ENIGMA Development Environment

While this might be a reasonable substitute, I cannot get it to work either.
enum {
UP,
DOWN,
LEFT,
RIGHT,
NONE
}

Error:
In file included from SHELLmain.cpp:98:0:
Universal_System/syntax_quirks.h:18:2: error: multiple types in one declaration
 };

2) Try downloading the egm again. I changed it so you start in the middle of the lights (previously starting position was the player turned away, thus you see only black screen initially when not using mouselook).

This works for both vertex and pixel shaders! So I guess the camera was just badly lost somewhere in the world (most likely I was underneath the platform by default and didn't know). The plane is quite visible in this though, which might be the case for different video cards or maybe your screenshots just don't show the effect well: http://i.imgur.com/kBiGpqg.png

3) Try looking at console output of the program, it will output information about shaders at startup.

This is not the case, but I run LGM through Enigma.exe which closes itself after starting LGM. And LGM's window does not contain this output.

What is ugly exactly? Does it look the same as in GL1.1? That is what we are trying to replicate and so GL3 won't look any better by itself. Although I do plan to make a topic about this - maybe it's time to ditch GM and it's rendering and go for something better? It will break compatibility slightly (especially 3D games), but would open a lot of doors for improvements.

The lighting is awful. It's either a difference in video cards, or just difference between the OGL1 and OGL3 drivers.

Mario OGL 1: http://i.imgur.com/DCDyEKY.png
Mario OGL 3: http://i.imgur.com/XZJy0Yx.png

This problem could just be solved by either using OGL 1 for GM compatibility, or using OGL 3 with pixel shader.

I found Android/Enigma tutorial here http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Android Can you update wiki site if it not working with Enigma? I am confused a little It can be great tool to create Android games!

It is mentioned in the first line of "Getting it to Work".

This process has only been tested for the Ubuntu Operating System and revision r870, and I have not been able to get it to fully compile yet. Some reports indicate that this process may have broken in more recent revisions (r973).

Although quite honestly I think that at this point everyone agrees it is completely broken, so that should probably be changed to indicate as much.

Well I didn't run your first round of tests, not sure if that matters to you.

1. Everything is working
2. Windows 8.1, Radeon 7870 HD driver version 14.10-140415a-170730E, Catalyst version 14.4 (release date 4/25/14)
3. 1920x1080

This is a new-ish rig, and while I didn't really expect any problems never hurts in case there's a bug in the OpenGL driver.

Unity is in an interesting position because they have a version of the product completely free. That's why they're attracting so many more members than other engines. Even jumping a user from free to paying $1 is a difficult task in itself.

I bought into UE4 myself, and from that perspective I have some ideas why Unity is more appealing. First off, Unity offers high level programming (C#, javascript). The only thing Unreal has is drag and drop, and C++. The physics system in UE4 is also rather inflexible, and I quite prefer Unity's over it. However once you understand how it works, it's not too bad all things considered. Unity also has an advantage in the mobile space IMO. Its games can run on a larger number of devices (probably because default UE4 games are so demanding on the gpu). UE4 also has no real tools for developing 2d games, it's not even trying to compete in that space a little, whereas Unity has jumped in heavily on 2d recently.

Man, UE4's shader system blows Unity out of the water though. I have had so much fun playing around with it.

The reason I went with UE4 over Unity, was even if you opt for the "per-month" pricing with Unity, they charge you for a whole year up front. At that point you just might as well buy a license for the major version you're using. Plus, at $75/mo it's quite a bit more than UE4's $19. The only benefit is not having to pay royalties. For an indie like myself, 5% is chump change (because I'll be making so little). When you deal with a game making millions of dollars, you will want to start reconsidering your options. I mean $4500 times a few seats could still save you tens of thousands of dollars over a royalty.

In terms of which engine is better, that's arguable. UE4 has a steep learning curve, but it's very powerful once you dive in. I have no regrets with my purchase.

Mobile games are extremely depressing right now, I really hope the market changes, but I imagine that won't happen for another 5-10 years.

On desktop, I play most of my games. I'm a pretty casual player and enjoy mostly AAA titles if I'm honest. Currently playing a lot of Diablo 3 and Dark Souls 2, and I plan to get back into Battlefield 4 later this summer.

In terms of the industry, I'm only worried for what the future of Desktop holds, seeing as it seems to be turning into free to play. It might get hard to sell indie games on desktop in the near future which is troubling.

The problem you likely have with the for loop in the draw event is that you do not change the drawing coordinates of the text. The previous text will not magically be overwritten, but it will be drawn on top of.

The problem you likely have with the step event is that every single step, you are setting x to 0 again before it then proceeds to increase it 100 pixels in that step, then the next step it is overwritten back to 0 again. It's possible you might actually see flickering on the screen because of this rapid change in position.