gamecreator

I'm also curious why the Android and iOS versions were removed from the store. Josh?

Rick, Leadwerks competes with more than just one of the most expensive engines on the market. Saying it's cheaper than Unity doesn't say much. But I'm with you in that by far Leadwerks fits me best. I'll pay this upgrade grudgingly and then continue to enjoy using the engine.

I understand that Josh has underpriced the engine (in his eye) and he's overpricing the updates to compensate - like companies do with consoles and games. It's a rough business model but if he honestly thought 3.0 was worth $1000 originally, I guess he's making compromises too.

I have absolutely no problem with upgrade fees in general. My confusion is with why all the costs of the upgrade go to existing customers. Why not charge less to existing customers and add some of the cost to new buyers? 3.1 costing the same as 3.0 for new purchases seems odd. Or, imagine if this trend continues. Even as an existing customer, in 2 years, you'd be better off buying 3.3 from scratch instead of buying 3 upgrades. It would save you money. Seem a bit strange?

Am I misreading this or do new customers get 3.1 for $99 less than existing customers (who already paid $199 to purchase just 3.0)? And what about water, networking and other features? If we need to pay $99 for each of those features every year then this engine will get very expensive. Or will those be added to 3.1 next year?

Only 10 more days so we'll know soon enough.

Ha ha

Interesting. What is the benefit to pre-ordering?

If they're on level ground you can just have the enemy have less friction than the main character. Otherwise you can just push the enemy with an appropriate force.

Sure, if you release the demo first. I'm sure there will be some people who will want to try the trial at launch and won't come back a second time. But I couldn't guess how many people that would be or how many would have become customers out of that group.

I like the thought but with 3.1 out in the next 2 or 3 weeks I think people will be focused on that.

To be clear, which version of Leadwerks are you working with? 2 or 3?

Odd, I see a C++ example. Pasted from the wiki (and note that this is for Leadwerks 2): TPick _Picked; CameraPick( &_Picked, Camera ( framework camera here ), Vec3(GraphicsWidth() / 2, GraphicsHeight() / 2, 100), 0); TMesh _Decal = CreateDecal(_Picked.surface, TFormPoint(Vec3(_Picked.X, _Picked.Y, _Picked.Z), NULL, _Picked.entity), 20.0/16.0, 32); EntityParent(_Decal , _Picked.entity, 0); PaintEntity(_Decal , LoadMaterial("abstract::bullethole.mat")); AddMesh(_Decal , _Picked.entity); My bigger concern was not finding an example for Leadwerks 3. Also, since you're not a developer I know you have restricted access to the forums but I'm pretty sure there were a few threads out there about it.

Thanks. I hope this information is also included in the tutorial.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Civ units often go out of their way to find faster paths even though the direct route is shorter.

This is critical for games like Civilization where units take longer to walk over mountains but travel faster over roads and even faster by rail. But I think it would require that the navigation mesh areas/shapes be customizable (as opposed to it generating them automatically for you just based on mesh layout) which I'd guess may be a pain to implement (but hopefully not).

If it would delay it past December then I agree. If it delays it to later December, I think it'd be worth it. Don't know how much work goes into preparing the trial or what else you need to do after relase (besides evaluating feedback and bug fixes).

Don't you anticipate that when you release and announce the full, paid version that people will want to first try a current, working trial version to test it? There are 385 backers who didn't pledge enough to receive the engine plus whoever else your announcement will draw. Seems to me you'd lose some potential customers if you don't have a trial ready at launch.

I wonder what the consequences would be if it was extended to 60 days. The positives I can see are that people would have more time to play with it and learn it and that there would be more community activity. There would also be more questions asked on the forums which I don't know whether to consider a positive or negative. I wonder if it would result in more or less purchases. Also, I think it would be a benefit to offset the lack of a free, feature-limited version.

Or maybe it's undocumented because it's unofficial?

Very refreshing. They instantly earned a lot of respect, like ID does for regularly releasing their source code.

http://www.leadwerks.com/files/Tutorials/CPP/Introduction_To_Animation.pdf Page 14 on

On either the last update or the update before it I had the exact same problem, creating a new project. However, my existing project compiled in Eclipse so I didn't worry about it at the time. But the touch position still didn't work in the latest version for me for fingers other than the first.

There's no harm in repeating and emphasizing that. Aggror's tutorials are really really awesome!! They've definitely helped me out repeatedly.

I use this code in my existing, updated project but I'll try creating a new project later and retest context->DrawText("Touch down index 0: " + String(window->TouchDown(0)) + " pos: " + window->GetTouchPosition(0).ToString(),5,100); context->DrawText("Touch down index 1: " + String(window->TouchDown(1)) + " pos: " + window->GetTouchPosition(1).ToString(),5,130);