Development Discussion (jME3)

Why OGRE wasn’t chosen as the rendering back-end in jME? (25 posts)

Viewing post 1 to 15 (25 total posts)

1 2 →

iamcreasy57p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

Just out of curiosity…why OGRE wasn’t chosen as the rendering back-end in jME? Isn’t this way the development would have been much easier with a lot of functionality pre-built?

or there are some technical issues that I am missing?

#
Empire Phoenix156p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

Yeah, that jme is a java engine maybee…….

#
glaucomardano252p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

@EmpirePhoenix said:
Yeah, that jme is a java engine maybee…….

#
normen1271p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

Lol, Ogre is basically going the same direction as jME, its also using OpenGL and gives you a bit more convenience around it. Though jME3 gives you a lot more convenience, not to mention its java

#
ttrocha32p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

@iamcreasy:
I once tried ogre4j ( http://ogre4j.sourceforge.net/ ) which wasn’t that bad. But it is more or less abandoned….

Code looked like this: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ogre4j/forums/forum/707387/topic/3727158

#
iamcreasy57p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

Guys, there is the word back-end in my question.

#
normen1271p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

Dude, there is nothing to “backend” to jME3 but OpenGL, I don’t know what you want..

#
glaucomardano252p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

Me too . The only renderer on this history is OpenGL.

#
pspeed805p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

@iamcreasy said:

Guys, there is the word back-end in my question.

In other words, they do use the same back end.

#
nehon590p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

The real question here is “why in the hell would we have done that”?

#
Empire Phoenix156p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

Yeah, then we could have used ogre in the first place. (Also we have stuff ogre does not, ogre is just a rendering backend , we have physics, network, and more)

#
iamcreasy57p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

@normen said:
Dude, there is nothing to “backend” to jME3 but OpenGL, I don’t know what you want..

Its about having a higher level wrapper.

@nehon said:
The real question here is “why in the hell would we have done that”?

So, we start with a already well made rendering part. We just needed to integrate the other(animation, physics, audio) libraries for turning into a fully working game engine.

I thought the question was obvious.

I guess @Momoko_Fan knows why.

#
nehon590p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

…ok…you know the whole idea in JME3 is to make a java 3D engine, not to make a java wrapper over a C++ 3D Engine

#
iamcreasy57p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

@nehon said:
…ok…you know the whole idea in JME3 is to make a java 3D engine, not to make a java wrapper over a C++ 3D Engine

…not ‘C++ 3D Engine’ but ‘C++ Rendering Engine’.

When we are already using ‘C++ Physics Engine’(native bullet) then what’s the issue when talking about ‘C++ Rendering Engine’?

As a matter of fact even LWJGL is a Java wrapper of low level C library of Opengl and OpenAl. So, everything in jME is a Java warpper of low level C/C++ library.

This front end ,which always remains Java, is not related the issue I am talking about. I am talking about the ease and advantage of using a more sophisticated and mature underlying rendering library.

Hope this revokes the down vote and confusion.

#
pspeed805p said 5 months, 1 week ago:

A native call is really expensive. It’s important to compartmentalize them as much as possible. Having written my own Java wrappers around C++ back-ends before, JME and LWJGL gets this one right, in my opinion.

The higher you make this interface, the more inflexible and/or less performant the API is.

Besides, as others have mentioned, 98% of the work is really OpenGL. The only way to raise the level up any higher would have been to have a scene graph in C++ that we interface with in Java… that’s a non starter for a dozen different reasons.

#