Waiting...................

Started by cajomi, May 26, 2007, 03:47:31 am

Previous topic - Next topic

Drocket

I wasn't going to post on this thread but what the heck :)

Like a lot of people I too paid for the deep + animation, the reason was two fold.
1. I want to see TG2 become something exceptional so I hope the money I spent helps, the developers do this.
2. I thought the price offered was exceptional and still see it as a good bargain, I bought the software for what it can do now, and it does some incredible things.

I have every faith in Planetside and that they will release TG2 when they said they will, if they don't then it is no big deal as long as they carry on fixing and updating it to get to the release stage.

Software takes time to develop, test and finally release and software as complicated as TG2 takes longer so I take it as a good thing that we don't hear from the developers very often. I don't know what Oshyans involvement is with Planetside but he is always on the forums and always willing to help out if people ask for the help (as do other users on the forums).

I know there are issues with TG2 in it's current state (I have a terrain I am trying to render now and it crashes when I try to render at 1920x1200) but what software hasn't got issues and TG2 is a tech preview. Sure, Planetside could probably release quicker updates but this takes time away from actually developing, every release has to be built, tested, web site updated and customers informed so this is no quick procedure.

Cajomi, I don't know what information you need but can't you email/PM Matt or someone directly at Planetside to get the information?

Anyway, back to the render :)

Drocket.

The Geostation

May 28, 2007, 02:05:55 pm #46 Last Edit: May 28, 2007, 02:51:55 pm by The Geostation
Quote from: cajomi on May 28, 2007, 07:25:15 am
And yes, I am definitly tired of those post, saying, I have no problem, so TG2 is the best, it must be you who have problems. For havens sake, we are talking about improvements of a software, so why this permanent personal perspective?


Hi Cajomi, my post was recognising the fact that we all have different preferences with regards to user interfaces.   I am sure you have your preference (as reflected in your own software), and I have mine (as coincidentally reflected in Matt's software).   I want to say "Matt, don't change the general principles of your user-interface, although I am sure it can evolve in a way that keeps these principles".

I have absolutely no problem with the Planetside's direction in their development of software.   In fact I APPLAUD IT.   OK it's not perfect, but I believe that Matt is doing a fantastic job and approaching the software in a wonderful, original and logical way.

Quote from: cajomi on May 28, 2007, 07:25:15 am
Quoteand TG2TP represents my ideal interface (which you are having difficulties with),

This is a classical personal attack, comes friendly, but who says, that attacks can not be wrapped in a nice paper?


How is it a personal attack?   If you printed out the whole sentence you would see that I ALSO observe my own difficulties and limitations with using Geo-Control and Vue 5.   See below:

"My observation is that if you think that Geo-Control represents your ideal interface (an interface which I couldn't get my head around), and TG2TP represents my ideal interface (which you are having difficulties with), then it kind of illustrates that different people like different ways of doing the same thing."

So if we include the first half of my sentence, are you are implying that I am personally attacking myself????(!!!!).   I would have given you the benefit of the doubt if you hadn't chopped my sentence, instead it now leads me to question your motive and whether you are trying to sideline me as a supporter of Planetside.   I hope that is not your motive and that you will be looking at ways in which Geo-Control can work with TG2 (i.e. plug-ins?).   If you want to find out more about how to interface with TG2, then why not send Matt an email and maybe discuss over the phone?

Please DO NOT misunderstand my motives.   My motives are to:
a) ensure that we have a diverse set of landscape tools, which will cater for different artists with different ways of working
b) ensure that Planetside (who I support as an artist) is given due respect for their efforts and business
c) to show honest respect and understanding in my postings - while reserving the right to communicate my preferences and observations.

Andrew
Andrew Randle
The Geostation

latego

I remember Dec 15th (wavy screen effect...).

I was eagerly waiting for the "thing", anxious also for the download size (as I was still on a 4KB/s modem and I was expecting a 20 to 40 MB download).

Then came the announce and I jumped to the download URL.

I clicked it, and was about to go make myself a coffee (it cannot be less than one and half hour, can it be?)... but, instead of the expected size, it was a 2.8MB setup... HOW DID they manage to do THAT? I know NO C++ GUI library which allows you to create complex programs of such a tiny size!

After having installed the "thing" I immediately took out my devel tools to fathom which GUI library "they" had used... and I got a most crushing shock: "they" had built their own GUI layer! (just have a look at the Terragen_2.ucr subdirectory inside TG2TP installation where you can find UI-related configuration files).

Haha!!! (Blues Brothers like light-from-the-sky effect...) THIS is THE reason why they are taking YEARS to build the program! Instead of leveraging a GUI toolkit like Qt http://www.trolltech.com/ or wxWidgets http://www.trolltech.com/ they are wasting their time in non-TG related coding!

I stress WASTING; I am a C++ developer since 1991 and, given the fact that there are POWERFUL, PROVEN, TESTED and PORTABLE GUI toolkits for C++ there is NO reason whatsoever to start you own one (I have used OWL, MFC, wxWidgets and Qt, so I know something about this subject..).

One does not buy TG2 for its GUI toolkit: one buys it for its functionality, quality, workflow and performace. Using wxWidgets or Qt one single programmer could write TG2 current interface better and in not more than 6 months, leaving all the remaining time for TG2 real functionality development and testing.

If money was a problem, wxWidgets is ABSOLUTELY free also for closed source apps (if you don't believe it, just read its license), if money was not a problem, download Qt and get out your credit card... it's just that easy.

Just have a look at Vue6 Personal Learning Edition. It is written with MFC (mfc71u.dll gives this fact away). It has an almost Windows-standard GUI, I started to use it immediately and in a couple of hours I was tweeking complex shaders... with nothing more than a couple of tutorials on my experience. By the way, some time ago, on Renderosity Vue forum one person gave the URL of a very old Vue demo. I downloaded it and having a look at its innards, I saw OWL dlls...

The moral: I am waiting for Intels E6700's to become a bit cheaper in order to build a new computer in order to run Vue6Infinite... (and also for work  ;)). Sorry, TG2 skies are still better than Vue6 ones, but everything else is a 1 minute point-and-click task (just compare a Vue ecosystem with TG2 populations). I estimate that Vue6 is 5/6 times faster for medium quality renders; I cannot assess the ratio for high quality ones because I did not end any of them (when, after 40 minutes, the startfield phase it not over, you can sense that something it not all right, don't you?).

One has to be realistic about development effort. If you are just two developers, you have four hand, 4 eyes and 4 brain hemispheres and NOTHING more: then you assess what you can do and decide what you can and CANNOT build. Dreams are beautiful, but then comes the sunrise and all that is left is the cold, merciless reality.

Sorry...

P.S.: Vue resource problems are almost all related to Poser imports: if you are not in the soft (or not so soft) porn business, you could not care less about Poser.

Will

Just a little sid enote for the above, for medium quality rendering the two are pretty much equal for each other (at least in my experence) though hight quality renders are faster in VUE 6 Infinite.

Regards,

Will
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

monks

QuoteTo use a mask, you have to do many things, to get it working. Fitting is not easy, because the preview does not show the fine details you need for example for flowmaps (left corner, center?).


I had a problem with this- it irritated me for a few hours, but once I worked it out (in this case that meant searching the forums), it seems like a reasonable start for a pre-beta software. These forums are a great resource already.

QuoteAfter changing the size of an imported terrain, you have to readjust all masks.


I agree, this is a problem (I currently have the task of changing about 15 of them to match terrain re-scaling:)) but one would think that Matt would give precedence to developing TG's native selection methods, rather than image map selections, because the firstthing you do is make sure that the app works within itself, then you concentrate on features that will make the app work better with other programs (ie imported image masks). If it's a choice between the two, you're gonna go with the former.

QuoteI am missing there an alphachannel that is separated from the fractal breakup and that has the option to fit simply to the heightfield. A slider, which produces a total overaly with the mask in the breakup, does not make much sense to me.


I found the notion of setting the fractal breakup coverage to 0.5 to use an image map unintuitive, but it makes sense in context- at least it remains consistent with the rest of the UI. Personally I would prefer it if it was simply an alpha channel input if only because I'm a newbie to the software. No doubt someone more versed in the possibilities of the current setup could convince me to the contrary.
I think my initial experiences with image map import probably has a lot in common with your own Cajomi. I found that the real complication of learning to use image masks was due to the fact that you have to set a few settings (which are not centralised to a single node/dialog say), scale, position, coverage. There's the minor detail that the fractal breakup input serves as the alpha mask, knowing that was a big help for me. That difficulty was compounded by the fact that TG (on one occasion that I know of) reset one of these key settings on reopening (can't remember which). But that falls under the category of a newbie using pre-beta software....you're gonna have problems right? :)


QuoteIt is not a philosophie or religion, but simply what functions do you need to realize your ideas. So it is also (for example) not a question of Vue or TG2, but for what do you want to use them.



I would argue that a lot of the functions are there but at the moment one needs a fair degree of competence to utilise them for certain things. Take BigBen's and Harvey's recent posts on selecting terrain by orientation. I would argue that these kinds of functions- specific to *terrain* as opposed to *rendering* should be encapsulated. OK, so that's where macros come in, but again one could argue that the problem falls into the category of pre-beta status of TG2. That's also where communities come in- it's often thanks to people that solutions are found.

QuoteIt is not only the erosion, but even more the changes of materials (which is reflected in the flowmap) which is visible in nature. And to use this features of the upcoming GC2 in TG2 the workflow with masks is very important.


Yes, this is basically the whole debate about giving more weight to terrain as a natural phenomenon as opposed to a terrain model. Give the user terrain specific functionality (as opposed to programmable functionality). I think this will become more the responsibility for the terrain modellers rather than the renderers because in order to advance, the two (terrain creation -> texture map generation) need to be more directly linked than they are at present. For that determinism to happen, you really need the same app creating the terrain AND the textures. Erosion is a classic example- you get your flow and deposition maps generated from terrain creation and export them to your renderer. Renderers don't build terrain and if you want your terrain to look that good (realistic) then you really shouldn't be relying on a renderer to do 'all of that' out of the box. I know that some do go some way: WCS and Vue. Of the two, WCS can do this with ease because most of its users work in the GIS industry and therefore have access to GIS data sets (basically selections from terrain), so it doesn't require that WCS built the terrain. Vue has its ecosystems but then Vue is further along in its development in such complimentary features- and I'd certainly hazard that they are no match for WCS in that regard.
However, I agree with you Cajome, that there are some basic things which could be implemented in the renderer here and now- such as selection by orientation- specifically terrain characteristics which are known to directly influence textures and object placement.


I think TG is a first class (if not world class) app and I fully expect it to go from strength to strength; I bought the Deep + animation version. No worries here,  ;D


monks 

DeathTwister

Hay brother Monks good to see you brother again,

  Hay you got me thinking and I have seen other posts here about the render engine problem that tgd2 has.  And I agree it is a huge issue in many ways.
I think the main problem is that it renders everything, even the terrain and more important the water that you do not see as well as what we can see in the final render window.  If the render engine would just render what is in front of the camera, nothing more, the render time would be less then half of the time it is taking now.
A render engine like 3D Max, XSI and other renderer's seem to while they use 2 sided mat, still only render in the full render what you can actually see with the cameras and not what is behind the next hill/mountain or the water under the mountains and under the ground that you cannot see. As it is it renders everything in the scene backs sides and all.  That sure would help speed up the pipeline very much just in that one area alone.
  So while I am not a programmer or elegant speaking like Monks just posted (good going by the way) I feel this sure would help all of us on our tgd2 road to success.
Bryce is another engine that renders like tgd2 now does, and that, was, and is, one of it's main failings in my opinion, even though you have to take the ray tracing into account and for some reason that is even worse when rendering using ray trace, but I have not used the ray trace funtion in tgd2 yet as I know how very pricy it is to use in any app when using renderer's. I really need to buy the full deep version soon, just to see how much slower when using anti-aliasing at 10 would be and the effect it could have on my images, for that alone I need to buy the deep version, even it it would take 4 times longer to render. And I am just using the free demo version atm. The water shaders seem to slow it down the most and fastest of them all in the render engine it seems to me.

DT
Maylock Aromy DeathTwister Stansbury
ATOMIX Productions

jo

Hi Harvey,

Quote from: Harvey Birdman on May 28, 2007, 06:59:29 am
It seems there are serious signs of discontent in the user base. We are promised an official response soon... . These descriptions of TG being a 'spare time project' are a bit disconcerting. As I said earlier I too paid for the preview and felt I received a fair value for the money. BUT!! it was also understood that I was helping to fund/spur development of the final completed product and I was under the impression that I was dealing with a serious entreprenurial venture.


We certainly don't describe TG as being a 'spare time project', it's a full time job and has been for a long time. It's what Matt and I do for a living, it is our job, it's what we do. It's only fairly recently compared to how long I've been involved with Planetside that I've had much spare time (like having weekends, for example) and I'm certainly not working on TG in that spare time ;-). Your registration certainly helped fund and spur the development because, speaking for myself, if nobody registered I would have to go and find a job somewhere else. All my income comes from your registrations, I don't have another job on the side which keeps body and soul together while I mess about with TG just for something to do with my spare time.

Regards,

Jo

sonshine777

May 28, 2007, 11:41:44 pm #52 Last Edit: May 28, 2007, 11:44:01 pm by sonshine777
Bravo Jo,
   I don't think some people understand trying to make a quality product on a limited budget and manpower takes time. I am glad that you do take weekends off, it is good for mind and body to pause at least once a week. I for one am behind you all the way, and can wait until it is the way you want it (invisioned it)  to be. Keep up the great work. :)

Harvey Birdman

Quote from: jo on May 28, 2007, 11:16:31 pm
Hi Harvey ...

We certainly don't describe TG as being a 'spare time project', it's a full time job and has been for a long time. It's what Matt and I do for a living, it is our job, it's what we do. It's only fairly recently compared to how long I've been involved with Planetside that I've had much spare time (like having weekends, for example) and I'm certainly not working on TG in that spare time ;-). Your registration certainly helped fund and spur the development because, speaking for myself, if nobody registered I would have to go and find a job somewhere else. All my income comes from your registrations, I don't have another job on the side which keeps body and soul together while I mess about with TG just for something to do with my spare time.

Regards,

Jo


I am reassured. I know how hard it is to try to keep oneself fed with the proceeds of a software venture. I didn't mean to offend you or make you feel that your efforts were unappreciated.

jo

Hi latego,

I'd just like to respond to what you're saying about C++ GUI toolkits. I'm the author of the one TG2 uses. We have good reasons for reinventing the wheel in this case. To my mind there are only two cross platform C++ GUI toolkits worth looking at, wxWidgets and Qt.

I worked on MojoWorld for about 7 or 8 months prior to its final release, back in 2001 I guess. My job was to get the Mac version working, when I started it was non-functional. MojoWorld uses wxWidgets, or wxWindows as it was then. The wxMac was very basic then, I'm not sure it was even completely Carbon compatible, but I had to spend a lot of time implementing new stuff and fixing other stuff, pretty much in parallel with Stefan Csomor who seemed to be about the only other person working on wxMac at the time. I had to spend an awful lot of time elbow deep in the framework, and that has put me off using it since. I also didn't like the general approach and API design much, it was very Win32 centric. I'm sure it has improved greatly since then and for a while I did follow it with interest, but my early experience with it put me off ever wanting to work with it again. I know I would very likely have to debug stuff inside the framework at the very least, and I didn't want to go through that again.

Qt is without a doubt a comprehensive cross platform framework. However, lets take the Mac for example. You use Qt to get an app which runs on the Mac, but you do not get a Mac app. I've seen a lot of stuff where people say "We used to Qt to port our app to the Mac and it works great", which is cool and all, but then you look at the screenshots and you see a very ugly and un-Mac-like app. For sure not all of this can be laid at the feet of Qt and a good part of it is no doubt due to the creators of the app not making any effort, but a lot of the Qt Mac controls just look wrong. Qt seems to draw its own controls, using native APIs for sure, and is not actually "native" like they suggest. Qt 4 may be different, but I downloaded the Qt 4 Mac evaluation and still was not impressed. Qt doesn't have a very good reputation amongst Mac developers. A particular sticking point I'm aware of is that the Qt OpenGL canvas was badly implemented on the Mac and it led to bad OpenGL performance. People had tried for a long time to get Trolltech to address it but without any luck. I would hope that was fixed in Qt 4. Qt definitely has a very professional presentation and effective marketing, but it seems like in the trenches it might sometimes be a different story.

I will certainly say that developing the GUI framework has been more work than I originally envisaged, not least because I've found that Win32 is much clunkier than I ever expected. For example I ended having to custom draw buttons because with Win32 you could have an image in a button, or text in a button, but not both at the same time. 32 bit icons with alpha in controls was another sticking point. If we'd started things later I probably would have used .NET underneath instead of Win32, but c'est la vie. I still would have run up against some dumb things though, I've sometimes looked at .NET to see if it's an improvement on the Win32 equivalent and found it was basically just an OO reimplementation of the Win32 API with the same sorts of limitations and restrictions.

You say something about things being a point and click in Vue and more work in TG2, populations were the example. I'm not surprised, Vue is considerably further along in its life. I think that you shouldn't confuse something like that with a GUI toolkit, because it isn't GUI toolkits that have anything to do with that. I hope you were just using it to illustrate a separate point.

What is kind of funny is that you point out Vue 6 is using MFC. Vue also runs on the Mac, and MFC doesn't, so in that case Vue must either have a platform abstraction layer somewhere (which is effectively all that the TG2 GUI framework is, in a lot of cases just a thin OO wrapper over the native APIs), or they have completely reimplemented the UI using different frameworks on the Mac and Windows. We could have done the latter, but that's what we had with TG v0.9 and it was a major drain on productivity. The bulk of the work I've been doing lately on TG2 has been some UI improvements and basically I just write it once, usually on the Mac, recompile it on the other platform and it just works.

One thing which has always put me off Vue is the fact that it's UI is not very Mac-like. It's file open and save dialogs used to annoy me particularly. I'll have to download the Vue 6 PLE to see what it's like.

Anyway,  I'd just like to say we didn't just decide to implement our own GUI framework for the hell of it. It's true that if we'd stuck with Qt we might have been further along by now, but on the other hand it probably wouldn't have been that much further and in the long run it may have meant that we couldn't deliver the user experience we wanted to.

Regards,

Jo

cajomi

@Thank you Jo for this information!!


@The Geostation
Why do you mean you have to protect TG2 against my critic?
I definitly not want a GeoControl like TG2. I do like work with nodes. It is not the whole concept, the interface in general, but the weak points I mentionend, I would like to see improved.
Without that little "you have difficulties" I would not agree complete to what you wrote, but of course the personal way of thinking fits to some software better than to others. But using this small addition, you create the impression, that the weak points are not in the software, here TG2, but in my person and personal preferences. This is a typical and general way, to suppress critic.
In a standard situation: A says to B, that he do not like it, that B is making jokes about him. B answers, hey A, what are your problems? It is a simple rhethorical trick.
To avoid misunderstandings, I had first ask you very clear, what you mean.
You answered the first question with yes and the second also.  So, if you take the whole communication, it is clear, what you meant.

And do not forget: That you have no problems with imported terrains, must not mean, that there are no problems, but can also mean, that you do not stumple about them.
Developer of GeoControl

cajomi

@Monks

first thank you for pointing the problems so clear.
And you are right, that was also I expected from an early build. And that is exact the point, why my starting post was about the update cycles, not the special problems.
These problems with the imported terrains were pointed out very early, discussed here, helps, about how to do it with the actual version were posted.
But of course I expect, that after that, the developers improve such things in the coming updates.

QuoteI agree, this is a problem (I currently have the task of changing about 15 of them to match terrain re-scaling:)) but one would think that Matt would give precedence to developing TG's native selection methods, rather than image map selections, because the firstthing you do is make sure that the app works within itself, then you concentrate on features that will make the app work better with other programs (ie imported image masks). If it's a choice between the two, you're gonna go with the former.


I did not want to say that, and I hope you are not right with that.

But if you are, here my message to Jo and Matt:
Please do not forget, that all those terraingenerators helped Terragen to get so successful. If you'll take a look in the rero galleries, you will find, that nearly all renders, which made it into the old top twenty, showed terrains, made outside of terragen.
In general I have the feeling, that TG2 is moving into the mojo world direction. This may cost all of those users, not working in a planetary way, like me for example, but in a "landscape" way. The break between TG 0.9 and TG2 is not only the interface.
Developer of GeoControl

DeathTwister

May 29, 2007, 01:01:22 am #57 Last Edit: May 29, 2007, 01:10:27 am by DeathTwister
Hay Jo and sonshine777,

QuoteBravo Jo,
   I don't think some people understand trying to make a quality product on a limited budget and manpower takes time. I am glad that you do take weekends off, it is good for mind and body to pause at least once a week. I for one am behind you all the way, and can wait until it is the way you want it (invisioned it)  to be. Keep up the great work.


I whole heartedly agree with that, in fact ASAP I will buy the deep version just to make sure I help and support tgd2 and the crew more, as I believe in you guys and think you all are Awesome.  as for all the rest? I'm staying out of it, I said my piece other then when I actually have something to say as an artist, and not a programmer.
  I actually am getting to really love the way tgd2 is layed out, and other then some issues I have stated here and there I know in time it will all be as we would all like It to be so I am content.

  This program for me right now is more of an art tool for me as opposed to a working tool right now I use every day for work. Oh I play in it every day, just not working it yet. The reason is I use Terragen to do some things as I am more into video game engine dev, so Use L3DT and Terragen together to get my Skies, terrain tweaks, and texture mapping done.  TGD2 at this time cannot offer me that area I need in video game dev, but I see a future where we will be able to I hope bring the shaders as imports into the game engines like we can game shaders, but that is another post for sure.
  I got into Animation just for anamay and film back in 99, and have been working on storyboards and have been writing the stories for a few films I have in mind to do and have been building mesh for them as I go along.

TGD2 is going to be my main form of planatary staging area building tool where it can all come together on a planatary scale, and animations that can go from the moon to the earth is ground breaking, when it is done for all that I have been working towards, so this for me is a god send brothers and sisters at Planetside and I for one thank you for that very much. By the time it is done I will be into full swing with what I have in mind using this wonderful tool, so you just keep on your course and do not let people rush you in any way, you have allot of people behind you Jo. 

DeathTwister   aka Maylock Aromy Stansbury
Maylock Aromy DeathTwister Stansbury
ATOMIX Productions

jo

Hi Cajomi,

Quote from: cajomi on May 29, 2007, 12:47:31 am
Please do not forget, that all those terraingenerators helped Terragen to get so successful. If you'll take a look in the rero galleries, you will find, that nearly all renders, which made it into the old top twenty, showed terrains, made outside of terragen.


We don't have any particular interest in people only generating terrains with TG. I think you are reading far too much into the fact that some of the tools for dealing with imported terrains need improvement. In most cases we have simply implemented the basic level of functionality needed for the tool to work. I'm not sure we see any of the tools in TG2 as anything other than that at this stage. TG2 is still a Technology Preview, the idea is to show people what it can do in general and give them something to use even if it is basic, while in the meantime we continue to develop it and make improvements to specific things as we go.

Quote
In general I have the feeling, that TG2 is moving into the mojo world direction. This may cost all of those users, not working in a planetary way, like me for example, but in a "landscape" way. The break between TG 0.9 and TG2 is not only the interface.


You are wrong about that. TG2 has the ability to work with planets because that is the logical conclusion for a landscape app. We do not see that as the be all and end all of landscape visualisation however. We definitely see a place for smaller scale stuff as well. I'm personally not very interested in working with a planet as a whole, and would be more interested in visualising particular areas, and some small ones at that. Having a planet as the basis for a scene does not mean you have to do anything on a planetary basis. There are big advantages though, not the least is the elimination of problems with horizons and the ability to quickly have areas outside your main area of interest filled in by reasonable looking terrain.

MojoWorld was very much conceived as way to explore fractal space and the infinite variety of landscape type forms which can be generated. Ken Musgrave had some very high minded ideas about creating a metaverse and all that kind of stuff. I think I read somewhere that he thought MojoWorld would become a portal into an online universe where we all interact and voyage through infinite space etc. It just so happens that because TG2 has a procedural basis you can do a lot of the same sorts of things as MojoWorld, perhaps not quite to the same level of freakiness but once we've been able to implement more fractals and whatnot and we have a public API then I'm sure people will be able to make things as freaky as they like. However our emphasis is really realistic landscape visualisation. We think that if you come from the direction of realism then even the freaky stuff will end up looking more convincing and less like "freaky computer art". People have  done some nice stuff with MojoWorld, don't get me wrong.

Matt I'm sure is interested in making great tools for the CG industry. A lot of times that involves using handcrafted terrains, as well as convincing procedural terrains. I'm interesting in making TG2 useful for landscape visualisation more for the GIS/civil engineering/CAD side of things. That involves using real data. We're all interested in making tools for people who just like messing round with landscape images, like we do (just to add, TG2 as it is not really what we see for the more casual user), and that involves terrains from all sorts of sources. One thing we are not really interested in is being the next MojoWorld (especially seeing as they've both been developed about as long, with the difference TG2 was not publicly available for a lot of that time), even if, like I said, TG2 is versatile enough to do similar sorts of things.

Regards,

Jo

cajomi

Thanks again Jo. That is good to here.

So at last, back to my early question and the start of this thread:

You know, some improvements are needed. Some of them are more work, some less.
So, what about an update?
Developer of GeoControl