Could iClone Become the Next Game Engine?

Could iClone Become the Next Game Engine?

Home
»
Archive
»
iClone 7
»
General

https://forum.reallusion.com/Topic355805.aspx

Print Topic | Close Window

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

I know we, its current users, know it as a storytelling tool, but I wonder if it would serve well to bring in a user base interested in game making who could benefit from its immensely powerful asset toolset and character creator.
It would have a huge leg up on Unity, Unreal, and CryEngine for "Cut Scenes"...
Would it take a lot to add in the game maker elements? If iClone picked up all the visual elements these other engines have, wow!

By Colonel_Klink - 7 Years Ago

I could imagine it could, however I'm sure the ones who use iClone for movie making/animation wouldn't like to see the forums inundated with requests for game function capabilities to the deference of what iClone was/is intended. That said I'd like to see the implementation of scripting (promised so long ago I forget) to automate animations etc. Perhaps I'm just a diehard iClone user that likes to keep gaming separate (Unity).

By Rockoloco666 - 7 Years Ago

Nope, it would need a lot of resources to develop the engine for games and then some more resources to develop the visual candy, plus that would destroy iclone's identity as a product and its purpose

By Dr. Nemesis - 7 Years Ago

Tony, you actually have it backwards. It would take less and make a lot more sense to put Iclone-like tools in a game engine. Cut scenes are one aspect of a game. What you'd have to squeeze into Iclone to get all the other aspects would be too much. Not to mention, one of Iclone's biggest weaknesses would be a huge hurdle: Memory management. 3D Game engines that produce AAA games, the kind of engines that Iclone is following the look of with PBR, Popcorn effects, etc, are ridiculously memory efficient. It hurts my head when I run huge outdoor scenes in Unreal and then think of what it'd take to run that in Iclone.

By Lamias - 7 Years Ago

Dr.Nemesis,

That's very true. Complex outdoor scenes, especially with the new goodies of IC7, can be a headache to work with. Adding a lot of trees seem to take a big chunk of the available memory.

This needs addressing IMHO. Generally, the way IC7 uses memory needs to be readressed to become more efficient.

By wires - 7 Years Ago

I have never owned, or played, a computer game. To each their own, but I am a firm believer that there are enough affordable resources available on the market for game developers and at the moment very few affordable resources for Animators/Film makers.

The Forum is already overfilled with questions regarding getting RL assets into the one or other Game App, and is slowly, but surely, drifting away from the core use of iClone - Animation. It's not only full of questions, it's also full of complaints about getting assets from product XYZ to iClone and back again when the cause of the problem is not the responsibility of RL, but due to the fact that the latest version of XYZ has made fundamental changes to file handling that aren't yet supported in an RL product that was released months before said changes were made. :alien:

My vote is for iClone to keep the main focus on animation, with export possibilities available for those who don't want to animate.

By RobertoColombo - 7 Years Ago

I think we are mixing two very different things:

1. creating a movie
To make a take (shot) for a movie means to build up a scene and "statically" render it according to the camera point-of-view.
Complex scenes, which can virtually take quite a lot of memory, can be optimized with some techniques, because at the end of
the day, the items to be shown and their positions are fixed once the camera has been placed.
For example, filling a high number of trees is not an issue if one of these techniques are applied: I was about to make a tutorial
about this, but unfrotunately right now I have no time.

2. creating a game
To build a scene for a game means that the whole scene can be navigated: that´s a world of difference!
Here there is not a fixed camera, but the point of view of the player changes continuously.
Taking again the example of trees, they all need to be there, if the game playable area foresees that the player moves through them.

Hence, if the OP refers to have a game engine extension for iClone, well.... they will have to compete with Unity3D, Unreal, Lumberyard... not sure what RL MKT thinks about this.
Vice verse, if the OP refers to have a better memory management in order to build complex scenes, again, several techniques can be used to optimize the memory resource budget.

Regards

Roberto

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

As a business model, RL could offer more content and capitalize on a uniformed one-stop platform for both (1) game making and (2) video creation. And they needn't be exclusive.
They could offer more content and hire more staff , in time, and grow that newly added game-making part of the business, bolstering its existing business as well. So it wouldn't have to be that it diverts attention away from the traditional iClone stuff, it would just add other development stuff along side it. And as a business, it would be a very good thing to have more and more users cluttering the forum, as more user base = more exposure = more $$$ potential.

Now, if computing resources would be too heavy as is, I am thinking they could morph the current structure to be more like that of Unity/Unreal/CryEngine to where it is very memory friendly?
Like if they had the flexibility to optimize the current paradigm they could then easily integrate in anything new?

As far as how it would be introduced, I am imagining they would start out adding a playable level where you can control your avatar in your geographic scene. Take actions via controls and then development expands from there. The actions could also be recorded into the movie, to make for some very interesting movie creation as well....like an augmented-reality ("AR") infused movie making tool.
To accomplish this, bring in a handful of people to design that who have experience in gamemaking and AR, and then as it develops you are off to the game making arena, with a new spin on game creation.

By Dr. Nemesis - 7 Years Ago

No to everything you said.
All the things you've mentioned are huge in complexity. Summarizing them with a sentence like "They could offer more content and hire more staff" is an immense oversimplification of what would be needed.
In the same way as I could say "I'm building a rocket and going to the moon". Short and simple sentence but omits the thousands of intricate details and complexities involved in actually achieving that task.
I worked on 4 Frostbite games while work was being done to suit the engine to several studio's needs. No offense to Reallusion meant at all when I say this, but I don't think they have the money it would take to make a competitive 3D Game engine.

At present Reallusion is still trying to make Iclone a truly viable tool for studios. Releasing an update that doesn't have significant bug regression or breaking of existing features still seems to be a challenge.
And I haven't even gone into ANY detail at all about the programming requirements for an engine, along with designer and technical tool that would also need to be made for putting the games together.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

Dr. Nemesis (1/31/2018)

RL would only need to see it as a business opportunity to move forward with it, it needn't be based on our own past experience. I mean, I myself never made a game but that doesn't mean that RL therefore wouldn't have the potential to expand their business. If you or I, or some other organization, do not have the expertise to have done something properly in the past, that doesn't mean RL would therefore as well replicate our mistakes.

And just because there is complexity doesn't mean it is impossible. Equating cost and complexity of space travel and game engine development is the oversimplification. As a matter of fact there are private industry actors who are pursuing building rockets and flying them into space. So this only tells us that such ideas are not only doable, but maybe less complex than we envision it to be. In fact, investigation of the complexity would yield new opportunities and solutions for great things.

I would think this. First, they create, much like Kinect or Perception Neuron, a controller interface which allows you to control the character in the scene. Perhaps this could be done in a 'game mode' optimized for memory. Next, you would have a plugin or tab that would contain the rule set for such character navigation. You would only start by creating the playable character in the scene. This would be a developmental process. You could expand out later to an actual rule set of interactive player to challenge rules. One step at a time, not like "WHAM - full game engine!" So the complexity is broken apart to little parts and then each functional piece is added in time. Each step of the way RL optimizes and makes it more. And, they add content packs like playable characters, stages/scenes, rule sets, etc. What people would learn is that there is the full suite of movie making 3D PLUS game making elements, would be very promising and interesting!

By Dr. Nemesis - 7 Years Ago

Alright man, good luck with that.

By justaviking - 7 Years Ago

"Game engine" for play, or "Game development" for the building of the game. Either way, you can put my name one the "skeptics" list.

I'm not a game development expert, but from what I know it would be a massive undertaking. Even if you got a lot of the core functionality, there is the usability aspect that makes a game engine difficult to develop.

How do you handle things like making a balanced game? Does the player focus on offense or defense, weapons or shields? A good game will have a balance, so users can still have a fair and entertaining battle either way. The rules engine and everything else that makes that possible is not trivial. Tracking and reporting logical paths, performance monitoring and tuning, and on and on. Think about what it took to deliver the long-promised Curve Editor to us, and then multiply that many times over.

To me, it's like suggesting your local electrician should start building the electrical distribution grid. He already understands electrical wiring. All he needs is thicker wire, and some poles. Oh, and some transformers, and...

Having said all that, finding ways for a "gaming company" to maximize their use of iClone would not be a bad thing.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

Dr. Nemesis (1/31/2018)

Alright man, good luck with that.

I agree, RL has a huge opportunity to enter that market, as it has all of us already as a customer base.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

justaviking (1/31/2018)

I think RL would give great tutorials, and then have a select number of successes to inspire the rest of the user base, and potential outside user base, to do great things with any iClone Game Engine.
And then those who want to use it to strictly make movies would in turn benefit from the visual upgrades and memory benefits that could arise from that!

Gauging the # of hobbyists out there who ask in the forums about Unity, there is an interest already!

By animagic - 7 Years Ago

It took Unreal and Unity years to get where they are, so iClone would continuously be playing catch-up. (I can see the forum posts already...:unsure: ) Developing an AI component for example is not trivial. The only thing that I could see that would make sense is a better bridge between iClone and game engines so that exports from iClone go more smoothly and do not rely on the uncertainties of the proprietary FBX format. A deal could perhaps be worked out to have more attractive export licensing that is exclusive for a specific game engine.

One mistake that companies make before they ungraciously go under is spreading too thin. I wouldn't want RL going that route.

By RobertoColombo - 7 Years Ago

The game engine is a super-complicated stuff:
I studied a bit of Unity3D (now stopped for lack of time) and, having a long & deep experience as a SW programmer, I can "see" what's behind the game engine framework, in terms of complexity.
So, I fully agree with those who say "no" to the OP.
Moreover, the OP misses a "little" detail: both Unity3D and Unreal are for free, till a certain level of revenue: should iClone then become a free SW ?
Unrealistic...

Cheers

Roberto

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

animagic (1/31/2018)

FBX - everything would be "in-house", which could make it less reliant on FBX like other game engines
They wouldn't have to spread themselves thin at all...it could be done with it making financial sense to them for the following reasons:
(1) There is a user base to market a game engine and content to in place already, and
(2) many of the users in the iClone community look into Unity. So, then what if they didn't need to do that since RL would have its own game engine. This is a market they could explore, without really committing too much.
(3) If they bring in more users, they have all of their content store, which already exists, further exposed.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

RobertoColombo (1/31/2018)

Well, I am going to say that RL is capable of super-complicated stuff. Look at what they have added - Faceware, PopcornFX, PBR, Character Creator, Curve Editor,
They already had a rich timeline suite....And they have the 3D world's swiss army knife in 3DXchange.
So, they have exposed themselves to quite a bit of the 3d-CG-content world...
I mean, what other 3D company, or game company, has even come close to this? At minimum I would say they are 'above-average' in their ability to handle things complex compared to other 3d companies out there.

Also, they do not need to compete per-say with the free cost of Unity, Unreal, or CryEngine. All they need to do is convey their package has a lot to offer, and it will attract interest.
Think about this - if RL gets 100 people to buy/explore iClone's Game Engine vs 10,000 people using Unity for free, RL still wins, because it's $ it wouldn't have otherwise made..
Now, Unity makes $ like Daz Studio, in their asset store, not from purchase of their app. So, that is there business model. But this has nothing to do with RL's ability to profit in a market.
If we say, "well iClone can't do exactly what Unity does...", it's not really relevant. It's only relevant if you want to run a spreadsheet and compare who made more on an identical paradigm..
Perhaps Unity does make more. But, again RL wouldn't have to care about that. It could benefit financially strictly from its own product being marketed and sold. So RL would still win, no matter Unity does in its asset store.
Also - the fact that RL could do something different would be a very good thing, as it would be a unique seller in the market. If anything, it should try to differ from Unity, etc. My discussion of an AR focused Game Engine within a narrative iClone scene was my imagining of one way how it could play out.

Anyway, iClone could pack their asset store with game goodies too. So this is more profitable opportunity!

By Colonel_Klink - 7 Years Ago

I have and use Unity and Iclone. I am quite happy that Unity does what it is good at and reasonably happy with what iClone is capable of. I'd rather see iClone develop into a one stop tool for 3D film animation and concentrate on building its potential for film studio quality productions.
I said reasonably above cos iClone is still not memory efficient and often plagued with "iClone AP 7 has stopped responding" issues (Even Kai, in his recent PopcornFX webinar had that happen to him during his presentation!).
Lets get RL to concentrate on fixing things and adding user functionality such as scripting, stereo sound with doppler, more interactivety between actor and props... the list goes on. I'm more than happy with keeping iclone and game engines separate.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

I fully support and encourage RL to voyage into new markets and to achieve great success!
I would love to create a 1-on-1 fighter, an FPS or a Platformer in iClone....

By animagic - 7 Years Ago

TonyDPrime (2/1/2018)

I fully support and encourage RL to voyage into new markets and to achieve great success!
I would love to create a 1-on-1 fighter, an FPS or a Platformer in iClone....

Far is it from me to curtail your enthusiasm; I just don't think it's realistic.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

animagic (2/1/2018)

TonyDPrime (2/1/2018)

I fully support and encourage RL to voyage into new markets and to achieve great success!
I would love to create a 1-on-1 fighter, an FPS or a Platformer in iClone....

Far is it from me to curtail your enthusiasm; I just don't think it's realistic.

Well, I love "Curb Your Enthusiasm."
So I will curtail your lack of enthusiasm. It is completely realistic and would be a promising market for RL to explore.

The only technical barrier anyone mentioned is memory.
So when people mention this, they saying programmers at Unity, Unreal, and CryEngine have more optimized their application's memory use compared to what RL programmers have done.

By GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS - 7 Years Ago

@TonyDPrime

No offense here but visibly you have no idea how far still is iClone from game engines such as Unreal, Unity or Cry-Engine in terms of technology and efficiency. Take a few spotlights with shadows and it wont even run at 30 fps anymore.
iClone in its current state is kind of ok for interactive rendering but certainly not for game rendering at 30fps or more with the PBR quality, GI and all the Bells and Whistles the application has to offer.
Reallusion introduced the *Pipeline* line of products so you can export things to game engines. Do not hope/imagine for a second doing the opposite that makes no sense.

Personally I prefer Reallusion to concentrate in introducing more cinematic features that will help us tell our stories, do our previz or blocking, rather than transforming it in a game engine which would be completely useless.
(And honestly I dont think they would even have the resources to do so, to catch up with any of the mentioned game engine, especially knowing that Unreal is free and open source).

By justaviking - 7 Years Ago

Meanwhile we wait for a single, functional mirror.

Python scripting? Perhaps some improved "locomotion" intelligence to improve and simplify walking around?

Clearly there are differing opinions here. That's understandable. I don't know if Reallusion even pays attention to threads like this. Those who are very passionate on topics like this would be most effective by finding a way to contact the Reallusion management team and presenting their business case to them (in addition to having a conversation here).

Peace to all.

By GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS - 7 Years Ago

justaviking (2/1/2018)

../..I don't know if Reallusion even pays attention to threads like this. Those who are very passionate on topics like this would be most effective by finding a way to contact the Reallusion management team and presenting their business case to them (in addition to having a conversation here)../..

I believe this is the very reason of the existence of the Feedback Tracker. They will probably spend resources on what is asked the most by peoples, albeit I suspect they also spend resources on demands coming from some studios we never hear about.

By william.carey30 - 7 Years Ago

I agree with Tony! Obviously iClone has always contained a game engine. That's where the "real-time" capability comes from. We just don't have direct access to it. Also, to me, the iClone 7 interface is much more like a game engine (minus the coding) than iClone 5. I have been doing my best to learn the Unity and Unreal engines, but would have much preferred to be able to create games in iClone! http://www.facebook.com/SeedTheRenaissanceProject/

https://forum.reallusion.com/uploads/images/1f5aa3bd-4a10-45a0-b785-9aec.png

https://forum.reallusion.com/uploads/images/87f23a0f-e5c1-43c4-9474-d4e2.png

By Peter Blood - 7 Years Ago

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Iclone started as a game engine.That could be an old mans' failing memory though. :P
With all of it's progression in the area of video production, it seems to me that morphing it into merely a game engine would be a step backward.
But hey, all things are possible I guess, just maybe not practical.

:cool: pete

By Rockoloco666 - 7 Years Ago

Everytime someone says:"it wouldn't be too hard to implement this or that" a programmer dies.

quote from a Linux forum

the complexity goes far beyond memory management, consider all the features that must be added, the entire GUI has to be reworked, a lot of stuff must be implemented from scratch which requires a lot more work than just incorporating features as a plugin like faceware or indigo (which was poorly implemented.)

also it is highly unrealistic to think a game can be developed by a one man team in a reasonable amount of time.

it is one thing that iclone at its core is similar to a game engine but it I not the same as becoming one with developer functionality

By GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS - 7 Years Ago

william.carey30 (2/1/2018)

../..Obviously iClone has always contained a game engine. That's where the "real-time" capability comes from../..

"Obviously* ? No, no ,no.. please, there is nothing "obvious" about that.

Displaying 3D models with some animations in realtime (more or less), a lot of applications can do that, including most 3D DCC tools, that does not make them "game engines".

First iClone is not *cooking* assets for realtime performance optimizations, there is no AI in iClone (events managing, path tracking, realtime behaviors, etc..,) the audio engine is nothing compared to what you find in game engines), there is no network engine, no GUI engine, you cant stream *Levels* or any other kind of assets on the fly, no shading system, etc.., etc.. You will put iClone to its knees long before being able to create some common, standard, not even advanced scene or level you can do with Unreal, Unity, etc.. that actually plays at 60 or even 90 fps.

By RobertoColombo - 7 Years Ago

grabiller (2/1/2018)

william.carey30 (2/1/2018)

../..Obviously iClone has always contained a game engine. That's where the "real-time" capability comes from../..

(in addition to Grabiller´s list)
+ enabling all the new input/output control gears that are churned by 3rd parties on a regular basis
+ maintaining a rich set of API and guaranteeing a smooth integration with off-the.shelf IDE (e.g. Visual Studio)
+ enabling the compilation vs. every available platform (PS, XBOX, Android, etc. etc.) and keeping up-to-date for new platforms
+ enabling SDK for different platforms for plug-in development
+ enabling multi-player gaming
+ surely I forgot something else...

Tony, that´s not a piece of cake... trust us... even though we all know how good are in RL, that´s a high mountain to climb.
I would be already happy to see the light for the promised Python API...

Cheers

Roberto

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

We are starting to come up with pieces of what it would take-
1) Memory improvement
2) FPS speed improvement
3) GUI game maker interface
4) Player Controller
5) Level/Scene manager
6) Network Manager
7) AI language

1&2 - could be handled by RL, they know their graphics system so they can bump up the speed, as they have in past. They implemented PBR.
3 - With the number of plugin interfaces RL has created, not to mention CC and 3DXchange, they have the experience to create a new interface
4 - This would be easy for them, much like a directional puppet linked to a controler. They already did with Kinect and Perception Neuron
5 - This would be just arranging rules / boundaries on the existing scene & props itself, they could do that.
6 & 7 - These seem to be the more advanced pieces here, but they only need hire someone, or a team, with the experience to do that.

This is all 100% possible.
This wouldn't have to replace anything we currently use it for. It could co-exist right with it. And that would be the unique beauty of it.
They already have a user base and would only stand to profit more by inviting in more potential users who want more stronger cinematic elements in-game.

By RobertoColombo - 7 Years Ago

I believe you miss the point, Tony:

- the quantity of things to be added is enormous and require a huge investment in terms of resources (people) with no real guarantee for a ROI, as they will compete with industry-standard gaming companies.
- a game engine is not a 1-shot development: the whole SW shall be up-to-date and compliant with all of what is going on araound, in terms of 3rd parties SW/HW solutions. That means regression tests on a huge amount of devices/platforms/3rd party SW etc. Cannot be sustained without a huge investment in resources

I am more with Job (Animagic) who would hope for a better asset export strategy: to me it looks a bit weird that we have to pay more in order to modify an asset, when other SW, like DAZ3D has not such a limitation.

Cheers

Roberto

By GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS - 7 Years Ago

@TonyDPrime
And just curious, how much would you be ready to pay for a iClone "game engine version" ? $900, $1500 ?

By justaviking - 7 Years Ago

grabiller (2/1/2018)

And just curious, how much would you be ready to pay for a iClone "game engine version" ? $900, $1500 ?

And why pay for the new and unproven Reallusion version, rather than getting something with wide industry acceptance like Unreal Engine or Unity for free?

I can imagine better integration with game engines, but not becoming one.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

A game engine development in iClone would only strengthen its visual power and toolset. This wouldn't be something that diminishes what we see as a toolset to make animations, quite the opposite, as it would require development to upgrade FPS and memory management. I believe we would see mirrors quicker if there was a game engine in the works.

By the way, have any of you actually played the games made on Unity....For goodness sakes, they look like iClone.
I was looking one time at a Unigine graphics showcase and all it was was an obj in front of an HDR getting PBR lighting...I mean, iClone does this already.
Baked light maps a plenty with these engines, so basically they are showcasing their engine can leverage light baking...if developed by RL, iClone could do this easy. But we will see it quicker if iClone would move into gaming territory.

iClone does not by any requirement have to compete with anyone. They could develop their engine and market it as they see fit. They needn't concern themselves with what the other engines are doing, unless it serves to benefit them, and their user base. I myself would be very excited to buy a product from them!...And I could say here now $100, $1,000, or $10,000, it wouldn't matter. They advertise and price their products. I would be excited to buy it. Now, likewise, if say Unity came along and matched many of the things iClone has, I would be excited to search that out too.

But RL is very adept at handling complicated things and I have no doubt they would succeed here, and we would enjoy it!!!

By Rockoloco666 - 7 Years Ago

Sorry dude but no

By animagic - 7 Years Ago

Well, RL would have at least one very exited game-engine customer, so that's a start. I don't play computer games, so I'm afraid I don't share the same enthusiasm.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

animagic (2/2/2018)

Well, RL would have at least one very exited game-engine customer, so that's a start. I don't play computer games, so I'm afraid I don't share the same enthusiasm.

LOL, thanks!...Me and William.Carey30...2 and building!
Ani - Imagine a role playing game with your characters running around....and then....fan-made Youtube videos playing your characters dancing, followed by T-shirts and plush toys...!

By gigigeorge2002 - 7 Years Ago

I so wish Tony Primes wish get answered in the next future versions of iclone. It would be great to have a bit of both the worlds. I am not a tech person at all but reading all the obstacles in the above posts iclone might face I am still rooting for an ICLONE GAME ENGINE!!
Game design and narrative has become a very important mass medium nowadays. Game Narrative designers script, write and visualize like Film writers, it would be great to dabble in both the worlds.
Go Reallusion !!!

By Peter Blood - 7 Years Ago

If you're willing to spend $10,000 on it, why wait, spend it on an already developed game engine. Reallusion has a product that
allows everyone from a money-strapped amateur to a professional artist to bring their ideas to fruition. They are the leader in the
animation field in this regard. Sure Daz is great for those with the resources to afford it, but it is basically made for professionals and
not really, as yet, an animation software. Iclone is unique in that it has not only pre-made content but also provides a path for the
creation of new products by it's users. Spending time, effort, resources, and focus on a project that is not only outside of its current sphere,
but an already very competitive market, would be IMHO counter-productive. Of course that's only my opinion and, for all I know, Reallusion
could announce that very thing tomorrow. ;)

:cool: pete
Edited for puncuation and I'm still not sure I have it correct. :P

By GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS - 7 Years Ago

Lol, after all Reallusion is in charge. I wouldn't mind Reallusion annoucing a game engine version of iClone at $10,000, granted they release Python for iClone first !!, then they can even announce a Karaoke version of iClone if they want it to, I would simply ignore those versions.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

@Peterblood
Is there an actual game engine has the feature set of iClone (timeline, plugin FX, content etc.?...) and ease of use of iClone, or comparable to that, I am very interested to hear your suggestions!
The closest I ever saw is Unity, and then Unreal, CryEngine, each with there own limitations...but anything else we missed?

@Grabiller
iClone Karaoke!....OMG, Absolutely Magnificent
(***Applause***)

By mtakerkart - 7 Years Ago

Remove all the stuffs of interactivity/scripting/Blueprint from unreal and you would have a very simple UI to make movie.
Drag'ndrop , timeline (sequencer) , easy curve editor ,looooot of very good marketplace optimised stuffs easy to install like Iclone , EZ Render button...
I will never buy an Iclone-game because the UI will be tremendously complicated for me. Look at the popcornFX particle
editor , few people here can handle it because of the interactive/scripting features but no probleme in Iclone.
I will never buy the Iclone script/python plugin because it will be too complex like all game engine
on the market. There's an univers between interactive project VS linear story in term of pipeline. Thinking making cool interactive project
alone is irealistic.... My 2 cents.

By william.carey30 - 7 Years Ago

A collaborative effort between iClone, the most user-friendly animation program, and Unity, the most user-friendly game engine, would be awesome! In the meantime, I'll keep bumbling away at creating the only game using iClone to make the characters and cut scenes. http://www.facebook.com/SeedTheRenaissanceProject/
I have been on both the Unity and Unreal engine forums continuously (mainly because I am such a crappy coder), and I think it is a damn shame that many, if not most, of the game developers have never even heard of iClone!

By animagic - 7 Years Ago

Not to rain on anybody's parade, but I'm just reading that Autodesk has decided not continue with its alternate game engine offering, Stingray.

You can read as to reasons here: https://www.spar3d.com/news/software/autodesk-shutters-game-engine-development-cites-popularity-engines/.

A quote:

According to Autodesk, Stingray has proven to be redundant. “Our customers are increasingly standardizing on two game engines, Unity and Unreal Engine for both games and VR/AR authoring,” reads an official FAQ on Stingray’s end of life. “Both engines have built extensive content and resource ecosystems for developers to leverage. We feel we can better serve our customers by working more closely with Unity and Unreal Engine rather than trying to develop our own alternative.”

Sorry...:unsure:

By william.carey30 - 7 Years Ago

Nothing to be sorry about! Autodesk has developed an extensive relationship with these game engines, so that the engines are geared specifically towards importing from Maya. If only Reallusion could develop such relationships! As for Reallusion creating its own game engine, I don't think any of the vast army of supporters of this concept (Tony and I) were suggesting that Reallusion try to create another Unity or Unreal Engine. There are plenty of smaller, scaled down game engines starting up out there (Godot, as just one example). I, personally, would be thrilled to see Reallusion incorporate any aspect of game development into iClone, especially since everything they added to iClone 7 points in this direction. Unity has been doing very similar things, such as upgrading its resolution/realism, trying to match Unreal. Getting back to Reallusion, in iClone 5 they even had a "shooting gallery" demo.

http://www.facebook.com/SeedTheRenaissanceProject/

By sjonesdc - 7 Years Ago

TonyDPrime (1/31/2018)

NO!!!

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

sjonesdc (2/3/2018)

TonyDPrime (1/31/2018)

...Would it take a lot to add in the game maker elements?

NO!!!

Exactly, I agree 100%! It would not.

By Chuck23.C - 7 Years Ago

...delete

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

animagic (2/3/2018)

Sorry...:unsure:

Yeah, this is old news...Stingray was supposed to be a PBR-ish Lumion-TwinMotion type engine for content visualization.
I never really read that much about it being a a game engine, they didn't put in any effort for their own business reasons. TBH in the community no one really cared either way.
Now with iClone, it is way different because the engine is already realtime and has a leg up for narrative content creation, and there is a more progressive user base here .

But really that is neither here nor there. Stingray going under doesn't mean iClone shouldn't create a game engine.
However, to play devil's advocate, I actually could say that by the "competitive-logic" of RL competing with other game-engines, the Stingray news would actually mean there is one less competitor, which would favor RL.

But I see it more like McDonalds offering ice Cream. They are not so much competing with Carvel or Baskin Robins. Rather, McDonald's realized they had their own independent business opportunity to tap into their existing market for additional profit, and they did just that. iClone doesn't need to compete or out-develop anyone. They just could market their product as they see fit to their existing user base, as a launchpad.

I'll look at this strictly as a film-maker too...
I think everything people have cited here that iClone lacks and/or would need, if developed for iClone, would great for the iClone film maker to have!
So if you favor iClone development as a film maker, it really wouldn't make sense here to then say, "I don't want to see RL do a game engine..." because you are then saying you don't want to see RL develop a better tool-set, FAST. It would be faster if a game engine development occurred, because they would implement then memory management and FPS optimization, along with a whole slew of other optimizations.

By Chuck23.C - 7 Years Ago

None of the top game engines make animation as easy as iclone, but to make iclone render like top game engines????
Read Kellytoons thread on long render times. As he optimizes the scene... time is shorter, but...
AAA game engines run pbr, physics and much more.. fast.

All AAA game engines use this feature that prohibits iclone to render fast:
Occlusion Culling:
A feature that disables rendering of objects when they are not currently seen by the camera because they are obscured (occluded) by other objects..

Leg up on Unity sounds good.
Need a super master programmer to pull this off.

Without this.... plugin after plugin.
Indigo - PopcornFX, etc., etc..

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

Chuck23.C (2/3/2018)

Ever wonder why iClone is not a AAA game creator?

Read Kellytoons thread on long render times. As he optimizes the scene... time is shorter, but...
AAA game engines run pbr, physics and much more.. fast.

iClone makes animation easy but (rendering...Leg up on Unity sounds good.
Need a super master programmer to pull this off.

None of the top game engines make animation as easy as iclone, but to make iclone render like top game engines????
Wow, all of the others would quickly become obsolete.

I'll translate what you just said...

"Q - Ever wonder why iClone is not a Game Maker yet?
A - Because it's not a Game Maker yet!"

And this is the whole thing, no one is saying iClone, as is, is a game maker. We are talking about it becoming one.
So KT could have a scene that takes years to render, but then if a master programmer comes in, it could become more optimized, to where KT no longer needs to wait so long...

And this is one of our biggest points, if a 'master programmer' does come in, that person/team/unit could eliminate the long render times as well as develop what is needed for the game engine.
If iClone became a game maker the added toolsets and optimizations would BENEFIT the film maker, FASTER than the typical paced development process would likely move.

By Chuck23.C - 7 Years Ago

If iclone became a AAA game engine.... all (other) game engines would become obsolete.

UDK, Unity, CryEngine, Autodesk and many others have spent millions on Research and Development.
... and do NOT make animation as easy as iClone.

You say, "If a master programmer" came to iClone....
Sound Good.

By mtakerkart - 7 Years Ago

It would be faster if a game engine development occurred

Do you believe that speed and better memory managment are related of game engine features???? If so you
really don't understand what is a game engine..... Game engine have their own restriction that you don't understand
to be efficient and fast. Just one exemple is Dynamic shadows. In a game you MUST bake lightmap and your shadows can't
move anymore. You have to deal whit LOD means that your pipeline is multiplied by 2 , etc....

By Chuck23.C - 7 Years Ago

mtakerkart (2/3/2018)

It would be faster if a game engine development occurred

TonyDPrime (2/3/2018)

...if a 'master programmer' does come in...

All problems are now solved.... when this "Team" arrives.

...you don't understand to be efficient and fast.

iClone 7 characters and the "Latest CC Characters" mesh's have been optimized, but
"Users add multiple content, accessories and more." Changing the optmization!

Following "Strict Game Engine Protocols"
...where Reallusion gets the money to pay a (Master Programmer Team) to OVERCOME THIS?
.... who knows.

By Rockoloco666 - 7 Years Ago

It is very naive to think it will all be solved with a master programmer, have you seen how many people work developing the engine and how many more are needed to tweak the engine? What you are asking is completely unrealistic

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

mtakerkart (2/3/2018)

It would be faster if a game engine development occurred

In the quote what I was saying is that we will see development occur faster if game engine development occurs, as opposed to one-off improvements.
Then you said what iClone needs to be a game maker - lightmap baking - which was already mentioned, but you describe it further, which is great.
Then you said I really don't understand what is a game engine, which is fine because iClone currently is not one, and we are talking about it potentially becoming one.

I thin it's good we focus on (1) shadow/light map baking, and the prior mentioned (2) Occlusion culling. This plus (3) FPS optimization and (4) memory management, are very specific to the visual UI side of things.
I think it's very great for all us iClone film makers to have a list of what specific improvements to ask for from RL, that would directly benefit the visual UI side of things.

And likewise, they will bring iClone closer to having what it needs to be a Game Engine.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

raxel_67 (2/3/2018)

Chuck23.C said above "Need a super master programmer to pull this off". I referred to his use of that phrase.
So your disagreement is with Chuck23.C.

You don't need that, necessarily, as you say. You could have a team, as we already said.

By GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS - 7 Years Ago

TonyDPrime (2/3/2018)

../..I'll look at this strictly as a film-maker too...
I think everything people have cited here that iClone lacks and/or would need, if developed for iClone, would great for the iClone film maker to have!
So if you favor iClone development as a film maker, it really wouldn't make sense here to then say, "I don't want to see RL do a game engine..." because you are then saying you don't want to see RL develop a better tool-set, FAST. It would be faster if a game engine development occurred, because they would implement then memory management and FPS optimization, along with a whole slew of other optimizations../..

That's what you don't get.

To reuse your wordings, a film-maker does not has the same requirements a game-maker (game engine) has. As a director, I'm not asking iClone to render my final images in realtime - that would be great but.. more on this bellow. My point is, it is not mandatory. A game-maker on the contrary *must* run at, at least, 20fps, 30fps if not 60fps whatever the situation to be commercially viable and credible.

In order to achieve such a framerates, game engines must cheat in a lot of areas and impose drastic constraints to the game creators (the humans creating the game). A lot of things are *baked*, assets must be prepared in very specific ways, etc.. and ultimately there is the "cooking" stage that does not exist in iClone where everything is processed, optimized so that at runtime the game engine will use the minimum amount of memory at maximum playback speed. Do you realize that this cooking stage can take several hours if not tens of hours in order to be achieved ? (professionals use cooking farms to do that).

This is not what we ask to iClone, because that would require iClone users having the same technical knowledge the professional game creators have.

But stay with me: You might say: But since iClone does not need to run at high framerates (at least to render our final images), then iClone should render images of way higher quality than what Unreal is capable of, right ? Yes! But currently, that' not the case. Why ? Simply because Reallusion is late, and that's why this discussion is biased. Normally, today, now, because iClone is allowed what Unreal is not, iClone should be way ahead of Unreal in terms of image quality but that's not the case yet.

But then imagine that was the case and that you ask Reallusion to create a game engine from iClone. Immediate answer: That's not possible because iClone use technologies that render images of very high quality at interactive speed, and cannot achieve the same result at realtime speed without introducing lower quality, cheats and drastic constraints and you would be back in the same situation as using Unreal.

The real point here, is that there is a lot of room for improvements in iClone and for iClone to render images of as high and then higher quality than what Unreal is capable of today. That does not mean it must become a game engine in order to do that. On the contrary, asking iClone to become a game engine would restraint its potential and that would be a shame.

We don't want that.

By justaviking - 7 Years Ago

After catching up on this thread again, I have two comments:

OPTIMIZATIONS:
The idea that working on a game engine for iClone would drive improvements in memory management and performance might have a nugget of truth, but I expect the impact on the timeline would be the opposite of what was proposed. Doing the optimizations AND developing a game engine would surely take longer than making improvements to iClone without the added work of developing a game engine. (Personally, I would like to focus on improving the current iClone product line first.)

GOING IN CIRCLES:
Do we need to agree to disagree? It appears contributors have fallen quite strongly into two polar opposite camps. It has been an entertaining and lively debate. In the end, however, we don't need to convince each other here, since Reallusion management will make the ultimate decision.

By animagic - 7 Years Ago

If Autodesk points at the redundancy of introducing yet another game engine, what would make iClone any different? I'm sure there are plenty of small game engine makers, but would you want iClone to join that category? To what end?

Also, as has been pointed out, a game is baked (compiled basically) and that's were the optimization mainly comes from, but you end up with something static while interactivity in production is gone, which is mandatory for filmmakers.

By mtakerkart - 7 Years Ago

we don't need to convince each other here

I don't think it's about each other but about RL team ;)

Really never want baking lights. I need my lighting/shadow moving driving by my story.

By Rampa - 7 Years Ago

Hazarding a guess here. :)

My impression is that the whole "iClone as game engine" idea is based on a desire for more automatic kinds of behaviors. For instance, a system for walking about and interacting effectively with terrain simply by point-and-click. Or automatic hand manipulation of objects with nice finger-snapping to surfaces.

Much like crowd generators create automatic, somewhat realistic movements of their agents, based on sets of motions and scripted rules.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

grabiller (2/3/2018)

TonyDPrime (2/3/2018)

Right, but remember from the beginning I said that the beauty would be that it could exist along side iClone as a film making tool. So you could leverage the film making aspects or game making aspects.
The one doesn't have to cut into the other. I get what you say about light baking times, but you would only do this when you are making the "game", not when you are composing a film/animation. So there would be no limiting restraint imposed on what we already had. It would just be that light baking would now be added to give us an increased FPS, when we want it. And maybe it would be useful to some of us in our film making . But I do appreciate and follow what you are saying, that the FPS comes from the light baking, and this takes time to actually bake in. The world is pre-baked, like you say.

But do you disagree that light baking needn't be a mandatory exercise?
Like you could still do traditional iClone as we know it scene animation, but then you could additionally bake a map in game making if you wanted, and increase FPS...
This makes it seem like Light Baking would be a fabulous addition, and not take away anything.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

justaviking (2/3/2018)

I think the optimizations have a very good opportunity to be clearly defined through this discussion. For example, on the visual end we have identified:
1) Shadow/Light map baking
2) Occlusion culling

The FPS and memory are less specific seem to be more cumulative. I don't know that iClone doesn't already disable rendering on objects occluded, but I do know that iClone does not have shadow/light baking for entire environments.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

animagic (2/3/2018)

It is certainly possible iClone could fall the way of Autodesk if it did make the attempt. I just look at iClone and all that it has done that Autodesk hasn't done.
So at minimum we can acknowledge that what happened to Autodesk doesn't have to happen to RL.
In fact, they may learn from the best and do it better!

I think the shadow/light-map baking like you say is a very critical piece. But wouldn't it be possible to imagine it that you would use it if you wanted to, and otherwise not use it?

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

mtakerkart (2/3/2018)

we don't need to convince each other here

I don't think it's about each other but about RL team ;)

Really never want baking lights. I need my lighting/shadow moving driving by my story.

Yeah, this is the common thing. If iClone has Shadow/Light--map baking, couldn't you imagine it being as a use, or don't use, sort of thing?
Like, it doesn't have to be a mandatory visual piece?
I think thus you could allow a film maker who wants the interactive piece there to remain, and then the game-maker to have the baked piece to be there.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

Rampa (2/3/2018)

Yes! This is a part of it discussed earlier, where this could be an initial implementation of such an engine, where you could introduce a game controller as a scene controller, much like the Kinect.
And Then you would have rules set on the scene as far as mobility goes. (And possibly it would be operated in a Game Mode so you wouldn't be running it in conflict with resources needed for existing interactive iClone visual elements.)
Automatic rule-based occurrences from some form of input.

By GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS - 7 Years Ago

TonyDPrime (2/3/2018)

grabiller (2/3/2018)

TonyDPrime (2/3/2018)

I know pretty well both Unreal and iClone, and if I wanted to bake things (and not only the lights, I never specified light baking actually) and make a game then I would import my assets prepared in iClone into Unreal (and that's quite easy to do).
Why would I need a *iClone game engine* instead of Unreal that already has everything I need ?

Again, improving iClone has nothing to do with turning it (or a special version of it) into a *game engine*.

In fact what are your selling points ? Imagine you are at the bank trying to convince them for a loan to finance the development of a *iClone Game Engine* version.
What would you tell them ? What would be the benefits of it over using Unreal that is free and has already all the needed features ?

By justaviking - 7 Years Ago

grabiller (2/3/2018)In fact what are your selling points ? Imagine you are at the bank trying to convince them for a loan to finance the development of a *iClone Game Engine* version.
What would you tell them ? What would be the benefits of it over using Unreal that is free and has already all the needed features ?

That's very similar to a point I was made several pages back.

@Tony - Don't forget the uproar of the price of the Faceware plug-in. How many people will be willing to pay how much for this new capability?

I also raised the question of what is meant by "game engine." Adding some aspects of "gaming technology" into iClone could be very good, such as better and easier ways to manage how people walk, or adding (restoring, from way back) improved scripting capabilities, such as "Open car door" or "Ride bicycle" or "Type on keyboard." That would be great stuff (in my opinion), but I don't see the value in making complex rules engines and all the other things that are part of a game engine.

Making it easier to export to Unity or Unreal would be fine. A tighter integration like that sounds like a decent business case to me (though I have performed any market analysis or surveys yet).

By william.carey30 - 7 Years Ago

Just wanted to say one last thing. As far as I know, you can't really animate anything in Unreal or Unity. You import the characters and their animations from somewhere else. So if, at some point, iClone were to add the capability of creating a game (even if not up to Unity or Unreal standards) to its already formidable capabilities for creating characters and animation, it would indeed be something completely new and unique!

By william.carey30 - 7 Years Ago

Hello! If you, or anyone else in this forum who has iClone and game engine skills, would like to collaborate with me on this game concept, please let me know. Sorry, no money involved at this time. just inclusion in the credits. Unfortunately I am just another poor iCloner!
http://www.facebook.com/SeedTheRenaissanceProject/

By Rampa - 7 Years Ago

Might be good to figure-out what kinds of things you would like more automated in iClone, and put suggestions in the Feedback Tracker, or wishful features forum.

If you look at the addons for Unity and UE4, you'll find a lot of them are made to deal with specific types of things that are separate, or enhanced, from the main program.

By william.carey30 - 7 Years Ago

There would have to be a separate "game mode" and "cinematic mode", depending on whether you are creating game play or making cut scenes.

By william.carey30 - 7 Years Ago

To me, the "selling point" of using an iClone game engine over Unreal is that you eliminate the challenging procedures of dealing with export issues from Reallusion, of bringing your characters, animations, etc. into Pipeline, converting them to .fbx, exporting them into a game engine, of dealing with incompatibility issues, reapplying animations, textures, etc. to the characters, and so forth.

By GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS - 7 Years Ago

william.carey30 (2/3/2018)

And useless. Unreal does not need to be able to create characters nor animations. Unreal is not an asset creator and does not need to be,.that's not its purpose. For this, you have DCC tools like Maya, Motion Builder, Blender, Lightwave, iClone, ZBrush, 3DCoat, etc. whatever..

Why do you think a game engine need to be a DCC tools as well ? The Unreal engine developer team focuses their resources and energy in making Unreal a game engine, not a DCC tool.

So why a DCC tool developer team would want to make their tool a game engine ? Non sense.

Yet, creating characters and animation is just a (small ?) part of what's needed to create a all game. iClone is not even a modeler. Should Reallusion implement their own version of ZBrush ? What about audio ? Should Reallusion implement their own version of ProTools as well ?

william.carey30 (2/3/2018)

../..I always wonder why Unreal and Unity DON'T add iClone-like capabilities to their engines../..

What capabilities exactly ?? You seem to mix up game engine features and DCC tools features. Again, Unreal nor Unity don't need DCC tool capabilities, that's not their purpose.

william.carey30 (2/3/2018)

../..Your technical skills are obviously far beyond mine, and I think you are the first person I've seen who uses both iClone and a game engine. Do you also use Unity, or just Unreal?

I've also used Unity by the past but Unreal is far more advanced and efficient, at least on desktop platforms. And its editors are far more advanced and users friendly, imho. The learning curve is a bit harder though. And with Unreal you get the source code so you can compile your own version if you need it too.

william.carey30 (2/3/2018)

This is a weak selling point. I don't find it *challenging* to export assets from iClone to Unreal and with the right pipeline (scripts, etc..) you can pretty much automate a lot of things. From a professional game developer team point of view this is not an issue and certainly not a reason to let Unreal go. No one will do that.

By william.carey30 - 7 Years Ago

I realize that an iClone game engine might well by useless to someone who went to school for AutoDesk, or for game development. I am simply speaking for the unwashed, iCloning masses, yes, those of us who wear an old wooden barrel with straps over our shoulders, when we leave the house, because we couldn't afford iClone AND clothing! I am a lifelong portrait/figure artist, a totally non-technical person, who never thought he'd be animating anything, and only am thanks to iClone. Unfortunately for me, and anyone unlucky enough to read my forum posts, I then came up with an awesome sci fi game concept, with which I quickly became obsessed! After a ridiculously disproportionate amount of time and effort, I managed to write almost a thousand lines of code, and create a "text" game of the concept with 27 3D graphics. Now I know, to you "store-bought-clothes-wearing" elites, that is a pathetic excuse for an accomplishment. Completing that, however, then motivated me to attempt to create a couple of 3D levels of the concept in Unity. I think I did a pretty good job on setting up and texturing the two levels (Mars surface and underground cavern with crystal), and have my android character there with her spaceship. For the life of me, however, I can't get her animated properly in Unity (she just sort of slides around). Also, if and when I do get her animated, I'll still need to bring about the level transition from the surface to the cave, when she contacts the cave entrance. And there I am stuck. So to me, an iClone game engine would be the answer to my prayers!

By Dr. Nemesis - 7 Years Ago

William, it sounds like you want the mountain to come to you. Why wouldn’t you instead go to the mountain?
Game engines already exist and Iclone already exists. Why wouldn’t you make your cut scenes in Iclone and put them in your game as videos? It’s a method as old as the hills, and still gets used a lot today.

Instead you want Iclone to grow into a gaming tool despite the fact that it doesn’t make any technical, financial or logical sense.

Everything TonyD has said has been out of ignorance, but what’s worse, he doesn’t seem any wiser despite the overwhelming evidence that’s been put in front of him over multiple pages.

Why am I directing my words at you and not at him, I wonder? Must be because I know my words would be falling on deaf ears as far as he’s concerned.

By Chuck23.C - 7 Years Ago

Everything TonyD has said has been out of ignorance, but what’s worse, he doesn’t seem any wiser despite the overwhelming evidence that’s been put in front of him over multiple pages.

Many focus on game engines because they have the technology to render high quality Fast.
With no (real) desire to ever create a game.... just render high quality. (pbr, physics, particles, etc.)

(In this forum)...There are many very talented and highly skilled.... Programmers, Composers, and story-tellers.
Not the case when it comes to animation.

No way iClone becomes a AAA game engine.
Reallusion and the marketplace sells content packs.

How would you "bake" the content to meet strict "Game Optimization?"
Some might say, "Who cares if it doesn't meet the strict protocols."
"Just make iclone render high quailty (PBR, Physics, Substance, PopcornFX) Fast."

By GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS - 7 Years Ago

william.carey30 (2/4/2018)

William, I don't know how old you are but I'm 50, and when I was young there were no computer, no cellphone, no internet, no tutorial, no Autodesk, no school, no iClone. I've never been in any 3d school nor in any school past my 18 for that matter. To learn my first 3d software I had to ask permission to go, during the night, at some companies who had the hardware (SGI) and the licences (Softimage 3D at that time) working at the desk of artists who were sleeping, read the 5 or 6 printed manual volumes from page 1, with nobody to help, no tutorial, no youtube. Since then I've learned everything by myself and I do know what it is to start from nothing.

My dream has always been to stumble onto a software with a big red button labelled: *Create the movie I have in mind*. Well, very early in my life I realized this would not happen anytime soon - and several decades later it still does not exist - so I've decided to learn how to do it. I could argue during hours about the advantages of having a software with that big red button, but that would be pointless right ?

Since, I'm afraid, there will never be an iClone Game Engine, at least not anytime soon, my only answer to you is: Try harder. Because the time a iClone Game Engine, if any, is released, then your game will be already finished, you will have solved all the issues, learned a lot of things and be very proud having done that. You then wont feel the need to have an iClone Game Engine anymore.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

Dr. Nemesis (2/4/2018)

You touch on something important here in favor of the game engine for iClone. That is, there could be a user base in iClone that has no knowledge of external game making engines, but is familiar with iClone.
So, if RL developed a game engine as part of the RL pipeline which would already involve familiar components, this would be a potential untapped market that RL could access that may have otherwise laid dormant.
An excellent business opportunity!
Thus, while the mountain question is a fair one, you yourself explain the business case perfectly - if the mountain is brought to the untapped user, it is way more attractive then!

By Dr. Nemesis - 7 Years Ago

That doesn't even make sense. You seem to think Reallusion can somehow simplify game making by the act of building a gaming tool around Iclone.
That's not how anything works. Are you just trolling at this point?

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

Chuck23.C (2/4/2018)

Everything TonyD has said has been out of ignorance, but what’s worse, he doesn’t seem any wiser despite the overwhelming evidence that’s been put in front of him over multiple pages.

Wizard! :)
Baking could be like in other engines.

By Rockoloco666 - 7 Years Ago

Dr. Nemesis (2/4/2018)

I was going to say the same thing, at this point it does seem like trolling.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

raxel_67 (2/4/2018)

Dr. Nemesis (2/4/2018)

I was going to say the same thing, at this point it does seem like trolling.

Raxel67, I do not believe Dr.Nemesis is trolling, he mentioned to William about why would you want the mountain brought to you, if you could go to the mountain. And that question reveals a very important point.
There could very well be a user base that would not otherwise investigate a game engine. But, if it was brought to them, they may look into it.
I will draw an analogy to PopcornFX & Faceware - they have their own standalones, but many iClone users probably are interested in them specifically, and in many cases exclusively, for their inclusion as a part of iClone.
This is a rationale then for an iClone Game Engine as well.

By Dr. Nemesis - 7 Years Ago

https://forum.reallusion.com/uploads/images/fe1fbbde-8e16-41a6-bfcc-77e3.jpg

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

grabiller (2/4/2018)

william.carey30 (2/3/2018)

../..I always wonder why Unreal and Unity DON'T add iClone-like capabilities to their engines../..

What capabilities exactly ?? You seem to mix up game engine features and DCC tools features. Again, Unreal nor Unity don't need DCC tool capabilities, that's not their purpose.

william.carey30 (2/3/2018)

../..Your technical skills are obviously far beyond mine, and I think you are the first person I've seen who uses both iClone and a game engine. Do you also use Unity, or just Unreal?

william.carey30 (2/3/2018)

This is very similar to what Dr.Nemesis said, there could be a user base that would not be interested in doing what you may be interested to do.
Therefore, a perceived complexity that exists regarding use of outside game engines would be a rationale, business wise, for an iClone game Engine. Now, that may not be attractive to you, but it will be attractive to others in the iClone community, who may not have otherwise thought to try venturing into that world. They could in fact, through iClone, learn they are very good at it and be successful.

We already now together have a list of several things we could look for iClone to get for a future game engine, many of which have the potential to benefit the film maker as well.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

justaviking (2/3/2018)

I think the development of an iClone Game engine would lead to an improved release speed for the pieces like you are referring to, such as improved scripting capabilities. On the other hand, getting these features before any such engine would ever come to pass would in fact lay the ground work for it to come to pass.

With Faceware either a user bought it, or they didn't, so the uproar to RL was, at the end of the day, just a discussion among the users in forum. I think most people who were interested in it bought it, and then there were probably many users, who, if not for the fact that Faceware were brought to iClone, would not have ever considered it through the standalone package. I believe the game engine could occur in this type of way also.
Dr.Nemesis stated it best when he introduced the idea of the mountain being "brought to you", which I think is what happened in the case of PopcornFX and Faceware.

By RobertoColombo - 7 Years Ago

Go RL!!!

https://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/devices/the-first-mindcontrolled-vr-game-will-hit-arcades-in-2018

Just need to find the super-expert SW programmer and we will be able to animate using our neurons only :D:P

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

RobertoColombo (2/4/2018)

Whoa! Holodeck interface!

By animagic - 7 Years Ago

These threads must be so entertaining for RL! :P

By Colonel_Klink - 7 Years Ago

animagic (2/5/2018)

These threads must be so entertaining for RL! :P

Thinking much the same... After several "Iclone AP 7 has stopped responding" messages in the course of an eight hour working day, I shudder to think what it would be like with a gaming engine attached.

By toystorylab - 7 Years Ago

animagic (2/5/2018)

These threads must be so entertaining for RL! :P

I really wondered this thread got that much impact :crazy:
My two cents:
Don't play games with my iClone!

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

An iClone Game Engine could be very much like FaceWare and PopcornFX, in that the users in iClone could be completely ignorant about similar outside application, or in the case of Faceware and PopcornFX an outside standalone....
but RL could "bring the mountain to you."
This is where RL shines so well. They take complicated things and simplify a version of it it very nicely to fit in the iClone UI.

So a Game Engine is a complicated thing, but I believe that RL could come in and integrate a much more user-friendly and easy version for the iClone user, just like Faceware and PopcornFX.
The hobbyist again would be a focal point, along with the professional.
This is where RL is so powerful!

It wouldn't have to be aimed at those of us that are the self-proclaimed experts of game making engines.
Exactly the opposite, it could target the novice, who knows absolutely nothing. Thus, the novice could become successful at game making.
I have said this before, some people HATE this so much, because they dislike the hobbyist gaining an 'easy-simple' way to do something, while they have been wrapping their heads into other version's complexities for years.
A very anti-hobbyist thought process. A shame.

Anyway...
Saw that Distance Field Ambient Occlusion would be something these other engines have that that would benefit iClone realtime...I don't think it has this yet for draw distance visuals?
So far visual things that could help FPS - baking (for lighting, refractions, reflections, AO, shadows, etc...), occlusion culling (non-rendering of non-visible objects), and distance field ambient occlusion.

By GOETZIWOOD STUDIOS - 7 Years Ago

TonyDPrime (2/5/2018)

../..It wouldn't have to be aimed at those of us that are the self-proclaimed experts of game making engines.
Exactly the opposite, it could target the novice, who knows absolutely nothing. Thus, the novice could become successful at game making.
I have said this before, some people HATE this so much, because they dislike the hobbyist gaining an 'easy-simple' way to do something, while they have been wrapping their heads into other version's complexities for years.
A very anti-hobbyist thought process. A shame../..

And if the Eiffel Tower was green, Cows would visit it.

Seriously, what is a shame is that you are trying to put oil on the professional/hobbyists debate, and this is unhealthy, sick even. You are trying to make novices believing that it is possible to have access to the ultimate software with the big red button labeled *make the movie - or game - I have in mind*. You are just thorwing a mountain of idiocies towards novices.

Yet, being a novice has nothing to do with being a hobbyist. Lot of hobbyists here have high technical knowledge, and I meet a lot of novices in my professional environment.

Sure, a novice could become successful at game making, at movie making, at cooking, at programming, at whatever he want to do, but not because of the tool you give to him, but because of the knowledge and the experience he will acquire with work and efforts.

The truth is, if you don't know what you are doing, you won't succeed, talented or not. Simple as that.

By animagic - 7 Years Ago

I don't like the hobbyist term because even though I probably am one (I'm not making any money with my movies), it implies that I could not be professional in my approach to filmmaking.

By justaviking - 7 Years Ago

animagic (2/5/2018)

I don't like the hobbyist term because even though I probably am one (I'm not making any money with my movies), it implies that I could not be professional in my approach to filmmaking.

I use the term "Hobbyist" for myself because:
- I am not doing iClone work for hire (with rare exception)
- To make it clear I am not working at a studio
- To avoid any pretense regarding my (current) abilities and quality of output
- My primary goals are personal education and entertainment

As Job and Guy pointed out, a hobbyist can utilize a very professional approach to a project, have a professional attitude, and achieve stunning results.

By TonyDPrime - 7 Years Ago

grabiller (2/5/2018)

TonyDPrime (2/5/2018)

There wasn't a debate as far as I am concerned, that's just crazy. I just know that RL markets to the hobbyist as well as the professional very well.
And I agree with you that, say in the case of a Unity vs Unreal comparison, the 'good game' comes from the creator, not the engine itself.
But since you bring it up, why would anyone here who supports a hobbyist user base then be against getting "a big red button" to make steps in making a game familiar and easy?
Why would this be a bad thing> This would be AWESOME!
If you and I are both hobbyists, what would we have to lose by having such a great option brought to us by RL in the future?

By justaviking - 7 Years Ago

<<< Never mind >>>