New Developer

[luriok]

Gratz Jeff!

[Vus]

Gratz jeff, can't wait for another progress :)

[Synergy]

Guess I better go and start learning .NET now… Thanks.  :P
Well done Jeff, it's good to see that the Eclipse community isn't going to be just stuck to VB6 for eternity.  :cheesy:

[Joyce]

An interesting choice, pity it pretty much rules out the target demographic of Eclipse games though, since XNA doesn't really like old hardware much. :[

[abhi2011]

So when this releases will this be the official engine of Eclipse? And should I lean vb.net?

[Socuine]

@Joyce:

> An interesting choice, pity it pretty much rules out the target demographic of Eclipse games though, since XNA doesn't really like old hardware much. :[

It's 2012, soon 2013\. Computers that supports XNA and can run XNA based games might've been 'expensive' years ago. We can atleast expect that people have good computers. Even though this is 2D orientated, it doesn't mean we should limit the options.

[Joyce]

@Socuine:

> It's 2012, soon 2013\. Computers that supports XNA and can run XNA based games might've been 'expensive' years ago. We can atleast expect that people have good computers. Even though this is 2D orientated, it doesn't mean we should limit the options.

Could be true, but just on here I still see people using 800x600 and 8 year old hardware between the veteran members, and some of the players I've spoken to on various inceptions of games based off of Mirage over the years all admitted to having less than sub-par machines, up to the point where one guy was using a Win95 machine.

I get you want to look towards the future, but the main playerbase for these games consists of people with older computers, there's faar more advanced and visually appealing games available for those with more modern computers.

[Socuine]

You have a valid point. However, I'd like to remind you that this .NET edition is just an expanding of the long Eclipse history.
Eclipse 3.0 and upcoming 3.1 are still built in VB 6.0\. (as stated by OP, Marsh). Meaning, it's a choice of use.

If people use either the VB 6.0 and/or .NET edition is entirely their decision.

You also said this in my WIP thread, Mavra. Obviously, we are aware of the pros and cons.

If you'd like to continue elaborating on this matter, please send me a PM.

Best regards,
Socuine

[Joyce]

I understand, and am not here to fight the idea of creating such a system. I was just elaborating to the people that hype over this that it is not something to BLINDLY assume it better. :] I'd prefer informing those that may not be familiar with the various "issues" a more modern and resource intensive language brings.

After all, a lot of people here seem to think that catering to their own desires is always the way to go, instead of looking at the larger picture behind development and the decicions to make before actually starting a project. :]

[JeffSventora]

Well, if you take a deeper look into the matter, C# and modern languages carry a larger selection of pros rather than cons. For one, so many people have issues with DLL's and OCX files not being registered, with the .NET framework, that isn't required. C# is highly object oriented, acting as a better gateway to languages like Java, C++, maybe even C.  DirectX 7 & 8 are outdated, using libraries that are now replaced by others (DirectDraw is now Direct2D). And lets not forget, XNA is essentially just a C# wrapper for use of DirectX 9 in C# with extreme ease of use. As of now, DirectX 9 is still the most widely used version of DirectX in the industry.

HLSL support for DirectX 9 & XNA is absurdly easy, DirectX 8 & 7 are still stuck in the fixed function era. BY all means, what I just said in a summary was "why is upgrading good" and that's fine, but you're right, a lot of people still run older hardware. But fear not, I guarantee that any older machine that can support the .NET framework (version 4) and run Eclipse will be able to run my client.  On top of that, maybe we can attract a different crowd of users, not just the VB6ers.

[Joyce]

I know both the pros and cons, But I –-> personally <--- do not see the need to go D3D9 for a 2D game, too much overhead and system requirement bull for my tastes.

Anyway, again I'm not fighting change. I'm merely saying that it'll also have a few downsides attached to it. I welcome the change, because frankly C# and XNA are far more recent, and for the youth trying to get into programming it's a LOT better to learn C# than VB6(among other reasons). It's just that in my personal opinion the benefits to using D3D9 are mostly useful for 3D applications over D3D8, and the system requirements as well as memory requirements will just skyrocket. .NET 4.0 is not very friendly on your hardware.

Which is why I'm glad it's a second engine, instead of a replacement really. :P Even though C# may be easier to some it is not worth it for me.

[JeffSventora]

Well believe it or not, I actually find that a 2D game can be much more professional using 3D Libraries. For example, project a plane onto an orthographic view, use point sprites for all of your characters etc… and boom, SHADERS EVERYWHERE. I absolutely love HLSL... Idk why.

[jcsnider]

@jeff… It isnt hard to understand but I prob could whenever I get a free moment in my life. I recommend quest system first though. I could then make events work with it.

[JeffSventora]

@jcsnider:

> @jeff… It isnt hard to understand but I prob could whenever I get a free moment in my life. I recommend quest system first though. I could then make events work with it.

Oh I'm sure it's not, I was kidding. For this release I just want to get the basics in. I want to clean it up, add some optimizations and reduce the "hard-code" factor. I have too many hard coded variables in place atm.

[JohnPony]

I don't see a quest system as a necessary addition, i would much rather see a tutorial for a decent quest system. But that is just my opinion.

Also would a wiki ever be taken into consideration?

[AeroEBrown]

@General:

> Also would a wiki ever be taken into consideration?

Inb4 newsite.

Thanks,
Aero/EBrown

[Whackeddie99]

What really brings my piss to a boil is that I'm running WinXP, but my pc is only about 4-5 years old. I can't even run MirageXNA, the IDE freezes. Can't compile it either. Most people here have a computer way worse than mine, so I guess we should all go buy computers now.

[AeroEBrown]

Well, there's a difference between MirageXNA and Mirage.NET. Believe it or not, MirageXNA was not designed properly for the language. Essentially they took the entire design of MirageSource and stuffed it in XNA. They didn't rewrite it to be more appropriate code, or anything. Therefore, it could crash your IDE because the code is half-hazard.

A real field test as to whether you support the XNA required, would be to create a blank Windows Game project, and try to compile it. That will be more appropriate than saying, "Because one programme didn't work they must all not work."

Thanks,
Aero/EBrown

[JeffSventora]

@Whack:

> What really brings my piss to a boil is that I'm running WinXP, but my pc is only about 4-5 years old. I can't even run MirageXNA, the IDE freezes. Can't compile it either. Most people here have a computer way worse than mine, so I guess we should all go buy computers now.

Again, I have to stress… This will be optional to use. It isn't as if Eclipse is shifting towards a .NET version completely. If you can use it and want to, do it. If not, which you should be able to, I apologize.

[JohnPony]

I still hold my opinion on bringing the old programming boards back, even more now that eclipse is supporting multiple languages.

[TheRexion]

@General:

> I still hold my opinion on bringing the old programming boards back, even more now that eclipse is supporting multiple languages.

I second this completely.  It would only be a step in the right direction

[Whackeddie99]

@JeffSventora:

> Again, I have to stress… This will be optional to use. It isn't as if Eclipse is shifting towards a .NET version completely. If you can use it and want to, do it. If not, which you should be able to, I apologize.

Well when you make a new engine, and it is pronounced official, people use it. Now that it's .NET, people are going to want to use .NET. Lets face it: nobody here should be making a successful game in vb6 anyways. Basic 6 is old, winsock is old, .NET is the way to go. And you know that just as well as I do.

[Marsh]

@General:

> I still hold my opinion on bringing the old programming boards back, even more now that eclipse is supporting multiple languages.

Good chance this will happen. Still sorting changes at the moment.

[iSnow]

Marsh, you should keep working on Eclipse++ to be another option :P

On to the real topic, I think the programming board would be a help considering now were going to be getting posts in two languages now, I don't think the VB6 version is going to die either. And as General Pony said, either a wiki or a better set of tutorials would make it a lot easier, vbGORE did it.

[Joyce]

@SnowShinobi:

> And as General Pony said, either a wiki or a better set of tutorials would make it a lot easier, vbGORE did it.

Soon™

Well, if I'm not lazy anyway.