Microsoft Buys Github for $7.5 Billion

[raevol]

I thought Blue was trolling?

[akortunov]

I can spare 1-2 hours at evening removing libraries like OpenAL, Qt, Boost over time.

I have a suspicion that only get rid of Qt will take a lot more time, even if you just decided to drop launcher and OpenMW-CS at all.
Also I do not understand which profit it gives for end-user.

[Blue]

I can spare 1-2 hours at evening removing libraries like OpenAL, Qt, Boost over time.

I have a suspicion that only get rid of Qt will take a lot more time, even if you just decided to drop launcher and OpenMW-CS at all.
Also I do not understand which profit it gives for end-user.

Actually, I think re implementing the launcher from scratch would be a lot more trivial and using the .NET specific C++/CLI (which I don't really like) designing a GUI application is a simple as it can get. OpenMW-CS, the Launcher and the Morrowind binary could and should really be separate build options. This would make things significantly easier.

@Psi29

We would love to have these potential developers come here and post. What's stopping them?

Both the inability to compile the source on Windows and as far as I remember being unfamiliar with OSG, they supposedly never used anything but DirectX.

How can OpenMW make the lives of Windows developers easier without sacrificing OpenMW platform agnosticism?

Well I started working on it. It would be Windows only. It's simply a response to the harsh building environment on Windows, an evolutionary process adapting to the environment. One has to do the job, each dependency I bring down means less hassle to compile OpenMW for new Windows native developers.

Lets assume we don't want to break platform independence:

1) There could at least be, as mentioned above, more build options. Does a simple launcher really have to be part of the default compilation process ? Vice versa, do I really need to compile the binary if I only want to work on the launcher ?

2) Does each part, especially referring to the launcher here, really need to be written in C++ or can't it be re implemented in a platform independent language if this language also features integrated GUI support (not by third party libraries). Java would do the job (even if I really hate to say it) for a simple GUI launcher or even CLI/C++ with Mono.

3) Does OpenMW need to use CMake ? It's the most ugly syntax in existence, but on each project there is always this one guy who can really handle it well and every other developer is at his mercy. Can't we create a build script for each platform ?

[psi29a]

You can choose to only make openmw and nothing else, then you'll not need the Qt library.

I don't understand the problem however, Origin's launcher is Qt based for example... why did they choose Qt when they don't have any cash-flow problems? Obviously it works for them and their developers. Why would Nvidia invest so much time and money into Qt to improve it's 3D capabilities? It's certainly not a toy GUI framework.

That aside, the launcher is the least of your problems because OpenMW-CS is written with Qt and that there is almost half the project.

How does knowing or not knowing about OSG prevent one from coming to forums and posting?

Many developers come here with absolutely zero knowledge of OSG and dive right into developing OpenMW, many of which never touch anything related to OSG.

That being said, AnyOldName3 is one such developer who wasn't familiar with OSG but just kept at it. I find it strange that people don't want to learn new things and use the excuse to not work on a project because it is not using DirectX. Why didn't they pop up when OpenMW was still using Ogre3D which had a DirectX renderer, we supported both OpenGL and DIrectX. I mean, if I was sitting across the desk vetting a potential new hire (which I do, but not in game development), I would be reluctant to hire someone that didn't want to step out of their comfort zone and learn new things.

If you have a better alternative to cmake, that's fine too, just propose one that works for the top 3 target platforms.
I would propose Mason:
https://mesonbuild.com

[Blue]

I don't understand the problem however, Origin's launcher is Qt based for example... why did they choose Qt when they don't have any cash-flow problems? Obviously it works for them and their developers. Why would Nvidia invest so much time and money into Qt to improve it's 3D capabilities? It's certainly not a toy GUI framework.

Qt isn't the problem, OpenMW using Qt appears to be one of the occurring problems when compiling. If you look around on the github OpenMW page, it's fairly frequent.

That aside, the launcher is the least of your problems because OpenMW-CS is written with Qt and that there is almost half the project.

So it's time to fix it .

Many developers come here with absolutely zero knowledge of OSG and dive right into developing OpenMW, many of which never touch anything related to OSG.

Many developers also come here knowing DirectX and are not eager to delve into another graphics abstraction layer. So they leave again. Do you think your average Windows DX developer is going to start using OSG ? Learning + getting it to compile is it a time commitment which appears to be completely unnecessary when you already know something perfectly working, like DirectX. It's only interesting for Linux developers. I outright dare to proclaim; If OpenMW would use DirectX exclusively we would have OpenSkyrim already. I suspect this forum underestimated the number of game engine developers familiar only with DirectX.

I mean, if I was sitting across the desk vetting a potential new hire (which I do, but not in game development), I would be reluctant to hire someone that didn't want to step out of their comfort zone and learn new things.

Because 'not willing to learn' isn't to be understand as a general statement, but a specific one only applying to this case.

If you have a better alternative to cmake, that's fine too, just propose one that works for the top 3 target platforms.
I would propose Mason:
https://mesonbuild.com

I will look into it.

[wareya]

DirectX isn't even an option. Now you're just trolling.

[Blue]

DirectX isn't even an option. Now you're just trolling.

I didn't say I want to use DirectX for OpenMW, please read my post and my previous posts again. I simply clarified, that it would have been a better option. But now we already have OSG.

[akortunov]

I simply clarified, that it would have been a better option.

No, it would not. There is no point to maintain different rendering systems on different platforms. Our graphics subsystem is already complex enough.

[AnyOldName3]

Most things that OpenMW needs to do can be done more easily by learning how to use OSG and then doing them in OSG than by knowing how to do them already in Direct3D/OpenGL and doing them there. Software development usually gets easier with abstraction layers, not harder, hence why new programmers are often trained with Python rather than x86 Assembly. OSG isn't just a cross-platform equivalent of Direct3D - it's a full-blown scene graph with loads of advanced features which we need and use.

[Blue]

I simply clarified, that it would have been a better option.

No, it would not. There is no point to maintain different rendering systems on different platforms. Our graphics subsystem is already complex enough.

This assumes I want to target multiple platforms...
Anyway, I will just continue de *nixing OpenMW upload to github and see if people jump on board for developing the Windows optimized version - and how fast we can proceed.