. It is too slow for my needs at the moment, but there are ways to make it faster, i.e. occlusion culling, portals, display lists, or VBOs on all objects, including animated object. The list goes on. But even though it is too slow for me, it is closer than everything else that is this easy to use.

[/quote]

I would be interested to hear what sort of tests you ran to come to the conclusion that jME is "too slow" for your needs?  What are your needs at the moment?  What sort of stuff are you doing? 


on a 64 bit machine using a 32 bit VM is the easiest way to get everything working.

He took that to mean a Virtual PC rather than a Java VM.

It's quie amusing but not exactly too hard to imagine how someone might make that mistake in the haste to get something working on a new machine. God knows I've seen people on big money do some truely pointless things setting up machines because they read a piece of information wrong and read a simple task as a really complicated one.



This is the JME forum. Do we really need to grill someone before they can say JME is good?

ashtonv said:

Jedimace1 said:

I had JME working.


And yet, apparently, did not know that Java was needed to compile and run it. Hm.


Now that statement was kind of random. I never said or even implied Java wasn't needed?

ashtonv said:

Jedimace1 said:

Momoko_Fan said:

Didn't Jedimace1 the one who said jME was slow?

Yes, I did. It is too slow for my needs at the moment, but there are ways to make it faster, i.e. occlusion culling, portals, display lists, or VBOs on all objects, including animated object. The list goes on. But even though it is too slow for me, it is closer than everything else that is this easy to use.

I would be interested to hear what sort of tests you ran to come to the conclusion that jME is "too slow" for your needs?  What are your needs at the moment?  What sort of stuff are you doing? 


Make games with fast paced, stunning graphics. In other words, make a game that doesn't have to be cartoon looking to look good.

Jedimace1 said:

ashtonv said:

Jedimace1 said:

I had JME working.


And yet, apparently, did not know that Java was needed to compile and run it. Hm.


Now that statement was kind of random. I never said or even implied Java wasn't needed?


Random?  It came directly from what you said about the vm and your exclamation of "sweet" when directed to the Java vm.  It struck me as odd that someone with the claims that you have would have missed basic requirements of running and using jME prior to making the statements you did.

ashtonv said:

Jedimace1 said:

Momoko_Fan said:

Didn't Jedimace1 the one who said jME was slow?

Yes, I did. It is too slow for my needs at the moment, but there are ways to make it faster, i.e. occlusion culling, portals, display lists, or VBOs on all objects, including animated object. The list goes on. But even though it is too slow for me, it is closer than everything else that is this easy to use.

I would be interested to hear what sort of tests you ran to come to the conclusion that jME is "too slow" for your needs?  What are your needs at the moment?  What sort of stuff are you doing? 


Make games with fast paced, stunning graphics. In other words, make a game that doesn't have to be cartoon looking to look good.


To a large degree, how realistic a game looks is dependent on the artists' talents or what style a game wants to achieve.  I think that you'll find that if you use high quality models that they will look great in jME. 

Personally, I'm not a realism-freak when it comes to games.  In fact, I'll take a game with great style and story over realism any day.  In my current project (and the one to come after) I am shooting for a graphics quality that is somewhere midway between Xenosaga I and II for the ps2 -- something that I feel is absolutely achievable using jME.

I would still be interested in hearing what tests you ran when comparing jME and other engines and what sort of hardware you tested on.  I personally develop on a dual core 2ghz amd cpu, 1gb of RAM, and 256 mb of graphics memory on an intel chipset -- not top of the line by any standarads -- and I have yet to run across any speed issues when using jME.  Of course, I haven't been pushing the limits using post-processing and full blown physics (except for the jME demos and tests) so take my statement in perspective.



This thread has severely derailed.

No wonder why it is so popular, though.



And that's up to you to interpretate.



The JME forum is not what it used to be…

Keep it friendly people



and keep the quotes down :stuck_out_tongue:



Quote from: Jedimace1 on 29 October 2008, 21:49:13

Quote from: ashtonv on 29 October 2008, 17:12:50

Quote from: Jedimace1 on 29 October 2008, 16:51:37

[…]

Quote

[…]

Quote from: ashtonv on 29 October 2008, 17:12:50

Quote from: Jedimace1 on 29 October 2008, 16:51:37

Quote from: Momoko_Fan on 29 October 2008, 03:44:46

ashtonv said:

Random?  It came directly from what you said about the vm and your exclamation of "sweet" when directed to the Java vm.  It struck me as odd that someone with the claims that you have would have missed basic requirements of running and using jME prior to making the statements you did.

From my first post:
Quote:
I just upgraded my computer, and didn't expect this.

Obviously, you are either partially blind, or just can't read and understand a whole post without responding. I actually just upgraded my computer a few days ago. If you look through the forums, I have many posts with questions and answers.

ashtonv said:

To a large degree, how realistic a game looks is dependent on the artists' talents or what style a game wants to achieve.  I think that you'll find that if you use high quality models that they will look great in jME. 

Personally, I'm not a realism-freak when it comes to games.  In fact, I'll take a game with great style and story over realism any day.  In my current project (and the one to come after) I am shooting for a graphics quality that is somewhere midway between Xenosaga I and II for the ps2 -- something that I feel is absolutely achievable using jME.

I would still be interested in hearing what tests you ran when comparing jME and other engines and what sort of hardware you tested on.  I personally develop on a dual core 2ghz amd cpu, 1gb of RAM, and 256 mb of graphics memory on an intel chipset -- not top of the line by any standarads -- and I have yet to run across any speed issues when using jME.  Of course, I haven't been pushing the limits using post-processing and full blown physics (except for the jME demos and tests) so take my statement in perspective.


When I did my tests I was running even slower. I had a single core 2.6ghz processor, a 5500 graphics card, and 768mb(or something like that) of RAM. I couldn't start Torque Game Engine without my computer running full speed and going 1.5 FPS on the demos, yet JME worked just fine.
Also, I don't want it to be amazingly realistic, I just want it to be something that could match up to PS2 standards, like in the Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts series.

llama said to be friendly…he'll come stomp your head if you're not careful…trust me, it hurts!

Based on what you say that with jME can't be made games like final fantasy?

Have you done a demo with a similar FF art and effects?

To compare engines each other you must IMPLEMENT the most identical possible demo, identical in visual quality.

I made something similar with jME and Irrlicht some time ago.

You cant say that an engine is better than the other based on one type of test/demo.

There is many features on an engine to compare. You can only say that jME is faster if its faster in most of the features.

So you could say that jME is better than torque on a particular feature.

But if you compared all the features and jME is better in most of them, then i bow to you and make silence.


Jedimace1 said:

Also, I don't want it to be amazingly realistic, I just want it to be something that could match up to PS2 standards, like in the Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts series.


We are going for a similar quality then.  Mid to high-end PS2 graphics quality and gameplay is, I am sure, achievable with jME.  Here's to our success! :)
clovis said:

Based on what you say that with jME can't be made games like final fantasy?
Have you done a demo with a similar FF art and effects?
To compare engines each other you must IMPLEMENT the most identical possible demo, identical in visual quality.
I made something similar with jME and Irrlicht some time ago.
You cant say that an engine is better than the other based on one type of test/demo.
There is many features on an engine to compare. You can only say that jME is faster if its faster in most of the features.
So you could say that jME is better than torque on a particular feature.
But if you compared all the features and jME is better in most of them, then i bow to you and make silence.



JME gets closer than any other engine does(or it will). Also, I couldn't get the Java VM to work, so I just got VMware player. I am talking to you on my Linux VM.