The team behind the free and open source game engine, Godot Engine, have another progress report to share on Vulkan support coming to Godot Engine 4.0. Plus, they have a new Code of Conduct.
With the 4.0 update that brings in Vulkan, it's also going to give developers a much more powerful Global Illumination system. Godot's support for it landed in the 3.0 release but they said it was quite limited, so they've reworked it. The new system offers much better performance, 100% real-time lighting, voxel ambient occlusion, support for dynamic objects, multiple bounce lighting and more to come.
Thanks to all of this, Godot Engine 4.0 will include "a fast and complete solution for real-time global illumination, in an easy to use package" which certainly will help those making 3D games. A very exciting advancement for the open source game engine.
As for the Code of Conduct, it all sounds pretty sane. They expect contributors to remain polite and be welcoming to all regardless of race, ethnicity, language proficiency, age and so on.
See more on the official Godot Engine website.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPWell, I'd gladly take anyone to court whose special feelings couldn't take some opposing opinion and felt insulted.
PS: I'm not living in Germany.
"Piss off" is not an opinion.
Neither is "A**hole" (your example above).
Opposing is all fine, insulting is not (and it sheds bad light on the sender).
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: devlandThat's not the point being made.Quoting: psyminIf someone is mean to someone else in a realm that isn't related to linux, gaming or godot, that shouldn't have any impact on their ability to contribute.
It does have an impact.
If you start calling someone names, regardless if you do it offline or online on another platform, then you can't possibly expect that the other person will be willing to continue to work with you.
Obviously, you shouldn't keep a worker around that insults other workers.
But whatever happens that is not (either publicly or privately) between workers/team members but between a worker and other, unrelated people (or no people at all, just someone voicing opinions), should have no consequences beyond affecting inter-personal relations at work if it becomes known. And if those relations are then harmed so much that the person in question has to leave is a different question, to be decided case-by-case, not by some general checkmarked ruleset of forbidden opinions.
Stuff like that is called call-out/cancel culture and there is a reason that even people as "left" as Obama and T. Noah are not on board with it.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestI am familiar with jokes about the Germans but i still find the ability to sue (not win, just sue) someone over a "piss off" remark very hard to believe. Even on public internet.
We have (mostly unenforced) laws on public insults in Belgium but such a case would be tossed and at worst end up in penalties for frivolous lawsuit.
I guess real life is not that different here. Insults on the internet is usal business, even death threats are becoming more and more usual.
About what can be done: Are you sure, or is it just a feeling because real life differs so much from law? I'd bet most Germans wouldn't believe it either, just like TheSheeep.
0 Likes
Godwin's law confirmed.
I had hoped people would ignore that AH namedrop (really, don't do that, please).
I had hoped people would ignore that AH namedrop (really, don't do that, please).
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestDude, chill.Quoting: TheSHEEEPGodwin's law confirmed.
I had hoped people would ignore that AH namedrop (really, don't do that, please).
Study that law again kid. I did not compare anyone to Hitler here. And as long as I abide to GoL posting rules, I can write whatever I want... funny how freedom of speech is such a volatile concept!
I'm on your side, but even if you didn't compare anyone, someone will interpret it that way and so here we go.
Just don't namedrop the guy, it never works out well and always leads to derailments like this one right here. Not worth the hassle, really. Enough other people to namedrop available ;)
0 Likes
I was in favor of the new CoC, since it I thought it offered protection to those who dissent against the majority with the "political orientation" statement.
Some folks feel constantly attacked for their political identity. Especially if their political identity aligns with a demographic that is seen as the opponent to the other protected identities. They shouldn't have to defend it. Political orientation is a barrier to entry for group projects.
I had hopes that the Godot crew had realized that there is no paradox of tolerance.
Some folks believe that others are promoting bigotry and intolerance by merely holding an opposing view.
They are likely going to have a political ideology that actively rejects the notion of the "paradox of tolerance".
People should not be kicked out of a community for their political views.
They should not be kicked out of a community for their views on science.
I hope that the Godot team actively encourages their ideological opponents to work with them to build great things together.
I hope Godot expands upon the protections they've written for those who see the world differently, especially for political orientation.
If we don't actively protect civil dissent and disagreement within our cliques, then we are promoting intolerance.
Quoting: TMMIt is unfair to expect any Godot contributor to possibly have to defend their identity to someone who questions it. This adds a barrier to entry that we simply do not want to exist.
Some folks feel constantly attacked for their political identity. Especially if their political identity aligns with a demographic that is seen as the opponent to the other protected identities. They shouldn't have to defend it. Political orientation is a barrier to entry for group projects.
I had hopes that the Godot crew had realized that there is no paradox of tolerance.
Quoting: TMMThere is of course the paradox of tolerance. If you are tolerant do you need to be tolerant of the intolerant? Our Code of Conduct neatly answers our community's point of view of this matter: You do not need to be tolerant of the intolerant.
Some folks believe that others are promoting bigotry and intolerance by merely holding an opposing view.
They are likely going to have a political ideology that actively rejects the notion of the "paradox of tolerance".
People should not be kicked out of a community for their political views.
They should not be kicked out of a community for their views on science.
I hope that the Godot team actively encourages their ideological opponents to work with them to build great things together.
I hope Godot expands upon the protections they've written for those who see the world differently, especially for political orientation.
If we don't actively protect civil dissent and disagreement within our cliques, then we are promoting intolerance.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: psyminI was in favor of the new CoC, since it I thought it offered protection to those who dissent against the majority with the "political orientation" statement.
Quoting: TMMIt is unfair to expect any Godot contributor to possibly have to defend their identity to someone who questions it. This adds a barrier to entry that we simply do not want to exist.
People's political views are protected. Merely having an opinion is not a problem. However if someone holding a political opinion regarding, say, someone's gender expression then there is no protection for that person to express this towards the person or any public Godot space.
Quoting: psyminSome folks feel constantly attacked for their political identity. Especially if their political identity aligns with a demographic that is seen as the opponent to the other protected identities. They shouldn't have to defend it. Political orientation is a barrier to entry for group projects.
Some folks believe that others are promoting bigotry and intolerance by merely holding an opposing view.
<snip for brevity>
I hope Godot expands upon the protections they've written for those who see the world differently, especially for political orientation. If we don't actively protect civil dissent and disagreement within our cliques, then we are promoting intolerance.
Nobody is asked to defend their views, however this does mean that someone who has a political problem with (for instance) transgender people will have to use correct pronouns for the person they are talking to or about. This person would not be allowed to start a discussion on this topic inside a public Godot space, or in private with anyone without prior consent to have said discussion.
To summarize: There are no plans for some kind of 'thought police' you can have any private view you'd like. However your conduct while holding those views is held to a certain standard. If someone's private views prevent them from conducting themselves in a manner compatible with our Code of Conduct then they might be removed.
4 Likes, Who?
The lead developer himself clarified some things - which all sound fine to me.
I asked if they should maybe add a tl;dr of that to the statement itself, which he said "might be a good idea".
I asked if they should maybe add a tl;dr of that to the statement itself, which he said "might be a good idea".
1 Likes, Who?
Kimyrielle Nov 5, 2019
Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe problem is that some people are calling for outright banning, blocking, locking up, etc. of anything not stricly adhering to their own opinions and views.
See, to me that's the issue: Some people demand for themselves to have the freedom to speak their mind wherever and whenever they want to, no matter how toxic/insulting their "opinion" is, but at the same time deny the Godot developers the freedom to chose who they want to work with. That's applied hypocrisy, right there.
Would I want to have a misogynist in a project I am leading? Absolutely NOT!!! Not even if their code was the best thing since sliced bread. I haul their sorry butt out of the door, period. And I find this the most natural thing on Earth, really.
It doesn't matter if people cannot on agree what exactly constitutes "toxic". The only thing that matters is whether or not the Godot maintainers find you toxic, and if they do for whatever reason, they have the right not to work with you. It's THEIR project and THEIR decision. Freedom goes both ways. You can't have the cake and eat it. People should actually be glad that they're clear and upfront about what sort of people aren't welcome in their project.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: KimyrielleWould I want to have a misogynist in a project I am leading? Absolutely NOT!!! Not even if their code was the best thing since sliced bread. I haul their sorry butt out of the door, period. And I find this the most natural thing on Earth, really.If that misogynist in your project behaves just fine towards everyone in the project and the users and does a good job - what does it matter what views he holds privately?
You don't want to convince him of anything other than your power to get him offed, you don't want to understand why he thinks what he thinks, how he came to the wrong conclusions. You want to get someone fired for simply not agreeing with you on topics that are for one reason or another dear to you - and you think it to be the most natural thing on Earth.
That's really quite sad, and it is behaviour like that which drives more and more people to the extreme sides of the spectrum while not changing anyone's mind - quite the opposite, actually, it only reinforces their views and theories.
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me