Add Horde3D support to gamekit

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Gamekit probably has enough graphical back-ends as it is now but I thought I'd 
mention a lesser-known graphics engine called Horde3D.

As far as I am aware, the EPL license (Horde used to be LGPL) would allow a 
liberal enough license to static-link Horde3D without licensing conflicts with 
gamekit.

The advantages of Horde over Ogre or Irrlicht could be that the code-base is a 
lot smaller/simpler and easier to manage (roughly 600-800kb for the lib when 
compiled with gcc, depending on extensions added in) which might be ideal if 
OgreKit is too big for deployment on some platforms (iphone's 20mb limit for 3G 
downloads or if android has a similar limit?). Horde contains support for a 
scenegraph, an easy to use C-API, software & hardware skinning driven by bones 
or morph-targets, GLSL shaders, hardware occlusion culling, emitters/particles, 
data-driven design including the rendering pipeline, supports forward or 
deferred lighting, HDR out of the box. There is currently being work done to 
port the engine to OpenGL ES 1.1 & 2.0 profiles.

http://horde3d.org/

Original issue reported on code.google.com by bober...@gmail.com on 22 Jun 2010 at 5:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

For some reason I can't find where I can change the type to "Type-Enhancement" 
sorry for the inconvenience I didn't mean to make this "Type-Defect".

Original comment by bober...@gmail.com on 22 Jun 2010 at 5:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

no worries, the lack of option to change Label into 'Type-Enhancement' 
afterwards is a google code limitation, that should be fixed. If you like file 
an issue with google code?

With respect to Horde3D, we are already too busy with Ogre, and hardly time to 
update Irrlicht, so adding another graphics engine is beyond our resources.

Of course you are welcome to provide a patch, but would you be willing to 
maintain it?

Original comment by erwin.coumans on 29 Jun 2010 at 4:58

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Horde is very nice, in my humble opinion it could replace Ogre IF it is made 
opengl ES 2 compatible, in order to render to embedded devices, like Ogre is 
able to.

Original comment by smog...@gmail.com on 30 Jun 2010 at 10:17

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Horde seems nice I agree (from the feature list, I didn't test it).  On the 
portability side, Ogre also works with openGL 1.2 and OpenGL ES 1, lot of 
embedded devices doest not have openGL ES 2 capabilities yet.

Original comment by xavier.thomas.1980@gmail.com on 30 Jun 2010 at 3:51

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I don't debate that Horde is nice or even that it "could" replace Ogre. However 
the practicality of such is important here. OgreKit is getting the lion's share 
of development effort and, given how advanced it is against the other 
back-ends, it would take something considerable to change that focus. 

Right now there are a few of us already using OgreKit in projects. What is 
there in Horde to make it worth the time to drop Ogre and get the Horde 
back-end up to the same level? Given the use of Ogre in existing published 
titles, the extra features that can be plugged in, and the time it would take 
to get Horde just to the current level of functionality - it needs to be a 
compelling reason.

This is not to say that you cannot develop and contribute a Horde back-end 
yourself, I'd certainly take a look at the finished product to see how it 
performs in comparison. I'm just trying to point out why it will be hard to 
convince others with a working & promising back-end to drop it's development 
for something else.  

Original comment by BenT.Sol...@gmail.com on 30 Jun 2010 at 10:07

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by erwin.coumans on 14 Jul 2010 at 11:51

• Changed state: WontFix