Revenitor 3D World Studio - In 6 months time!

category: general [glöplog]
The Revenitor 3D World studio is a peice of software that i have been working on for a long time, as well as being a general purpous level-editor, G2 (4x) will have the facilities needed to make prods as small as 34kb, including algorithm based texture generation.

The betas will be freeware, release version is expected to be around £75.

The site is www.revenitor.co.uk and previous versions are available to download (however they can only be used as world editors)

You may also use the available texture pack for your prods ;)

Happy Coding!

added on the 2003-10-03 13:54:06 by PhonicA PhonicA
What will iit have to justify us spending money on it? And hows it going to be better than others (demopaja + smode for eg.) that are already available, and are free?
added on the 2003-10-03 14:07:58 by psonice psonice
spending £75 for making demos which don't bring a single penny in your pocket. sounds like a bargain.
added on the 2003-10-03 14:43:26 by reed reed
Reed, steal it then.
added on the 2003-10-03 14:50:14 by Pete Pete
no need to steal it, we write better ones of our own instead.
added on the 2003-10-03 15:22:00 by smash smash
people wanna be cool so they buy a piece of software to play with the big guys. it's not the first time demosources/demomakers/toolkits,etc has been sold.

still, beating talent is hard. so let 'em play
added on the 2003-10-03 20:26:44 by whizzter whizzter
People using these kind of programs dont have any talent, if they did they wouldnt be using them.
added on the 2003-10-03 22:06:04 by rock rock
Ya! Lets HaxXOr HArdCOde LWs or 3Ds fIlES OurSelF! Whaaaa! FUCK All ThAt UsE 3dsmax!!11!! ThEY GoT nooo TAlenT !11!!! Whaaa!
added on the 2003-10-03 22:32:04 by Pegasus Pegasus
Rock: I think what you mean is they don't have talent for coding. These programs don't design the demos, paint the gfx, compose the music or model the objects.

I reckon if more sceners would drop this stigma against demo makers and tried using them instead of waiting on inactive coders we'd have a more active scene and would probably see more fresh ideas coming through.
I still say roll your own ...
Does a painter make every single brush he uses?
added on the 2003-10-04 10:55:15 by _-_-__ _-_-__
No he uses his fingers :)

What makes demos special is the fact that they are hard work of coder, painter, composer, modeler etc.. That's what people respect. Now if the music is ripped, gfx stolen or code made only with some demo making/giving tool thats simple lame.

So if we start using these tools, what's the difference between demos and animations anymore?

I think they are only good for scripting purposes.

added on the 2003-10-04 12:13:24 by rock rock
Stop whining.

Graphic artists have their tools, same goes for musicians and modellers. It's just consistent that designers can use a tool to assemble the final thing. Usually, major groups have their in-house demo assembling tools since years and use them. A few of them made theirs available to the public (demopaja et al.).

Sure, it's more 1337 to have your own system to work with, but I don't really see a problem when designers emancipate themselves from the coders. Sure, hardcore coders won't like to see that. ;)
added on the 2003-10-04 12:30:08 by tomaes tomaes
Knos: There's a huge difference between buying a brush and buying a "Paint your own Mona Lisa"-kit.

I never claimed I wrote my own compiler, I didn't have my own exepacker and sound system for a long time, so I used UPX, FMOD, etc.

And even though these are crucial, they are rarely emphasized by most people (I mean "sound system" as in module-replay, not a realtime synth), as they are well known to others as well, and they do not count as effort.
And effort is one of the most important things I think about when judging an intro. I will judge an intro definetely better when I know they wrote most of their own stuff (well not the compiler but still :), and they DID sweat and waste time when they did it.

Demopaja is different, because it's only a synchronizing+directing tool, it doesn't feature a texture+model editor, and it only features code for the basic timing+interpolation+videoinit+soundinit. There is still a chance to write your own stuff in it, there's a plugin SDK (which sux tho :), so you can use it "only for syncing", which is a bitch to do from code, and graphicians love to tinker around with that, so I guess that's OK.

But handing a whole system to people where you can create your own "The Product" in just a few amount of clicks... Not the thing I would respect, as it would be a sideblow to all the groups who DO write their own stuff. (Not to mention that I seriously doubt that it can even get close to e.g. Farbrausch's tool...)

And the most annoying thing about this is that it's not free. "Hey! Want to be as cool as Farbrausch or AND, but don't have _any_ coding skills? For just 75 pounds, you can have a system that gives you the ability to create intros like that with nearly no effort! Call 1-800-SUX0R now!"
I thought the demoscene was pretty much the only part of the world where you _couldn't_ do everything you wanted, if you had the money.
But now it seems that even the guagelamers will have the ability to flood an introcompo with average-looking prods, because they simply don't have to do anything, just click around and make cool looking objects and textures in minutes. (Tho' they still won't 'cos most of them are unable to start a program that has no desktop icon.)

All in all I think there is a difference between giving SOME tools to the "consumer" and giving ALL the tools for it. I'm not saying that it should be restricted, but I won't jump around in joy when I see an intro which looks like The Product, when I know it's made with a tool that is able to create it in 5 minutes.
added on the 2003-10-04 13:07:04 by Gargaj Gargaj
^^ word
added on the 2003-10-04 13:19:07 by Preacher Preacher
Creating demotools to SELL them to the scene?
Phonica: you will not only get 0£ from it but also a 3x disrespect combo bonus.
added on the 2003-10-04 13:52:46 by ithaqua ithaqua
I personally don't care about piracy, but all you people moaning about charging for demo making tools; did you get MSVC++, Cubase and Photoshop for free then?
added on the 2003-10-04 14:48:39 by Pete Pete
Did the authors of MSVC++, Cubase and Photoshop make those applications _AIMED_ for a non-profit non-commercial community?
added on the 2003-10-04 14:51:18 by Gargaj Gargaj
Gargaj, yeah alright, fair point :)
added on the 2003-10-04 15:31:38 by Pete Pete
Not really, because they will market the software as "game development" tool. The "demomaking" possibility is just a side effect, I guess.
added on the 2003-10-04 16:08:20 by tomaes tomaes
Game development with generative objects and procedural textures? Come on.
added on the 2003-10-04 17:07:11 by Gargaj Gargaj
Those things are not demoscene exclusive, you know... Those 1 or 2 extra plugins are not that much work anyway. The main system is not designed to be a toy for the scene. This guy just assumes that the scene could be a small, additional target group with those extras included. I think, he's wrong anyway.
added on the 2003-10-04 17:24:37 by tomaes tomaes
The software isnt being designed especially for prods, it just happens to be made in such a way that it can be used for it, i might make a version that is freeware and especially for prod developement, depending on beta feedback (beta will be public)
added on the 2003-10-04 21:29:53 by PhonicA PhonicA
Demomakers have been around for quite some time.. I remember reading about the RSI Demomaker when it first came out.. "now you can make as good as the chart-topping ones without writing a line of code!". Even if those applications have come a long way since then in terms of flexibility and scalability, they still won't help you make new effects.

If you're not going to do anything you can't do with a demomaker, you might as well use a demomaker.
added on the 2004-02-08 18:24:04 by gammawave gammawave
there're really few things by which demos are different from other forms of art. in fact, i can name only two of them:
- the existence of technical limits
- the subculture

this discussion is about the first one. for a long time, there're problems with this one; on pc, there is no real speed limit these days, in theory you can do almost anything - of course, that would be a very hard work, so people usually do things which were already done on slower machines, maybe in smaller resolution, etc...
this is also the reason why the c64 scene or the size-limited compos are still so succesfull - on c64 you have the same limits as 20 years ago, so you can really push them - and they do!

a production made with one of these demomaking softs differs from a music video only by the downloading time; that's why we don't like them. maybe it's art, but it is definitely not a demo...
added on the 2004-02-08 20:25:11 by blala blala