Carmack: Doom 3's engine ready for open-sourcing, awaiting 'OK' from legal

Re:Carmack: Doom 3's engine ready for open-sourcing, awaitin... by albertzeyer on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @05:02PM (#3188916)

I have read most of the Q3 code and really like it. And as you said, not much (or any) overhead.

What you write about D3 (i.e. idTech4) makes me a bit sad. How comes it? Less influence by Carmack? (Because he still seems to be the pragmatic guy to me.) Too often, when C++ is involved, I see much too complicated code. Whereby I still have the meaning that you can really end up in having simpler code with C++. (Well but that goes into the usual C vs. C++ ranting discussion.)

Do you have any knowledge about idTech5 (or maybe even idTech6) which you can share?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Carmack: Doom 3's engine ready for open-sourcing, awaitin... by i_c_b on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @05:23PM (#3189000)

I think by Doom3 id had reached a point where they needed a team of programmers, rather than Carmack + programmers orbiting Carmack. And so Doom3 represents their transition to dealing with all the software engineering / communication issues all of us on teams always have to deal with.

I don't have any knowledge of idTech5, although I would guess it goes further down the lineage of Doom3. id still has to find solutions to the problem of programmers working on teams, after all - no amount of Carmack genius is going to magically fix that all too banal (and inevitable) organizational challenge.

I had my fill of the industry by the mid-2000s and have been working on indie/experimental/violent educational games since, so that's roughly where my big iron engine knowledge fades...

[ Parent | on HN ]