[Steve_Yorkshire]

Still don't quite understand why we can't just have creators named in code comments around their code, but hey ...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[buckmaster]

I've contacted Dave Wyand about the possibility of keeping credit instead of assigning all copyright to GG. That would probably mean changing the OSA agreement. Incidentally, I've actually done just that when I imported a library to go with googletest. I asked GG about that and from what I remember, the answer was 'sure whatever'. The whole status of contributions (which are marked MIT and (c) GG) and libraries (many of which we have included in lib/ as source) is unclear to me. What's to stop us putting Andrew's code in lib/, keeping the same copyright, and using it?

The flipside of the coin is that I and a couple of other SC members want to see T3D becoming more 'distributed', so that improving the engine is less a question of pulling every single thing we can find into the main repo, but instead providing easy ways for users to discover addons, pull them down, integrate them, and rate them. That way Andrew can keep his code, and users can get it without it having to be in the core engine.

Finally, I personally feel that deferred shading is the way the engine will head, anyway, so porting LPV back to deferred lighting will become redundant in the future. Who knows how far that will be, but hopefully within the year.

Also, thanks for the kind words about Walkabout, Andrew .

[jay1ne]

Sound great! My reason for trying to port to lighting is because I was using 3.7..which currently uses lighting.
I wouldn't mind using shading (actually things look and operate just about the same on my cpu)..As I mentioned I have other shaders that were written for the lighting pipeline, so I would have to have those ported to shading and unfornately I'm not skilled in writting shaders to do it myself without help...so that's my reason for wanting the port.
Not saying the development for T3D is keeping me from moving forward with my project but I been trying to focus on the art side of the project until the engine was in a state I felt was stable and had certain features and tools..With the art side pretty much finishing up. I'm now looking at getting a prototype going..I would hate to have rocked with T3D all these years to only move the project to another engine because it lacked a feature I was looking to have...Yes the feature wouldn't make or break the game and how it plays but it would add to the graphical part of things. Having eye candy makes the game more attractive..You can't sell your game by words alone..Alot of ppl are visual, and by seeing eye candy in screenshots ppl make their decision by what they see, so having pretty feature(s) along with easy to use tools helps and draws attention to a engine.
Anyways is good to see different flavors of the engine..with lighting, shading, and PBS..but in my imo all of them should get the same attention but I'm not in the SC so its just my opinion..

[jay1ne]

Well since no one is wanting to help. Maybe if I was willing to paid for the help would that motive??
Well I'm willing to pay something if someone could do it. I can't pay alot because for one it's finished code that is just needing to be ported. And two it shouldn't be alot of work..If interested please PM me and we can neigotate!!!