About C4 Engine

9c9734e96b805b42d88f2a6b88337600
0
Scheck 101 Apr 08, 2010 at 01:16

I’m really disappointed with the attitude of Eric and his team over Terathon Software. I just posted a message, asking about C4 Engine and it’s future, and i had the thread deleted, as well as my user account, with no satisfaction at all.

This only shows that they are AFRAID of their competition and don’t want to explain themselves to their customer base. I feel ripped off.

Posted over C4 Engine forums and deleted without any further notice:

It’s been a long time since C4 Engine was last updated and this worries me. What do you guys have planned for the future? What are your plans for keeping C4 Engine competitive? Currently, C4 Engine is technically outdated compared to other solutions and offers no real reason for us to choose it over other available solutions. Your website is outdated, the documentation is outdated, even the news page is outdated.

It’s not easy to use and friendly as Torque 3D or Unity, it’s not powerful as Leadwerks or Esenthel, and let’s not even compare it with UDK. Yet, we are still limited by the Standard Edition, having to purchase Professional and Industrial licenses to actually create something commercial.

Why should we use it when we have so many good options out there? Why should we purchase C4 if we can have Unreal Engine 3 for commercial purposes? Or Unity? Or Torque? Or even Leadwerks!

14 Replies

Please log in or register to post a reply.

A638aa42130293f319eda7fa4ba121f4
0
fireside 141 Apr 08, 2010 at 01:28

I’m not sure where you posted this question, but the forums are normally for people who are using the engine that need help in development. Questions like this really have no place on an engine forum except possibly in the chit chat type area if it has one. Myself, if an engine hasn’t been updated in more than a year, I tend to avoid it. Ask questions that are relevant. Is there an update coming soon? Or ask about features you want to know if the engine has and they aren’t listed in the features section. Your question is obnoxious and it might be a good idea to learn a little tact. I don’t have any affiliation with C4, btw. Haven’t used it.

7daed93f96b8b5160b47af2f68a4bc86
0
zebeste 101 Apr 08, 2010 at 02:03

@Scheck

C4 Engine is technically outdated compared to other solutions and offers no real reason for us to choose it over other available solutions.

Instead of just stating this like this is fact, how about actually providing supporting evidence?

@Scheck

It’s not easy to use and friendly as Torque 3D or Unity, it’s not powerful as Leadwerks or Esenthel, and let’s not even compare it with UDK.

Do you actually own C4? I don’t see any evidence that you do, and if you don’t, that means you’ve never developed with it, in which case you wouldn’t be able to fairly judge how easy it is to use.

@Scheck

we are still limited by the Standard Edition, having to purchase Professional and Industrial licenses to actually create something commercial.

Uh, what? The difference between the Standard version and other versions is that you have to have the professional version if you have a publishing deal (or if you want to develop for the PS3, but you would have to have access to the PS3 SDK, which is not cheap or easy to obtain). They have the same features, and you CAN create a commercial game with the Standard version.

@Scheck

Why should we use it when we have so many good options out there? Why should we purchase C4 if we can have Unreal Engine 3 for commercial purposes? Or Unity? Or Torque? Or even Leadwerks!

You were leading the thread into an engine comparison thread, which is very clearly stated to be against the rules on the C4 forums. Comparison threads tend to start out fine, but they have a tendency to turn into out of control arguments, so they are left to other sites like devmaster or gamedev.

A8433b04cb41dd57113740b779f61acb
0
Reedbeta 167 Apr 08, 2010 at 02:13

@fireside

Your question is obnoxious and it might be a good idea to learn a little tact.

Maybe it’s phrased obnoxiously, but the core question is a perfectly fair one, and that doesn’t excuse the forum mods’ behavior if, as reported, they deleted the post and banned the user. Professional developers can’t afford to let people get under their skin like that! :D IMHO, the right way to respond to a post like this is to answer calmly, professionally, and honestly, and simply to ignore any parts you find offensive. Now if it were a complete troll or rant on the other hand, with no reasonable concern or question at the center, deletion would be better justified.

7daed93f96b8b5160b47af2f68a4bc86
0
zebeste 101 Apr 08, 2010 at 03:12

Those pictures you are showing just show art. Go look at the gallery for things like blitz3d and you can find ridiculously impressive images, despite the fact that it uses DirectX 7, doesn’t support shadows, only has basic collision detection, has no scene management, and has slow performance. Engines that have larger user bases, such as Unity and Torque, are more likely to output impressive images. Also, things like the Esenthal video merely show a model in a basic scene. It doesn’t demonstrate things like animations, sound, physics, multitasking, terrain features, scene management, etc all working together. My point, ANY engine can look good with good art (anyone with significant experience making games will probably agree with me on that), the real test is how it works with everything else a game requires.

All engines have their strengths and weaknesses, both in features and licensing terms. Yes, there is a free version of Unity, and Unity is supposed to be nice to work with, but if you want shadows you have to pay $1500 dollars. What is the royalties for UDK? 25% if I remember right. Its nice for doing stuff because it is powerful and free, but once you start selling something, there is the potential that you have to pay more to use it (@25% royalties, every $1000 you get means you pay $250 for the engine). I personally don’t think this is a bad deal, but you are paying more in the long run.

If you want to talk about features, yes C4 doesn’t have stuff like HDR and other effects that would be nice (soft shadows being the biggie, but they are on the roadmap), but it also has stuff that most engines don’t: voxel terrain (which I’ll admit may be project specific), a graphical shading editor which guarantees that your shaders will work exactly the same on all hardware that C4 supports, and will work with all light types, even ones that may not be in the engine yet.

The point I am trying to make is that I am the opinion that every engine has its merits, and I don’t think it’s fair to just say one is better than the other.

Also, how many of these engines have you actually developed with?

5275174951cb1073dfb870b277a2ae83
0
Stewie 101 Apr 08, 2010 at 03:38

Scheck, your post sure sounds like trolling to me. I’m not surprised in the least that it got deleted. Your comments were written like they were hostile and meant for creating FUD. Furthermore, not one statement you made was correct or even in the slightest bit informed. Your post sounds like you had already made up your mind about the engine, and you only posted because you like to start fights. Why wouldn’t they delete it?

The fact that you saved a copy of your post shows you *expected* it to be deleted, which means you knew you were not acting in a way that other people would find tasteful. And yet, you did it anyway, so you were clearly ill-intentioned.

Here are a few things you crapped out of your mouth:

>> It’s been a long time since C4 Engine was last updated

It’s been 11 months since a *public demo* release was made, but licensed users have been getting a steady stream of updates with very nice stuff in them. They’re waiting for the new physics to be done before a new demo is released.

>> C4 Engine is technically outdated compared to other solutions.

I have to strongly disagree. In fact, there are many features in C4 that you can’t get in other engines, like voxel terrain. (Yes, I know Crytek has it, but only on a smaller scale, and you can’t afford it.) Furthermore, everything actually *works*, compared to the bug-infested garbage you often get with the other engines you mentioned.

>> Your website is outdated, the documentation is outdated, even the news page is outdated.

I don’t think so. In fact, the documentation has already been updated to reflect new features that haven’t even been released yet. They’ve made an effort to make information about future tech available. And the news page has been updated very recently as well.

>> Yet, we are still limited by the Standard Edition, having to purchase Professional and Industrial licenses to actually create something commercial.

This is just a completely wrong statement. Every single feature in the engine is available in the standard edition, and you’re allowed to sell your game without paying any royalties. I’d like to see Torque, Unity, or UDK claim that. Oh, right, they can’t.

>> I feel ripped off.

How can you be ripped off if you’re not a customer? Nothing but FUD.

8676d29610e6c98d6dd2d9c38528cd9c
0
alphadog 101 Apr 12, 2010 at 00:25

@Scheck

This only shows that they are AFRAID of their competition and don’t want to explain themselves to their customer base. I feel ripped off.

Don’t confuse their unfortunate act of alleged censorship (a screenshot would be better than the cut-and-paste) as implying you are anywhere near accurate and have somehow exposed something unspoken. The first does not imply the second.

If you have an actual issue, be specific. Your frustration would have perhaps been forgiven if you had actually illustrated a few real, specific, comparative issues.

1e92b80ecc17a381aca54a13ca8ae041
0
Hboybowen 101 Apr 15, 2010 at 05:32

@zebeste

Those pictures you are showing just show art. Go look at the gallery for things like blitz3d and you can find ridiculously impressive images, despite the fact that it uses DirectX 7, doesn’t support shadows, only has basic collision detection, has no scene management, and has slow performance. Engines that have larger user bases, such as Unity and Torque, are more likely to output impressive images. Also, things like the Esenthal video merely show a model in a basic scene. It doesn’t demonstrate things like animations, sound, physics, multitasking, terrain features, scene management, etc all working together. My point, ANY engine can look good with good art (anyone with significant experience making games will probably agree with me on that), the real test is how it works with everything else a game requires.

All engines have their strengths and weaknesses, both in features and licensing terms. Yes, there is a free version of Unity, and Unity is supposed to be nice to work with, but if you want shadows you have to pay $1500 dollars. What is the royalties for UDK? 25% if I remember right. Its nice for doing stuff because it is powerful and free, but once you start selling something, there is the potential that you have to pay more to use it (@25% royalties, every $1000 you get means you pay $250 for the engine). I personally don’t think this is a bad deal, but you are paying more in the long run.

If you want to talk about features, yes C4 doesn’t have stuff like HDR and other effects that would be nice (soft shadows being the biggie, but they are on the roadmap), but it also has stuff that most engines don’t: voxel terrain (which I’ll admit may be project specific), a graphical shading editor which guarantees that your shaders will work exactly the same on all hardware that C4 supports, and will work with all light types, even ones that may not be in the engine yet.

The point I am trying to make is that I am the opinion that every engine has its merits, and I don’t think it’s fair to just say one is better than the other.

Also, how many of these engines have you actually developed with?

lol Leadwerks has all that stuff and then some the devs stay in contact with users and answer questions.So I know you will still say C4 is the best but it isnt.I dont even know why Project Reality wants to use this engine it is very unattractive and does seem outdated compared to everything else…

A8ad6ed2ccabff274cfa91dbbe500c96
0
Grandmaster_B 101 Apr 15, 2010 at 12:06

@Scheck

I’m really disappointed with the attitude of Eric and his team over Terathon Software. I just posted a message, asking about C4 Engine and it’s future, and i had the thread deleted, as well as my user account, with no satisfaction at all.

This only shows that they are AFRAID of their competition and don’t want to explain themselves to their customer base. I feel ripped off.

It’s been a long time since C4 Engine was last updated and this worries me. What do you guys have planned for the future? What are your plans for keeping C4 Engine competitive? Currently, C4 Engine is technically outdated compared to other solutions and offers no real reason for us to choose it over other available solutions. Your website is outdated, the documentation is outdated, even the news page is outdated.

It’s not easy to use and friendly as Torque 3D or Unity, it’s not powerful as Leadwerks or Esenthel, and let’s not even compare it with UDK. Yet, we are still limited by the Standard Edition, having to purchase Professional and Industrial licenses to actually create something commercial.

Why should we use it when we have so many good options out there? Why should we purchase C4 if we can have Unreal Engine 3 for commercial purposes? Or Unity? Or Torque? Or even Leadwerks!

Honestly, i can not agree with you at all. Your opinion about game engines seem biased, especially Leadwerks is not a very good engine for actual game development (read: not tech demos). And i dont see the point of your post here and at the C4 forum, you dont seem to consider C4 at all why should they bother with you at all? Besides you seem to not understand the different kind of game engines when you compare Unity and C4.

A8ad6ed2ccabff274cfa91dbbe500c96
0
Grandmaster_B 101 Apr 15, 2010 at 12:24

@Hboybowen

lol Leadwerks has all that stuff and then some the devs stay in contact with users and answer questions.So I know you will still say C4 is the best but it isnt.I dont even know why Project Reality wants to use this engine it is very unattractive and does seem outdated compared to everything else…

He has not said that C4 is the best. And i wonder if your “comparison” is also based on watching YouTube videos…

I think Zebeste has explained it very well.

3f057eafe7367efb8e1e34c9d64527ec
0
Frank_Skilton 101 Apr 15, 2010 at 15:22

It’s been a long time since C4 Engine was last updated

Last update was March 9th. Prior to that January 28th. Yes updates have been slower than usual however this is due to the nature of what’s being released. A full featured, custom in-house physics system. That and a seamless voxel-based geomip terrain LOD algorithm.

C4 Engine is technically outdated compared to other solutions and offers no real reason for us to choose it over other available solutions.

If you feel that way, and you are entitled to, why bother posting on the C4 forums at all? What could you possible have to gain? I can think of several reasons to use C4: Complete source code, free updates for life, voxel based terrain, shader editor, graphical scripting language, highly competitive pricing…

Your website is outdated, the documentation is outdated, even the news page is outdated.

False, false and false. News section is up to date and regularly updated. API reference is also up to date and well maintained, a lot better than other engines I’ve used (if they even have an API document).

It’s not easy to use and friendly as Torque 3D or Unity, it’s not powerful as Leadwerks or Esenthel, and let’s not even compare it with UDK.

Why isn’t C4 as user friendly? It contains a full featured world editor, material editor, shader editor, script editor, model viewer, texture viewer, font importer and related tools, audio previewer, movie player, panel GUI editor etc. Maybe if you went into a little depth about what you are experiencing problems with your statement would hold some weight.

Yet, we are still limited by the Standard Edition, having to purchase Professional and Industrial licenses to actually create something commercial.

What!? :blink: There is no limitation, only an affordable and fair licensing option for the independent developer. You can release a game, need not pay any royalties and the main requirement is that you don’t have a commercial publisher. So what’s the problem? Nearly all competing engines have separate ‘Indy’ and ‘commercial’ licensing options, how is that ‘limiting’? It is quite the opposite actually.

Why should we use it when we have so many good options out there? Why should we purchase C4 if we can have Unreal Engine 3 for commercial purposes? Or Unity? Or Torque? Or even Leadwerks!

Indeed. C4 is a fine engine however those other engines are great too. Each will have their differing strengths and weaknesses, you need to find the tool that fits you. So, why waste time bitching and bad mouthing a good product and an honest company? Go license Unreal, Unity, Torque or whatever and have at it - I’m certain that those other engines are perfect and will present you with no shortcomings or obstacles, unlike C4. :rolleyes:

@Scheck

I’m really disappointed with the attitude of Eric and his team over Terathon Software. I just posted a message, asking about C4 Engine and it’s future, and i had the thread deleted, as well as my user account, with no satisfaction at all.

This would annoy me too but your post did come across rather insulting.

This only shows that they are AFRAID of their competition and don’t want to explain themselves to their customer base. I feel ripped off.

What does Terathon have to fear? You are not a customer. I am a customer and I know exactly where the engine is at and where it’s heading. Development always has been and continues to be quite transparent. With all due respect, you need to wake up to yourself.

620d64360f87e70ea3f30106a68989a8
0
Rofar 101 Apr 15, 2010 at 16:12

I’ll have to say I did not see anything wrong with the original post. It did not come across obnoxious or mean spirited in any way to me. Then again, I’m not a C4 customer so maybe that makes a difference.
It seems to me just some questions about the state of the engine with some reasoning behind why he is asking those questions.

7daed93f96b8b5160b47af2f68a4bc86
0
zebeste 101 Apr 15, 2010 at 19:53

It’s mostly that the post he made seems to criticize C4 without any justification. If he actually justified his claims I would be less upset at the post. It’s also that he posted false information, the most concerning of which is his huge misrepresentation of the licensing terms.

Now, I can see someone being concerned about the appearance of inactivity because the development of the engine has been less visible to non-licensee’s as a result of the time Eric’s needed to implement the physics (in other words updates are less frequent because the one he’s working on is massive). But he has been supplying those of with a license access to a lot of his work through the private forums that only people with license can access, and also through alpha builds.

But yes, being a C4 licensee like me or Frank means that we have a better idea of what is happening behind the scenes, so we probably view posts like the Op’s differently than non-licensee’s.

3f057eafe7367efb8e1e34c9d64527ec
0
Frank_Skilton 101 Apr 16, 2010 at 02:50

@Rofar

I’ll have to say I did not see anything wrong with the original post. It did not come across obnoxious or mean spirited in any way to me. Then again, I’m not a C4 customer so maybe that makes a difference.
It seems to me just some questions about the state of the engine with some reasoning behind why he is asking those questions.

The problem is that his post contains false and subjective statements. Additionally, most points, although worded as a question, were actually being used as a statement to seemingly attack the engine.

It’s been a long time since C4 Engine was last updated and this worries me. What do you guys have planned for the future? What are your plans for keeping C4 Engine competitive?

\^ Fair, straight forward question - it deserves an answer.

Currently, C4 Engine is technically outdated compared to other solutions and offers no real reason for us to choose it over other available solutions.

\^ Subjective/False.

Your website is outdated, the documentation is outdated, even the news page is outdated.

\^ False.

It’s not easy to use and friendly as Torque 3D or Unity, it’s not powerful as Leadwerks or Esenthel, and let’s not even compare it with UDK.

\^ Subjective/False and the last statement really makes it difficult to not interpret this as an attack.

Yet, we are still limited by the Standard Edition, having to purchase Professional and Industrial licenses to actually create something commercial.

\^ Blatantly False.

As to whether or not the post should have been deleted and his forum account banned, that’s another question. Impossible to make a judgement on that without all the facts and only one side of the story.