In browsing this forum in the last few months, I have seen several references to this engine being used to develop space simulator type games. I have also read that many of these efforts have had to be put aside as life
Have they quoted you a sum
No. There are no guarantees at all. The demo would soley be an experiment that might convince them to pursue development of the game.
Can you tell some details about your game ideas?
I would be interested in helping out as my spare time permits if I find the concepts very interesting. Though I have to admit that it wouldn't be more than a couple of hours per month… probably it's an advantage that I already have a somewhat working space combat thingy (but still with jME .10 and the old jME Physics)…
Beacause of my experience with 3D programming is probably less extended than irrisor's experience, I could help with graphics (3D models and/or textures). I already had an experience with Game developing, in the role of art director and designer, in a project demo to be done for a publisher.
I also would like to do something with programming… maybe logic? Or helping irrisor adjusting its work?
Anyway I did not read the game concepts and before to start I would like to have more informations about that and the publisher contact.
If interested please pm me.
While I can't help directly, I do want to say congratulations on winning the contest. That's very exciting.
While im happy for Blackclaw that he got this opportunity, I do hope they don't steal his idea.
Would be pretty frustrating to see your own game in the shelves while some company swims in the money
I'd thought a bit about doing a space combat game myself, before I started on aircarrier, but in the end I went for planes rather than spaceships Nevertheless, I'd be interested in collaborating since I think there would be a huge amount of overlap, and it would be great if it lead to more people working on AI, networking and such that would be suitable for plane/spaceship/general vehicle games, that I could use for aircarrier I've had it in the back of my head for a while that it would be fun to do a space game after aircarrier, so I've tried to keep things relatively flexible. If you got rid of the terrain in the current test level and replaced the planes with spaceships, you are pretty much there
There are a couple of things I wanted to ask though:
Most importantly, what are you planning to do with the code and assets? If the code you produce is not free for commercial or non-commercial then I don't think I'd be able to help. I get the impression you're looking to go commercial at some stage, which is great, but I could only really help if the code was open source. The aircarrier code is GPL, but I might consider going to a less restrictive licence if it seems like there is some reason to The game could of course still be commercial, with the assets copyright etc., although a creative commons licence would be nice. Then when I finally get round to making a space game as well, I can use the code and my own models/assets
Less importantly, on the realism scale, aircarrier is somewhere down round 2 or 3, so if you are going to be using accurate force based maneouvring etc. it wouldn't have quite as much in common, although I would still hope there would be scope for some common code. If you're thinking along the lines of Freespace or Wing Commander though, I would be very interested in helping where I can, and I think a lot of aircarrier code would do exactly what you'd need. That's also the style of game I'm much more interested in - Freespace was an absolute classic, and having something with the same combat/manouevring feel (although hopefully lots of new stuff as well) would be great. I enjoyed elite and that kind of game, but I got sick of the inevitable parabolic high speed encounters produced by frictionless accurate movement. If you ever played Aquanox, that had a very nice approach to movement, although it was set underwater where it made a little more sense than it would in space…
Also… what was the concept?
Thanks Mojomonk, and thanks to everyone for being so supportive. This really is a great community.
I think it will come as no surprise to any of you that I'm finding that coming up with a design idea is a thousand times easier than making it a reality. In considering the vital questions that have been generated and realistically assesing my own abilities at this time, I think that I'm going to temporarily put off development of my own design for a bit. Darkfrog has a project that is interests me greatly. I think I need to serve some time as a low level team member and gain some more insight and experience in game development yet.
In general, I prefer realistic physics over arcade physics. I find it much more exciting to win an engagement because you successfully applied energy, manuverability, and tactics rather than simply winning due to fast reflexes alone. However, in space combat sims, one has to carefully consider how much realism to apply. Space is so vast, that should actual combat ever be fought in it by human forces, it is highly unlikely that combatants would ever actually be within visual range of one another. An engagement could take weeks as guided missiles seek out their opponents. There are, of course, those of us that would love that kind of sim, but im not sure if a wide audience could be found.
I'm not too concerned about them stealing my idea. In fact, that is one of the strikes against the publishing company from pursuing it. They feel very vulnerable to lawsuits when they pursue designs created outside their own company. For that reason, they prefer to not to do them at all. I have a signed confidentiality agreement in place with them so for now, the design isnt going anywhere without my say so.
Darkfrog has a project that is interests me greatly. I think I need to serve some time as a low level team member and gain some more insight and experience in game development yet.
Three cheers for Roll-A-Rama 2. :P
Sounds very sensible, good luck
I just wanted to stick up for arcade physics though - just because a control system isn't physically realistic, doesn't mean it isn't logical and self consistent, giving rise to tactics etc. like a realistic physics system. There's a difference between unrealistic and simplistic. Just because the universe does it one way, doesn't mean we have to do the same!
In general, I prefer realistic physics over arcade physics. I find it much more exciting to win an engagement because you successfully applied energy, manuverability, and tactics rather than simply winning due to fast reflexes alone.
Good to see I'm not alone! <shakes angry fist at DarkFrog>
Are you going to tell us your winning game concept, as you entered it? Was it published?
Doh, i should check the post dates more often, DarkClaw hasn't even been back since Feb. 17th.