java 1.1 compatiable 3d engine?

Networking & Multiplayer
#1

I work for a large game developer/publisher and am looking for a java 3d engine for applet-based web games. It must be compatiable with the Microsoft 1.1 VM, and require no plugin downloads. In other words, it must be a pure Java 1.1 engine. Obviously that severely limits the complexity of the scenes its going to render…

We’re evaluating whether to build or buy, and would like to know what’s out there to license.

Thanks,
Jim Greer

#2

…and also compatible with dos/win 3.1 I guess? :wink:

#3

Try jPCT. It will work under 1.1 using software rendering and supports OpenGL when run under a current VM: http://www.jpct.net

Edit: A webstartable demo: http://www.jpct.net/webstart/demo4.jnlp

#4

I can confirm that the jPCT engine works under OS X. A little slow at 8 frames per second, and i’m not sure if it’s using OpenGL (textures are dithered and remind me very much of software rendering).

#5

[quote]…and i’m not sure if it’s using OpenGL
[/quote]
Most likely not, but it’s possible. LWJGL works under OS X (albeit i don’t know if it’s really stable) and so does jPCT’s OpenGL support. The webstartable demo doesn’t support it though, because it’s a bit older (no MAC version at that time) and i don’t own a MAC, so i can’t test it.

BTW: You can resize the window of the demo to gain some speed.

#6

I don’t know about the licenses on these but here’s a few more:

idx3d seems to be very feature complete.
A partial opengl implementation in Java.

#7

ps - Why does it have to be 1.1 compatiable? Because we’re a mass market site that needs to support what most of our users have on their machines.

#8

But at the same time the minimum system requirements go waaaay up.

What’s the smaller problem if you need to d/l a new JRE or if you need to buy a new pc?

What’s so great about applets anyways? I’ve Java disabled in my browser. Why an applet if you can use webstart? ;D

#9

In my experience if you need java 1.1 you might as well be using flash.

I’m pretty sure some security update took out the msvm a little while ago too, but I may have dreamed that.

If you need 3D in an applet without your clients having to download anything you might be better investing in Director- most people have the Shockwave plugin and it’s allegedly pretty simple to use.

#10

I don’t know if they would license out their engine, or if it’s what you’re after, but www.runescape.com has a 3D-game in java1.1.

You might wanna check it out and check with them if it looks interesting.

#11

[quote]In my experience if you need java 1.1 you might as well be using flash.
[…]
[/quote]
True. Actually flash would be a better choice.

Java 1.1 is just totally outdated. It’s slow, insecure and no fun at all.

With PCs it’s just like that… you need to update some of the software one day. A new Direct X, better drivers, a new JRE, a newer browser. You really need updates if you want get the most performance out of your machine and it isn’t benefitical for the user if you don’t make updates necessary by using outdated technology.

Why? Because he/she will need that update anyways one day and he/she doesn’t want less frames, less performance or more traffic.

#12

Well if Java 1.1 is good enough for EA …
Click Me 8)
G Darc

#13

[quote]Well if Java 1.1 is good enough for EA …
Click Me 8)
G Darc
[/quote]
Yeah, but EA is not a poster child for smart technology decisions - I would submit quite the opposite. c.f. EA’s catastrophic history with MMOG’s, repeated again and again and again and …

Sure, they’re damn good at marketing, and good at making cash cows regularly go “MOOOO!” but…

#14

So going bankrupt with 1.4 (because the Average Joe won’t install it) is a smarter decision than using 1.1 and making money with it? That would explain the state Java gaming is in at least.

#15

[quote]So going bankrupt with 1.4 (because the Average Joe won’t install it) is a smarter decision than using 1.1 and making money with it?
[/quote]
Average Joe does install it. Go get some figures if you want to disprove the generally-accepted status quo.

Moreover, many average joes already have it. More than 50% of all PC’s sold in the last 12 months + already had it.

Microsoft has been diverting people to the download site for 1.4 telling them to install it.

I would be interested in your revolutionary theory of economics that explains how using a technology that:

  • isn’t supported by the vendor
  • is full of bugs (including a significant number of showstoppers)
  • lacks any of the advances in technology since 1997
  • is only in use by a minority of what I quite fairly assume to be the typical game-audience (for non-standard niche games markets, tell me the market and we’ll go see what the ratio is there…)

is equivalent to making money instead of going bankrupt…

Dumb troll.

#16

I don’t know if 1.4 is really more widely used then 1.1. I doubt it somehow, but anyway. What i’m always asking myself in such a discussion is, what should be wrong in supporting 1.1 if it’s possible? jPCT for example will run under 1.1, will support BufferedImages when used under 1.2+ and can do OpenGL using LWJGL on a current VM. What should be wrong with that? Why should i limit myself and others ot 1.4 if there’s no need to?

#17

[quote]I don’t know if 1.4 is really more widely used then 1.1. I doubt it somehow, but anyway.
[/quote]
Why? Just “gut feeling”?

If yuo think people are saying that is “wrong” then I’d guess you’re misunderstanding their ambiguous statements…the point is that it will cost the developer more time, more pain, and (in numerous cases) cost them sales because there will be bugs they can’t workaround. And then there’s the fact that lots of code just runs unacceptably slow on 1.1 but is fine on 1.3 and 1.4 (try reflection, for starters; RMI is another chokepoint that got fixed…) through no fault of the coder (and there’s nothing you can do about it!).

So…it’s positively bad for the developer to use 1.1.

However, there are some lucky people whose applications just happen not to be damaged by this, nor would gain from any of the new features added in 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. I don’t think anyone is telling them not to do it - except that they will not be able to hold out forever, sooner or later they will run into situations where they desperately want/need a later version.

#18

[quote]Why? Just “gut feeling”?
[/quote]
Well, we used to offer some applet games (memory and that kind of “games”) on a commercial website and we were logging the VM used by your clients for some time. The result was, that the majority (can’t remember the exact numbers anymore) was using the MS VM. But we did that a year ago, so i’m not sure if it’s still the case.

#19

Here we go again ::slight_smile:

Warning. Possible flamebate ahead :wink:

He wan’t too make 3d games that works in a browser, with as little hassle as possible for the user. What is his options?

  1. Flash/Director. Might be an option. I don’t know.
  2. Java 1.4 with webstart and LWJGL or Jogl. Allows for state of the art games. But how many has got 1.4 installed? Not enough, and people won’t install it just to play casual web games. This is just my opinion, but I haven’t seen any proof that I’m wrong.
  3. Java 1.2+ applet. No new features compared to 1.1, except for sound (when doing a software 3d game).
  4. Java 1.1+ applet. Most people got it. The MS vm does the job well. It’s fast enough, and there are few gc pauses.

[quote]So…it’s positively bad for the developer to use 1.1.
[/quote]
Who cares about the developer? The money comes first. If that means reaching as many people as possible by using java 1.1, then too bad for the developer. It’s not a technical issue, it’s a business desicion.

#20

[quote]Dumb troll.
[/quote]
Thank you for insulting me this way. I’ll answer the rest of your post when hell freezes over.