J3D is a good step in the right direction, but its not quite there in terms of speed.
theres a post in “your games here” about my software game Space Pirates that runs faster than any j3d game would at high resolution
check it out or you can argue with me about j3d and software rendering
The game is quite nice, but is there actually a J3D version too, just for the sake of good comparison?
no unfortuneately there isn’t because the engine would have to undergo alot of redesign for the j3d framework a lot of my classes are custom designed for my library you may think it sounds not very modular but it is for my system, it may be possible to be converted quickly but at high cost of speed to the game
actually most of us (i think) prefer lwjgl for 3d stuff and not j3d (cuz it sucks somehow) :>
lwjgl is gooddamn fast. i can draw 2000 quads and more than 8000 lines at 125fps (and i hadnt even used display lists so far) 
[specs: k7 500, 128mb, gf2mx, win98se, sun jre 1.4.1_01]
is it native or platform independant?
is it native or platform independant?
eh… both
it’s a game lib wich offers the functionality u need for making games: opengl, openal and input (mouse, keyboard, gamepads, joysticks).
the native part is available for windows, linux and mac os is on the way. more plattforms arent neccessary for games (right now at least).
[quote]actually most of us (i think) prefer lwjgl for 3d stuff and not j3d (cuz it sucks somehow) :>
[/quote]
na na na…
We draw complex terrain, thousands of tree, hundreds of objects with 500polys each and a simple shadow with >100fps with Java3D.
All lit, all moving, …
(Note that Java3D people talk about ‘terrain’, ‘trees’, ‘objects’ - not of quads and lines )
For sure we couldn’t with software rendering of course…
i admit that software rendering can’t render as many polys/per second but what i’ve seen doesn’t look all that great in terms of how its rendered, but then again i’ve only see a few programs in j3d
any good games for lwjgl anyone can recommend?
i also believe that building a rederning engine from scratch is one of the best learning experiences and provides a great feeling of accomplishment over using a library made by someone else
I didn’t spend £250 on an expensive graphics card for it to sit idle in my case, as i’m sure many will agree. Unless you’re doing something that the hardware can’t do (voxels, raytracing, etc.) then theres no practical reason I can see to be doing software.
one of the best things about java is its accessibility to everyone. this is one of the things that makes java stand out from others. its not as powerful as other platforms and if you take away this accessibility by using opengl or some other gfx library its not as good as a programming platform
but they arent visible all the time are they? :>
and i’m sure that i wont get >100fps with my system specs 
i get steady 85fps in q3 with a highly tweaked cfg. lowest possible geometry settings (model lod and curves). maps arent that complex, models are quite low poly (usually <1k at hi-q lod) with my settings and only a small part of the map is drawn due to bsp structure… and i wont call the q3 engine slow :>
show me one good j3d application and i’ll change my mind (too bad that the f1 game and the other nice demos aren’t public). what i’ve seen so far was pretty slow ~30fps, not that fancy graphics (<quake1) and heavy memory consumption (64mb exceeded and there was only a handfull of tiny textures).
does anyone know if j3d or lwjgl allows the camera to be locked on an axis and whether it increases the speed alot when done
[quote]i also believe that building a rederning engine from scratch is one of the best learning experiences and provides a great feeling of accomplishment over using a library made by someone else
[/quote]
Sure, but OTOH it has been done so often, is documented in every second book so it can be seen as boaring as well.
Anyway, if one can afford to code for learning and not for living, making a 3D engine might be one of the most favorable things to do.
[quote]its not as powerful as other platforms and if you take away this accessibility by using opengl or some other gfx library its not as good as a programming platform
[/quote]
Heh, thats quite a bold statement coming from somebody preferring flatshaded unlighted, un-practically-anything-ed software rendering.
I mean, with all due respect but however nice your rendering library may be (and don’t take me wrong, I think it is quite nice), it is technology from 15 years ago and can’t possibly compete with newer technologies like J3D and openGL. I’m with Orangy Tang on this one and I want the good stuff from my videocard! The only place your rendering library has, is in the dying java 1.1 realm.
You will be sacrificing a little tiny bit of ‘accessibility’ by using openGL at best: openGL can be used in java on windows, linux, and Mac. What other platforms do you want to target?
Java’s portability is still going strong when you use openGL compared to any programming platform. And besides, we all know portability is not the only thing going for java.
Erik
your right.
my statement was directed at only a narrow spectrum of the games out there, which my game falls into the category of.
java can be used for just about any application or type of game.
In my opion (this is just my opion) if i wanted a powerful 3d platform i’d ditch java in a second for c++ and dx or opengl. portability is not the only thing going for java but it is something that most other (gaming) platforms don’t even come close, heck its why i started developing in java in the first place.
My engine isn’t complex and doesn’t do per-pixel shading or even texture mapping for that matter! but its accessible to everyone.
i think gaming has taken a step in the wrong direction with all the graphics hype going on. In the marketplace nowadays a game will have a hard time surviving with mediocre graphics unless its a really good game (not always true, but very difficult without). I think a lot of these graphics get in the way of good gameplay and draw the developers (and the players) focus away from what the good stuff is. This isn’t always true, in a simulation good graphics can add to the game a lot, but in a lot of games graphics don’t matter and the value placed on them now is more of a curse than a blessing. Its not about time needed to develop good graphics (opengl is very fast to develop in) but the emphasis placed on their importance. If I take the fancy graphics away, i take away emphasis aswell and its easier to focus on whats really important
in essence i’m saying that for me and a lot of games out there opengl or j3d is not right for the game. I want to focus on making a good game more than a pretty one.
this is my personal opinion (and philosiphy) so don’t be too outraged if you disagree
Wow, this is turning into a bit of a rout! I have to stand with Derek here.
I still see a reason for Java 1.1 applets to exist, I still see a place for software rendering, and I like the flat-shaded polygon look, damnit! ;D
I think there’s very much a place in the world for non-photorealistic work. Quite frankly, I don’t expect any hobbyist to exceed or even meet the graphical complexity coming out of todays AAA titles - disagree if you will. Does this mean we should all go home because we’re effectively producing “old” technology?
Graphics isn’t everything. Space Pirates is far from complete, but the gameplay looks like it has real promise. Over at Dexterity Games I found a little demo called Once, Twice, Thrice. It is top down, grid-based, about 16 colours, no walking animations, false perspective… and bloody good fun.
I want to focus on making a good game more than a pretty one.
yea. i know what u mean.
well java is quite slow if u use the java2d api. and if u wanna make a game with let’s say SNES alike graphics then lwjgl would be much faster.
beein able to do stuff faster can be either used for adding more detail or for making it playable with quite old hardware.
i’m currently aiming at hardware like p2 350mhz (up to p3/k7 500) and a riva tnt. this kind of hardware is about 4 years old (most hardware components are designed for a lifespan of 5 years).
Well, you need a good graphics artist then.
I completely agree with you that good gameplay is where a good game begins but since games are besides an interactive medium also an audio-visual medium, the visuals (and sounds, very underestimated a lot of the time) are important. Very important actually (well, varying depending on the type of game).
Graphics should of course not get in the way of gameplay, but IMHO when this happens, the graphics are not in place.
I’d say your game is pretty visually oriented, for example because it is a 2D game using 3D graphics so your game could do with some eyecandy too without hurting playability. I’m pretty convinced it would heighten the experience. Why not try finding a graphics artist that can help you with that?
Erik
when a lot of people see a game or graphics library the first thing they think is “wow, this can make my game look a lot cooler.” this isn’t a bad thing its just that the developer should think “this will help me develop the gameplay that i want plus give me some sweet sweet eye candy as a bonus” the lucky few will think the later first but most of us (including me) think of the first.
We don’t won’t design to be hindered by technology but we don’t want it to be driven by technology either.
The programming culture is out of control with the huge emphasis on graphics. Maybe we’ll have to take a step backwards and use “technology from 15 years ago” in order for us to go forwards and make better games not better looking games