CopperCube -- The Easiest 3D Game Engine? 

You probably need to edit the comment to change "We did a tutorial on GameGuru that should get you up and running quickly:" I think you wanted to write CopperCube there, instead of GameGuru. heheh :)

Gameguru is too limited, only FPS games

@@grupporicercaparanormaletarant They are adding several RPG features, that gives it a lot more potential.

Hello, I'm new to game dev and been bouncing from engines. I was wondering is it possible to make a boomer shooter or a stalker style game with Coppercube?

​@@orca1361Yes, it would be possible to make a boomer shooter or a stalker style, you can even make a sandbox game, for all the Garry's Mod addicts. Have a blessed Wahoo day, and happy gaming!

They should do a fan-patch, where fans can add their own things that could make CC comparable to engines such as Unreal. My ideas include: · Ability to import Source models and maps · .mp3 support · View model sway and ability to grab objects, which I saw in a CC-related video · Manual · Ability to make better vehicles, so that it can be more than a mesh controlled by a keyboard and a TPS camera

@@Klonoa1488 awesome thank you :)

Wow Irrlicht, so many memories!

Fun fact! Bugsnax was made with Irrlicht.

@@embyrdev Great, I didn't know that. 🙂

damn leadworks. used that with Dark GDK when i was 16. I'm 31 now

Omg, sounded familiar and i searched for it, i used it back in 2008 if i remember correctly. I remember watching proudly my games played by my friends. Thnx for bringing me back in my good old days. Kudos

Please leave link to download

It's the Python of game engines :D

You can do any types of cameras, but not 2d

multi-engine webgl game ?? are you drunk

@@egedq No, but I am really stoned

@@egedq if it works it works hey

@@scifitherapy as CopperCube webGL is opensource, I think it is possible to use it with other engines, so yeah it is possible to use some of it's feature in other engines, but the main thing is renderer, you probably going to use renderer of only one engine.

what's the game.. flappy bird?

buildbox is the closest thing.

@@joelromero5160 Thanks for your answer

I think it depends on how much easier it is. I would go with Unity myself (and do use it), but sometimes you have to know what you're trying to do, where to look, like you're looking at deeper details and somebody could be a bit lost without having a more overall perspective of what all's going on. Like trying to identify (or paint) a picture when it's just way too zoomed in. Something easier could help understand where to even look or what features are more core or important, without getting lost in the smaller implementation details. The same is true of a simple art program vs one with tons of features, and somebody might not know where to even begin because there's just too many and too specialized of tools. That being said, Unity isn't that hard, so like I said, it depends how much easier it is and how much more quickly somebody can get something up and running. I find with Unity I start a lot of projects and get really into implementing a particular feature, while the game is overall simply not playable. Some of that is on me because I'm picky though, but even using a lot of premade assets for code/functionality, even if a lot of work is done for you, each one has its own little learning curve still. Sometimes I wonder whether I'd be better off just coding smaller things myself, rather than learning and implementing yet another bit of code that doesn't look like the rest of the project and worrying about having to possibly fix bugs in somebody else's code, where I might not quite understand the way they were going about things. I think there's a lot of value in having something up and running quickly and getting that motivation boost, rather than putting in 100 hours and still looking at a daunting mountain feeling pile of stuff to be done just to get what you thought would be "the basics". It's easy to give up before you have something minimally playable, if you're not mindful enough about it. But you can also work around it and be more purposeful with where you start, but that might be more difficult if you just have no idea where to start or how stuff generally works.

unity and godot are hard. even with tutorials it's still hard and you have to code. my god.

Some people just don’t enjoy it. Or some like game dev but lean on the more creative side in terms of level design , audio , etc. but not everyone can hire a developer

I love coding and i feel like ppl who want to make games without coding dont respect it for what it is. Like wanting to draw without drawing, just take clipart and kitbash it call it yours

Because success breeds success, shooting at a 25 meter target amd hitting it is a more effective reaching tool than starting a shooter with a 300 meter target. No coding let's people dabble and build and tell stories.

I only use visual coding as a means of quick development (especially due to restrictive resources)

Eating demands the ability to cook.

because unity and unreal are hard.

@@samuelhollman7426 nope, Unreal and Unity are MUCH easier than those engines actually.

​@@PixelsLaboratory Delusional....

@@PixelsLaboratory Can make a movement system in 3 clicks, thats instant? no. unity/unreal take forever to load assets in, and takes many errors to simply make a B E A N move.

@@VeganPete but so is Unreal, unless u make more than $1M in revenue and it's a game and not an app/internal project/movie/etc. I doubt any indie dev would worry having to pay 5% royalties after he/she becomes a millionaire (quite literally) 😊

Two men enter, one man leaves. These are the rules of thunderdome. There can be only one first.

Nope... 🥈

Two men enter, one man leaves. These are the rules of thunderdome. There can be only one first.

You are the first 🥇

Terrain-train. Foliage.

you need to know to code in godot tho...

do you even understand the point of coppercube? maybe watch the video first?