Swampdog

This is actually something I was wondering about as well as I prefer Ootii's third person motion controller and adventure camera setup. Once I got more into making changes in my setup, I had planned to ask the same thing. Thanks for the info. Bookmarking this for when I am ready to swap out.

Any progress update?

Any update on this? When we chatted a couple of weeks ago to get my licenses sorted out in the new APanel you indicated there would be new UMA stuff the next Friday.. As seems to be the norm, that Friday has come and gone without a peep out of you guys. Any update would be greatly appreciated.

I would say UMA2 but would be willing to deal with them being UMA1 if they are already done. We were led to believe there was going to be a lot more than what has been released but we are going on 2 years with very little to show for what was promised. Don't really want to wait another 2 years. Hopefully the new stuff is a little better quality. To be honest, at this point I really regret buying the Developers Package.

Any chance we are going to see any more of the assets we were promised when we purchased the developers pack released? It has been a year and half since it was purchased and we haven't even seen anything to the extent of what we were promised.

The problem with using what is out there, out of the box so to speak, is that they run client-side. They will probably all work fine but the problem is when they are run on the client, they could be more easily hacked. While it may not be impossible to hack an authoritative server, it is a lot harder if the server is controlling the AI, physics, collision, etc. That is why it would be awesome to be able to at least set up a plugin to control the asset, similar to what the GM folks have been working on for UniStorm. Would be great to have something similar for RAIN or some of the other more popular AI systems.

I think if you run something outside of what they are developing, you'll probably want to develop a plug-in for it where you can control it server-side (authoritative). Otherwise you open yourself up to cheaters being able to manipulate the AI a lot easier. I'm curious what everyone is using for AI myself. How many are planning on just using stock AI, RAIN, or other AI systems and how you are integrating.

I'm still waiting to see Atavism deliver which makes me really hesitant to buy in to another alpha test. There are so many things that are shown in the Atavism videos that were there when I bought in back in January that is non-existent in the program. Why should we buy in from another video on another product? And $200/285? Why should we pay that for a non-existent product on promises when there are already voxel products available for under $100? I agree with the other comments here as well.. How well has it been tested? What type of load has it been tested with. I'm sure it will run better than EverQuest Next with only one or two players on it. How did your terrain compare in size? How many were logging into the EverQuest Next server compared to how many logged into the AtVoxel world? I think it is great that we will get to see it in action in the NeosLand alpha, but that doesn't help us now. While it might be worth it once released, personally I don't think a promise of what it might be is worth what you guys are asking now. You can compare it to a $100k product all day long but the truth of the matter is, most of us are indie developers and are comparing it to what we can get in the Asset store for $100. And with those products, we pay our money and get the product immediately. We aren't paying for a promise of something that isn't finished yet...

Awesome.. Thanks for sharing some stats.

Thanks Jacques.. Still hanging in there to see how the next couple of months go.. Btw, is that wiki up yet? *hides* Just out of curiosity, what are more realistic numbers regarding the user base between those looking for an engine and those looking for a kit? I know I'm looking for both with the engine being a bit more of a priority since I can code my own plugins. But from talking with your customers what kind of percentages are you seeing both ways? Seems that most of the people that I've talked to are leaning towards engine but the 99% number that was pulled out of the air has me wondering how many are actually looking for more of a kit with a lot of the programming already done for them.

To be honest, I'm not sure what expressing what you are looking for to developers during an alpha test gives you the feeling that anyone here feels any more entitlement than they already have as license holders. I think I've expressed a couple of times in the thread that I'm glad there is a clearer roadmap now. I just wish some of the things were in a different order so a firm foundation is there regardless of what the end user needs are. From what I'm gathering from the other posts in the thread, that is what others are expressing too. The Atavism team is building plugins for all this other stuff so the only thing that really isn't built for the core foundation stuff is the terrain collision/authoritive movement stuff. Building an editor for plugin developers is all fine and good, but most developers already have mono/visual studio/whatever other development tool they prefer to use. All they really need is documentation on how the plugin system works. The editor could really probably come a lot later in the timeline. Armed with that they can get started on both plugins specific to their games and/or plugins to make available to the Atavism community. Sorry if you feel that is a sense of entitlement..

I was wondering about this kind of stuff as well since it is already available to the point that they have made videos showing things that aren't done I would have thought a lot of that stuff would have already been in the engine and not really need much more developer focus. I had been, and still am a little, wondering if it might be better to just look at source from all the emulator projects and just develop my own packet/authorization system based off them. But I'll hold off for now and see how the next month or two go. I really wish the core foundational systems were done already. (To me the core system would have been client/server, terrain/collision, and plugin systems as everything else is pretty much built on top of that..) The other stuff is nice but the rest are just plugins.

lol.. Yeah.. I'm planning on doing same using NGUI. Although I can understand needing a base gui for some. The main thing I was looking for with Atavism was the network layer and I really wanted the grid based building system. I like that they are building other things that I can use from the beginning, but hopefully there will be hooks to where we can unplug their systems to plug our own into the system when we have developed them. From the looks of it, all of their stuff is being built with plugins, so hopefully that is the case.

That was kind of what I was thinking too Count.. There are so many other things that may be totally custom in our games. It would be nice if we could at least work on that stuff while other stuff is being built. I don't necessarily need hooks into quests or combat to work on my trader system (planned to be similar to the trader in the text based DragonRealms game).. I don't really need an editor as much as I need a plugin skeleton containing the empty required function structure and some basic documentation. An editor will be nice later for plugins that will hook more into existing systems, but there are some that wont. Even those that do, being able to get started on base code for our custom systems would be nice.

Thanks for confirming.. What was confusing me is the dates you have on your roadmap and projections you gave when the voxel might be finished were kind of coinciding. That was why I was asking for clarification.