Hi Ozmodian
Could you please provide a few examples of the source code tutorials that you'd wish to have?

Yes Aceio, it was mentioned from the start that the money is transferred straight away, I really don't think the paypal supports it any other way. Also I've mentioned that some crowd funding sites like indie gogo will transfer all the funds even if the goal is not reached

(03-21-2013 09:58 AM)Esenthel Wrote:  Hi Ozmodian
Could you please provide a few examples of the source code tutorials that you'd wish to have?

Yes Aceio, it was mentioned from the start that the money is transferred straight away, I really don't think the paypal supports it any other way. Also I've mentioned that some crowd funding sites like indie gogo will transfer all the funds even if the goal is not reached

I really would like to here a reply from my message Greg even here np problem at all

Hello Candam, I've Pm'd you once that replies to such messages can take a few days thank you for your patience.
http://www.esenthel.com/community/showth...p?tid=3331

(03-21-2013 10:07 AM)Esenthel Wrote:  Hello Candam, I've Pm'd you once that replies to such messages can take a few days thank you for your patience.
http://www.esenthel.com/community/showth...p?tid=3331

Thank you Greg this reply is really enough for for now

(03-21-2013 09:58 AM)Esenthel Wrote:  Hi Ozmodian
Could you please provide a few examples of the source code tutorials that you'd wish to have?

Destructible (game and object) lol
Optimizations
Patcher


I can tell you don't like documenting/training
lol that's fine, I'll contribute to something more practical.

(03-21-2013 01:57 PM)gwald Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 09:58 AM)Esenthel Wrote:  Hi Ozmodian
Could you please provide a few examples of the source code tutorials that you'd wish to have?

Destructible (game and object) lol
Optimizations


I can tell you don't like documenting/training
lol that's fine, I'll contribute to something more practical.

Greg actually can do everything but I guess he cares more about developing the high priority features but I guess he will have to improve the documentation of the engine really soon because that's good for engine marketing to bring new comers easily to the engine

all needs time only Gwald

I partially have to agree with Aceio; The instant money transaction would be fine for features with a lower price-tag. But for things like the Hardware instancing ($3500), we could get up to $2500 donated and then stall. Meaning the community lost a lot of money without anything happening.

It's funny you mentioned 2500, because 25 people voted for it.
So that's 140 each, better make it 150-200 each just in case.

And the Hardware instancing, that's only for directX, everything else is unknown.
So, not sure how that's going to work.

---

Most wanted features
http://www.esenthel.com/community/showth...p?tid=6080

---

all needs time, money & sleep

TOTTEL Wrote:I partially have to agree with Aceio; The instant money transaction would be fine for features with a lower price-tag. But for things like the Hardware instancing ($3500), we could get up to $2500 donated and then stall. Meaning the community lost a lot of money without anything happening.

Esenthel has made it clear that everything on the roadmap will get worked on. Even if Hardware Instancing only makes it to $2500 it does not mean it will not get done. I don't see any problem with the money going out straight away. He does call it a donation is after all.

OpenGL and OpenGL ES both supports geometry instancing though.

Great Idea.... especially as it would show for everyone transparently why a feature is developed with higher priority.

And it would "democratize" the development process.

I'm personally sure I'm not the only one who would contribute 100$+ just so the engine itself (outside of mobile features) would get some love again (no offence, I like what I've seen from Esenthel Editor 2 so far, but the code editor and mobile editor... really?)...

And also, I think its a good way to get some additional cash from your users (which I'm sure you can use), and at the same time give the users something back: a transparent way to influence your dev priorities.

I higly approve of this idea!

(03-21-2013 07:54 PM)aceio76 Wrote:  Exactly my point Tottel. I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing it. It's one thing if I'm putting in money towards an investment where I know I could lose the money, but this one is to ENSURE THAT THE FEATURE IS THE PRIORITY. If I put money in, say $100USD, and the goal is never met, I basically threw that money away because that feature didn't become priority (regardless of it getting done some months later). If I'm content in knowing that the feature will eventually "get done" later on, what's the point of donating?? I would absolutely, definitely put money in on a feature I want to have priority but only if I know it will be a priority. In this current set up, it isn't clear what I'm putting money towards.

Ozmodian, please be VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS, the money is to PUT PRIORITY ON A SPECIFIC FEATURE, not just to "donate towards a feature". Big, big difference. I wanna help EE get more money, but it is irresponsible for me to just throw money away. I'm an indie gamedev, not an indie-pendently wealthy person. If the target of this engine isn't folks like me know can't afford to donate money into the wind, then the engine definitely (still) needs all the advanced features we're all hoping to get done sooner (per the polls) so that larger established teams will be attracted.

Knowing all this, I wonder how many others are going to "donate" towards a feature that will eventually get done anyway... because I have no confidence now that the highly preferred items (per the polls) will ever reach its goal, like the HW Instancing @ $3500USD. That's a lot of up-front donation not knowing if it will reach the goal to make it a #1 priority.

I think I may be getting your point but do you think if he improves the rules to make the highest contribution for a specific feature make it the only which should be developed I'm not sure I'm right or not

By Community choice "Dual range ambient occlusion" has just been funded and will now be developed in first priority

(03-27-2013 12:44 PM)Esenthel Wrote:  By Community choice "Dual range ambient occlusion" has just been funded and will now be developed in first priority

(03-21-2013 07:54 PM)aceio76 Wrote:  Exactly my point Tottel. I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing it. It's one thing if I'm putting in money towards an investment where I know I could lose the money, but this one is to ENSURE THAT THE FEATURE IS THE PRIORITY. If I put money in, say $100USD, and the goal is never met, I basically threw that money away because that feature didn't become priority (regardless of it getting done some months later). If I'm content in knowing that the feature will eventually "get done" later on, what's the point of donating?? I would absolutely, definitely put money in on a feature I want to have priority but only if I know it will be a priority. In this current set up, it isn't clear what I'm putting money towards.

Ozmodian, please be VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS, the money is to PUT PRIORITY ON A SPECIFIC FEATURE, not just to "donate towards a feature". Big, big difference. I wanna help EE get more money, but it is irresponsible for me to just throw money away. I'm an indie gamedev, not an indie-pendently wealthy person. If the target of this engine isn't folks like me know can't afford to donate money into the wind, then the engine definitely (still) needs all the advanced features we're all hoping to get done sooner (per the polls) so that larger established teams will be attracted.

Knowing all this, I wonder how many others are going to "donate" towards a feature that will eventually get done anyway... because I have no confidence now that the highly preferred items (per the polls) will ever reach its goal, like the HW Instancing @ $3500USD. That's a lot of up-front donation not knowing if it will reach the goal to make it a #1 priority.

This would of course be a major concern, but I'd personally deem the features to be worthwhile getting heightened priority after they reach about 20%/25%/30% of goal atleast if the feature on the list is like the Hardware instancing one which has a tag at 3500 getting 100% of goal would however also put it to be first priority until done.

Not sure what others and Esenthel thinks about something like this?

Personally I see this as an easy way of giving EE more money with atleast a chance of getting a late feature get to first priority.

(03-27-2013 01:17 PM)Zervox Wrote:  This would of course be a major concern, but I'd personally deem the features to be worthwhile getting heightened priority after they reach about 20%/25%/30% of goal atleast if the feature on the list is like the Hardware instancing one which has a tag at 3500 getting 100% of goal would however also put it to be first priority until done.

Not sure what others and Esenthel thinks about something like this?

That seems a very sensible suggestion and alleviates some of the concerns expressed.