Rune wrote:
> The whole idea of making a game engine that fits all games is not a very 
> good one, IMHO. One game might depend heavily on physics while another 
> doesn't use physics at all. The solution? Separate the physics engine from 
> the rest, while still making it easy to integrate the physics engine with 
> the rest of game engine.

Fair enough. On the other hand, since it's more a thought experiment, 
having a bunch of chunks of loosely coupled technologies and an 
overarching way of putting them together could be considered "one 
engine" for the purposes of this discussion.  Like, already, most 
engines don't do the mesh editting, as far as I can see. If you can plug 
it in and it's pretty seamless, then it's just another class of objects 
in the engine or something.

I admit it's a pretty vague question, more something to start thinking 
about than something that would have an answer.

So what bits aren't done yet?  What plug-ins would you want available?

And what's a good tutorial on the state-of-the-art of "AI" in game 
engines? I look at the unreal engine, and from what I've read so far, 
"AI" seems to imply "figure out what direction the player is from here, 
and figure out how to get there."  Not especially difficult AI. What 
sorts of things do "AI" programs in games really do?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message