Asphyre Sphinx 3.0.0 has been released.

[User137]

In my understanding, MIT license only protects itself but not the actual author: MIT license and its statement propagates easily, while author rights are eventually dissolved. I think it is most applicable to software that is intended to be illegal or violate some laws, so it is easily distributed yet remain more or less anonymous. One such example would be a P2P content sharing tool. I wouldn't recommend it for nxPascal project.

That does make me reconsider... If it would give more protection to nxPascal, while keeping it open source and available to different purposes, then i'd see the change beneficial.

Any reason why can't you build nxPascal on top of Asphyre, or as an extension of thereof, such as a combined project or something? (Especially now when it is on SVN.) Asphyre solves a lot of low-level tedious problems, while you could focus on actual high-level 3D stuff.

It is interesting offer, however i feel like current nxPascal might be more lightweight and faster in many areas It should be modular enough to be able to be used with Asphyre though. I could try make demo sometime where these 2 engines are merged together in 1 project. My first game engine was trying to expand on DelphiX, creating a visual component on form for game window. Later decided it was bad approach and went with something more generic, that doesn't need any components installed. That is why it can blend with any engine. Clashes can come with math and types though, but propably not much.

I was interested in quaternions today, but found also source from Irrlicht engine. That and implementing operator overloading for fpc for vector, matrix and quaternion math. nxPascal should work on most Lazarus versions (with all operating systems), and possibly Delphi 3 or 5 onwards.

[LP]

It is interesting offer, however i feel like current nxPascal might be more lightweight and faster in many areas

Err, I wouldn't make such claims before doing any performance benchmarks first.

Lightweight characteristic is also debatable as Asphyre uses nothing but its own features with the only exception being its GUI framework. Typical Asphyre-based applications compiled in Delphi 2007 occupy less than 700 Kb. (Check its compiled examples in "\Examples\Delphi2007\").

Delphi 2009+ and FPC/Lazarus applications are bigger due to Unicode in first case and LCL in the second one. Neither of those are related to Asphyre itself.

If you are referring to Asphyre's reliance on VCL/LCL application types, they are both great frameworks and people use them. In your case, as long as you rely on GLUT, your code is not so "lightweight" either.

nxPascal should work on most Lazarus versions (with all operating systems), and possibly Delphi 3 or 5 onwards.

I can understand the point regarding Delphi, as purchasing different Delphi versions can be expensive, but I don't see any reason why you wouldn't use latest official FPC/Lazarus version as long as it is not broken or something (and even in this case, you can update from trunk rather than keep using some outdated version).

[AirPas]

finally Asphyre for lazarus , how about the performance i mean between lazarus and delphi which one produce fast code ! , in my machine delphi is faster but just 4 or 5% iam sure with FPC 2.7.1 the result would be much faster , due to the new optimization O4.
in lazarus it would be better if you define the paths like so :
..\..\..\..\Source;..\..\..\..\Source\Providers;.. \..\..\..\Source\Headers;..\..\..\..\Source\GUI


thanks for the update and keep it up

[User137]

how about the performance i mean between lazarus and delphi which one produce fast code !

Does it matter, lol. Make game with both, and player won't notice any difference.

[LP]

finally Asphyre for lazarus , how about the performance i mean between lazarus and delphi which one produce fast code ! , in my machine delphi is faster but just 4 or 5% iam sure with FPC 2.7.1 the result would be much faster , due to the new optimization O4.

Compiled examples with optimization enabled have very similar performance. From my perspective, both compilers optimize the code pretty well.

in lazarus it would be better if you define the paths like so :
..\..\..\..\Source;..\..\..\..\Source\Providers;.. \..\..\..\Source\Headers;..\..\..\..\Source\GUI

Yes, I've updated all paths to be like this, you can update from the trunk. Later today I'll publish another Asphyre version.