Cogito func_godot Template

[niefia]

Really enjoying using this project and decided to try and contribute to it, so been working on a Template for use with the func_godot addon (replacement for the Qodot addon). It's still very early stages so only have a few definitions but figured I may as well post for anyone else using both Cogito & func_godot since they go so well together.

2024-08-29.19-05-47.mp4

[ac-arcana]

I used to use Qodot. I was writing func components myself, felt it was a lot of work. I had started a discussion about making some public func definitions for this purpose. Ultimately in that discussion Cyclops was brought up.

I personally switched to Cyclops because it means that I don't have to write all of my own func definitions. I can develop level geometry directly in the scene alongside Cogito components.

Having said that, there are some advantages to using Trenchbroom, both approaches have their pros and cons :)

[ac-arcana]

Trenchbroom Pros:
-excellent ease of use
-very easy texture mapping
-feature rich
-well supported file formats

Trenchbroom Cons:
-Completely separate editor, requiring you to save and then reload the map in Godot
-Dependence on another layer such as Qodot to bring the data into Godot
-You either have to write func definitions to allow you to place objects from Cogito or place them in Godot later as a separate step. Both these approaches have disadvantages.
--Using func definitions you just see a box, so fine tuning positioning and rotation is difficult.
--Placing things in Godot later is adding a separate layer for working with your objects

Cyclops Pros:
-Works directly inside Godot
-Can export to well supported file formats
-Has most of Trenchbroom's features implemented
-Allows the placement of Cogito elements and building level geometry in the same scene
-No extra layer like Qodot or extra software required
-No additional coding such as func definitions required. Even if someone writes func definitions for all of Cogito's elements, you still need to write them for any additional unique elements you create for your game.

Cyclops Cons:
-Not as precise texture mapping features as Trenchbroom
-Not as feature rich as Trenchbroom
-Frustrating to use as it is constantly competing with the Godot built in gizmos

Both are still in active development and improving. Currently the Cyclops dev is working towards having Cyclops in its own dedicated window. This will greatly improve ease of use and reduce frustrations with the default Godot gizmos.

They both have great snapping and grid support.

[niefia]

It's gonna be a lot of work to setup but I think at least for me once it is setup it will be much faster than Cyclops to work with. I find that Trenchbroom/Func_godot workflow best personally but I can see the advantage and simplicity of Cyclops in some ways.
At least releasing some definitions out there it makes it easier for people to iterate on, so we can perfect the core Cogito functionality with func_godot

[niefia]

One small note on the point

Using func definitions you just see a box, so fine tuning positioning and rotation is difficult.

You can actually setup the box to have both a custom model and an arrow pointing the direction you want your entity rotated, I'm pretty sure the arrow is there by default for point entities

[ac-arcana]

Fair point about the arrow though I find it hard to see/use compared to a model. I didn't know you could set a custom model. That sounds like it would make it better, but still requires additional work vs just bringing the object into the scene with Cyclops

[Phazorknight]

@ac-arcana thanks so much for your insights.

[Phazorknight]

@niefia
Sweet, I actually looked into func_godot about a month ago and gave it a quick test, so this is really nice to see! Keep us updated!

[BrodyB]

Actually, fun fact: I've been using func_godot in a COGITO project, and the two play well together with minimal code changes!