Torque 3D

Hi all,

I haven't been watch this too closely, but since I just got an update e-mail from Garage Games, does anyone have any insight into the new Torque 3D version?

From what I read, they're adopting a pricing model and unified editor/IDE that looks ... very familiar some how (ignoring the new naming scheme for a moment).

In the feature compare lists I find it interesting that source code and the new web player are not included in the basic feature set. I thought "source code included" was one of their key selling points, why the shift?

Just curious, anyone in the beta? Some of my questions are: Is this new integrated tool set similar to Unity in use? The physics integration seems interesting, but I don't see which one comes with the product. I've always been curious about the "torque net" back end which is listed, but doesn't appear in the actual feature list, is this something bundled with the web player item?

Not that I need another tool to keep me up nights right now, but I'm always on the lookout for new tools (ok, i have a problem with new toys, there I admit it!). (don't worry UT, I've already ear-marked my iPhone pro spend... but a guy has to bridge the gap between buying all the current UT toys and the next wave, don't I? )

Cheers,

Galen

 

you have to throw 3000 bucks at them to do a non-game???

 

I'm own TGE and TGEA (both Indie) and now evaluating Unity 2.5 for Windows(trial), after getting announce about T3D(which will cost for me much less if I pre-order) i started comparing and asking myself interesting questions,to some of which I don't have answers(and answers I have arleady can be possible of help to somebody)

- It's unclear WHERE I should e-mail if I had questions on Unity trial(I know where I should e-mail in GG's case in such situations)..trial@?sales@?E-mailed both - so far - no answer.
- T3D webplayer. How they do it? _Unity_ can allow to have plugin installed and be much more trusted than random developer and after all plugin is installed _once_. Given that Unity games are in fact .NET assemblies(not C++ plugins allowed in player) this can be safe. It's interesting how GG will plan to work around this. Provide _source code_ for plugins and require each game to have their own plugin(so it must be signed(code sign cert is another thing to pay)?Or allow to run _unsigned_ native binaries?(which will be one big security hole)
- Unity's browser plugin works _everywhere_ on Windows(for example, I build Qt-based QtWebKit example and Unity plugin worked. Not without _some_ problems but it _worked_).
- It looks like T3D DROPS their support for DIFs, so good bye to BSP-based interiors(and they have no PVS).
- Torque documentation in general. I looked into Unity's documentation just a less and even now for me it's better than TDN(Yes, It was said that they will imporove that. I will believe in this when I see new documentation. So far-only problems).
- Logo requirements and 'must be a game'/'no external funding' requirements even on T3D Pro. Beatiful. Especially compared to what was said about Unity
- Forests. Looks like this will be add-on to T3D. For additional money of course.
- It is said that T3D will have networked physics. But not PhysX...Well
- Given current information I had, you _can_ develop game(or not something different -) with Unity Indie, but it will NOT be possible with T3D Basic(script-only access to TGE/TGEA was never enough and it's being marketed as artist-only..)
- So far TGE and TGEA had possibility to run separate headless server with NO graphics. If I understood correctly, Unity can't do that. And network protocol for networkview,etc is not documented. So only option is using .NET sockets
- TGEA is for _gaming_ machines. Not general ones. Unity on the other side as I understood can correctly degrade even to Riva 128
- It's unclear if T3D's webplayer have even some kind of streaming/caching, especially implementing _via_ browser. (As far as I understood(correct me if I'm wrong here please), Unity downloads streamed content via br-wser-native ways(i.e WinINet on IE,etc) and using browser settings for proxy,etc. This is very good in some situations).
- Unity DOES NOT have fully functional debugger for scripts(so far it's unclear for me is fully functional one is really _needed_ for Unity).TGE/TGEA(and I'm sure T3D) have Torsion.
- Unity... is very artist-friendly. And looks like authors thought hard about editor interface. THOUGHT and NOT making it 'dumb and basics only'. Mac background?
- Unity _has_ copy-protection(any kind of GG's engines with sources does not of course). and from information I had about PACE it likes to install kernel-level drivers(not sure if Unity use this misfeature, if it is - it's very bad).Also, issue remains what will actually happen if I (for example) install Unity at work and at home, in 2 weeks,upgrade home computer(as in 'anything that left from old one is case and monitor/keyboard/mouse', in 3 months decide I want Unity on my notebook.in another 3 months upgraded home computer again, month after that decide I want to go develop for iPhone, buy Unity base for iPhone and Mac Mini... With GG I _sure_ that I will not have problems. (I also sure of that with for example Steam games), I not so sure with Unity, given that some kind of binding to machine IS present and it's not fully clear how it will work in situations like that.

 

As far as I understood. not 3000.
More. 3000 is admistrative fee only

 

Let me just say a few thing on your points

It states on the download page to contact sales@unity3d.com about any questions. Also, right now they have to deal with a major release to windows and GDC so I would give them a few days (I mean you have 30 days to demo the product so...).

Yea, I don't have a great feeling that GG is going to create as clean documentation that Unity seems to have (and even tho GG have MORE documentation on TGE/TGEA, the way it is, or should say not, organized make it pretty useless).

Yea, that to me is also a major downside of T3D making it 2X the cost of Unity. It funny but GG has always stated when compared to other engines that they offer the same feature set no matter the license, not true any more.

I did not read that, interesting tho

Not sure what networked physics is the best but if PhysX is good enough for Gamebryo its has to be pretty good.

Yea, With TGE/TGEA (and maybe T3D), if you are going to be making anything that is not a FPS, you will almost 100% need access to source code and make changes (possibility major one)

With the pro version of Unity, you can us any network library with the use of the plug-in system.

And this is something the can increase your target market and therefore increase possible sales (if you sell your game).

Well I know there is a built-in debugger when running the game from the IDE, not sure what debugging feature Torsion (which cost more money by the way) has.

Unity's editor is probably the biggest reason to use Unity over other low cost engines like TGE/TGEA/T3D, C4, Cipher, etc...

You simply email Unity. This might be a little bit of a hassle but I rather deal with this and have a great engine with a fantastic editor than not have to deal with this and have an engine that is very good but provide only a very basic editor. I would love to know why this would be a deal breaker for anyone.

 

Rest assured, Unity does not use nor install the PACE kernel module. You can have your Unity license installed on two machines at a time. To move the license to a different machine contact support@unity3d.com. Unity support will respond promptly. Most simple hardware updates (swapping out graphics cards, adding hard drives, replacing ram, etc.) do not require reactivating Unity. I think you can even reinstall the entire OS without causing problems with the activation count.

 

Well, let's wait and see.

With TGE/TGEA what was needed for me NOT Scripting Engine reference(which is btw, is partly in separate _books_) but engine core(C++ part) documentation. And there is almost no systematic information on that except private forums.

You could read GG blogs more often -

as far as i understood...it will be based on ODE

 

so far, looks very good.
_Any_ 2 machines(of course assuming I don't switch them every day -)?

-what if one of them Windows and another Mac?
-also, what if this is in fact _one_ dualboot machine with both Mac OS X and Windows - is this considered one machine or two?

 

you can install on any 2 computer, 2 PC, 2 Macs, 1 PC and 1 Mac.

 

joktar: to be clearer... 1 machine running dual boot or VM is considered 2 installs if you put it on OSX and Windows, so yes, you will use up both licenses doing that.

 

I agree, this is very annoying. UT apparently don't know themselves, so it's pretty much a trial-and-error process. Which can be very time-consuming.

 

sales@unity3d.com ... They are very busy, as is GG right now. There's going to be a lag in responses regardless.

No, they do not. It is planned to move away from this, but as of right now, no.

Their documentation has greatly improved; there's no arguing this. Whether it's where it needs to be, we will see.

The only logo requirement for T3D is a splash screen. GG allow's for developers to make their own GG splash but with final approval from GG.

This appears to be true. Either way it's still cheaper over all.

This has slightly been talked about, but from my understanding your statement may not be true(the last part).

In general, T3D basic is meant for Artist's.. meaning if they have no need to have access to the source, they aren't forced to buy the pro version. A team with coder's and artist's are not required to have the same version. The coder can make a binary from their code set and give it to the artists.. a way to save teams money.

well.. depending on what you have going on in your game would determine that anyway wouldn't it?

True, Torsion runs I think around $39.00. You are also open to numerous other applications such as Overlord ($29.00) or most others at your choosing. I think Unity only works with their $500.00 asset server.

The Unity editor is spectacular imo. I don't think any other engines editor comes close. It's definitely a big plus.

 

I am not talking about c# plug-ins but talking about c++ plug-ins. The general feeling I got from read on the forums is that you can use any c++ plug-in that you want but of course if you use a plug-in that in windows only or Mac only you would only be able to deploy for that system. Maybe this assumption is wrong (and prove the point of my sig).

 

So why quote my post? :roll:
For standalones, it's not a problem. You can use any native code you want, as long as you know how to interop with it via P/Invokes (or the native plugin API I guess).

 

Yep. Just re-register after install and it doesn't reduce your activation count

Unfortunately true breakpointing would need to be supported by the mono runtime which it currently isn't. They're working on it though. At the moment your alternative is:

Code (csharp):

1. Debug.Pause();
2. return;

Which obviously only works in the editor.
Alternative you could toggle on "pause on error" in the log window and that causes the editor playback to pause at the first unhandled exception.

 

Not to kick a dead horse, but this baffled me a bit and I had to go check you were right. Sure enough, there's an "Allows for non-game projects" feature in there.

Just plain silly.

 

Will also pause on Debug.LogError() messages...

 

TGEA 1.8 (or even 1.7? skipped that so I don't know for sure) already introduced polysoup collision.

That has helped many developers to basically get the levels they ever wanted and to have them working the way they wanted.
This was a long time problem in Torque as DIFs are BSPs and BSPs are very restrictive on the allowed geometry.
Additionally there was the 256 face restriction that at least in my experience was able to kill any more complex objects pretty right off.
The only thing that I did not like about the polysoup support right from the start was the usage of ODE
I've never liked it and it was never known for high performance.
Main reason likely was OSX. PhysX does not have OSX versions unless you get the source license so it would have put another $50k on the financial plate. With the price of a TGEA license, thats just not payable from any realistic point of view ...
And Newton is just newton. Nice but my experience with it so far were far from pleasant actually especially in crossplatform environments.


I've also to out myself as Torque3D preorderer.
To me its an investment into the future as to me, Unity and Torque3D both have their very distinct places where they are meant to use.

Unity is easy to use and allows fast development, potential real webdeployment and a flexible artist friendly environment.
To me Unity is a synonym for rapid game development to small to medium scale projects.
Large projects can be done as well but depending on what you do, you might reach the point where the source license might be required and at that point, Torque licenses are peanuts.

Torque on the other end to me is a synonym of "whatever you can program can be achieved".
Its not nearly as userfriendly as Unity to get there and I would never ever even consider touching it for any small to smaller medium project.
But once you require very specific optimizations and modifications or if you intend to do a multiplayer shooter, Torque will shine as it is unmatched price wise in that sector.

There is only one thing Unity does not really shine right now and thats the Asset handling in team environments.
The Asset Server is missing many common features, SVN can't be used and asset server licenses require Unity Pro in addition to the hefty fee. But I definitely believe in Unity Technology and their capability to get those missing features in place in future versions.
The new server management in Unity 2.5 has clearly shown that there is a good reason for this hope


To me as freelance developer its simple: I need to have both at hand and need to be able to use both, because I can be sure, that I will get into situations where one will clearly dominate over the other.

 

If this hasn't already been answered by someone else...

I haven't run into any restrictions using .NET/Mono assemblies in Indie, as long as I don't reference native code modules.

So far, I haven't had any problems at all with simply dropping 3rd party .NET components into Unity3D projects.

For instance, we have a pure .NET version of our conversational artificial intelligence system, and with no modifications whatsoever, I simply dropped our AI core DLL components into a Unity project's Assets folder, added a little extra scripting to a game character and was up and running right away with in-game AI using our system.

In addition, our AI core DLLs weren't even compiled with Mono, but using Microsoft's compiler. Yet our modules run just fine on the Mac, as well as within Unity webplayer.

Yes, Mono already supports MS generated assemblies anyway, but rest assured that Unity3D does nothing to break this, and as far as I can tell, Unity has no additional configuration requirements beyond putting your assemblies somewhere in your project's assets.

Again, all this was done using the Indie version.

 

They have some weird rules over there... they wouldn't let me use the indy version of tgea for educational games and said that I had to buy the full pro version.

Hence the fact I continued looking and found Unity

 

Ah right - thanks

 

I can't for the life of my believe GG has the stones to do a pre-order on something like this.

I'm still feeling pretty burned on pre-ordering iTGB (Torque Game Builder for iPhone). 6 months since their initial release and it's still not ready.

 

You get used to that somehow.

I preordered TGEA already, then iTGB again now T3D
Its possible that it does not work out on release (althought the new things added have been done by 3rd party teams, like the river tool, so they potentially have a better initial quality than TGEA / iTGB) but I really believe that T3D will work out.

On iTGB thats a whole different thing.
As you know by my postings on the licensee board, there are some serious problems on the optimization end that definitely need to be adressed. But this here isn'^t the right place for that.

 

It seems to me, from reading the responses to the blog post about licensing terms, particularly the ones from GG employees, GG feels it has been unfair in the past when companies/studios with deep pockets (or with someone else's deep pockets or making stuff for clients with deep pockets) buy the Indie or basic versions of their software to make a product.

GG seems to feel if a company/studio has access, directly or indirectly, to big bucks, they should buy the commercial/pro version of GGs' software. And to this end, their logic seems to be that if your making a non-game product, you've got money (yours' or someone else's') somewhere.

Having said that, I don't think I ever come across a piece of software where the type of product you wanted to make affected the price of the piece of software. I'm used to extra cost if the form or support options (i.e. email, phone, on-site, etc.), add-ons, increased functionality, and so forth, but extra cost due to the type ... very unusual IMHO.

 

That is a bad way to price stuff. I that that if you sell a product you should sell it for a flat rate and not based on how much money you have. If someone has more money that mean that they either worked hard for the money or worked hard at getting that money from someone else (of course this is not always true), so why should someone you are paying for a product from get more money from your hard work.

 

I have to disagree.

I actually prefer the "funding class based" licensing over massive initial fees or you have to face serious capability restrictions.
The reason is simple: Why measure multimillion companies by the same measure as small single to two person independent devs?
After all the generated income is depending on that to a very high degree.

The alternative is to have a flat rate entrance fee and have per title fees royalities.
And believe me, the kind of licensing GG and UT use is much preferred to me.


And I really don't see how you can claim to not be fan of it but accept it with Unity in the same go.
After all you have to pay tens of tousands to hundreds of tousands for a unity source license. Unity just applies the same system differently through considerable feature deltas.
And after all, GG accepts that designers don't need to program but need the tech, something UT is effectively disallowing by forbidding license mixes on a project and restrict the asset server to Pro ...

 

Personally, the source vs. non-source thing isn't a big deal to me anymore.

After having spent decades at various companies developing custom 3D engines and toolsets, I am at a point in my life where I'm sick of tweaking and coding for its own sake.

I'm just FINE without source, as long as the system is robust enough for my needs.

 

The main problem in your comparision with the car is that a car is no luxory and that cars sell by several magnitudes more "licenses"
More importantly, they sell at "self production costs"
Thats a significant difference.

If you want to compare on that scale, you will realize that beside Unreal Tech, CryTech and id tech as well as valves engine, there aren't many technologys you can compare in your scenario when it comes to pure game engines, as anything below a few hundred tousand USD per title studio licenses isn't a realistic license to cover the costs for development and R&D to stay on top.


But none of us is able to pay those prices of half a million and more per title and royalities.
So the companies are in the situation where they have to rate their tech on a "how much use, how much potential income does it generate" base to have a chance to get the investment back and generate enough additional income to fund a given level of research while at the same time attract different types of users (likely with the idea that small scale users at some point will become a serious commercial developer and get the higher licenses)
There are near unlimited ways to do this, each with its own specific drawbacks and benefits.

UT is following the approach that only serious and business funded teams have requirement and use for the source as a professional staff is likely required to handle it. Additionally only those teams are in the position to sign a legally holding, financially enforcable NDA

GG on the other hand tries to please different levels of users.
The more you want, the more it will cost you.

The only really annoying point in GGs license to me actually is the "must be game" enforcement.
The rest is fair normally with me. Showing the logo for example is the least to do if you don't have to pay royalities financially to give something back to the devs. Others give something back by offering resources to the community, investing time in helping others etc.

Personal thing:
Really, if you have more than $250k per year turnaround and refuse to invest more than a few hundred bucks into your tech that made / will make you that much, you are just lame. You make masses of cash without supporting the tech and I have really not the least bit of tolerance towards those.
They are actually the reason many things are unpayable expensive today with companies that are not that faith / spirit driven as GG and UT. I really want to thank both that they do what they do and how they do it.
If people would work more basing on good spirit and faith, life would be so significantly simpler.

 

I am going to try to not take that as personal as you made it sound ( at least to me) because I said nothing about not supporting technologies I use. If I produced a game with Unity that made 500K+, I would push to donate several thousand dollars back to Unity (making 250K+ would probably allow for a few grand to throw their way and provide us money to work on another product for at least a year). Now I would not put as much money back into the engine as I would if it was an in house built engine mainly because we would not have any type of final say of and feature additions/improvements (but I do recognize that UT seems very good at adding/improving features requests by its user). The issue I have is having to make the payment upfront under the assumption I am going to make 500K+ on the game/application.

I will agree that companies want a huge chuck of money upfront because a lot of people would just pay them the minimum they had to.

 

I have no problem with this. I think it is perfectly justified both ethically, and economically. Doing so also makes good business sense.

Observation:
Something Westerner's take for granted (and greatly benefit from in global markets) is that market value does not equal real value. This will not change no matter how much you wish it would nor think it should. The other false assumption is that someone's wealth directly correlates with how hard they work. The fact that back breaking labor to produce food or build real world infrastructure rarely enables even a middle class existence despite the greater need for this work than just about anything else should especially drive this point home.

So in the case of Unity Tech, I applaud their price scheme. It allows someone like me to buy the product and enjoy a hobby. At the same time it requires professionals to support Unity3D from the proceeds of their commercial endeavors. The difference between educational and professional grade software is similar. And as with education software it increases the user base, thus increasing the relevance of the software.

 

Well, T3D allows you to add whatever you need on top what is present.

Unity does the same through source license.
But on top on that and from the terrain linking and multiterrain block feature as well as asset bundles, I would guess that UT might be open to feature sponsoring which would give you some possibilities if you seriously require a feature that might be of potential use to all, because from the postings it sounded like Fusion Fall and the WebMMO in dev from the AoC devs for example had a strong influence on those two specific features.
And I wouldn't bet that they were part of the original development plan for 2.1. If there even was a 2.1 planned originally.
But thats something we potentially will never know.

either way, I think that both save you several tens to hundreds of tousands of USD if you want to replicate those capabilities you really require

 

First, I'd like to thank all those who contributed, I am genuinely interested in the Torque offering, and look forward to seeing what usability, feature, and other improvements actually mean "when the rubber meets the road" .

Since the licensing seems to keep coming up, I do feel compelled to add some thoughts.

In this I strongly disagree. I'll separate my thoughts into my game development (hobby for now) and my professional take on this:

first: as a game developer, I do not make anywhere near the $250K cutoff, however, I did do a contract (read: externally funded project) last year. The product was a "game" but not in the traditional sense. Under this licensing model I would have been required to pony up $3K for that privilege, and with little real return on the money (as far as the current "feature" list suggests) accept the ability to shift my license around and remove the splash image.

As far as I can tell this 3K is simply the Studio admin fee, which does not include the underlying licenses for development. Without Unity on the market, I would still explore other options rather than be charged to semantics of my business relationships or my intended use of a tool.

From a consumer point of view, I doubt the general public would agree with this position either if games (or any product or service) were to be offered by first checking your personal fiances then telling you what your price will be.

Second: from my professional point of view, well, class pricing seems to be a favorite approach for media, I think it is completely off base when it comes to product delivery and service. My company is one of the 25 largest (revenue wise) companies in the world. We spend more on our internal IT than some industries make. That said, if software vendors were to take this approach we would simply develop everything we need in house (heck it'd be my job to over see the projects... I do when products do not exist to service our business). Every one else, on the other hand would feel poorly done by.

"Enterprise" software is very expensive, but it tends to offer much more personal support and often the vendor will do custom modifications to their own products to suit a customer. They wouldn't get far slapping a "enterprise" sticker or a "hey you got money" sticker on the side and upping the price without real value.

Now, I'm not slamming the new GG approach cart blanc... it doesn't seem to fit my game dev. needs now, but I will say that the feature list for studio doesn't feel like a strong value proposition, I'd need to know more.

Just my thoughts,

Thanks,

Galen

 

I'm currently trying to get a definition for external funding because the way its mentioned it sounds like project development outsourcing completely to your team. Not you beeing contracted as a developer to work on a project of a company. But GG as UT is near fullstaff GDC attending so I guess I'll have to wait till next week.

Reason I think that it isn't the idea to cut all that is clearly that freelancers will work on "external funding" base but they do by no way require studio licenses as they are 1 man shows and studio licenses are for exactly that, studios ie whole teams.

nobody hires a single person to totally outsource a T3D project, thats granted

 

Hehe, perhaps Tom should add that to the Unity marketing then, 'cause someone did just that with me last year. I was contracted to do a full 3D heart surgery simulation (with realistic physical interaction of tools against an actual scanned heart model).

In all seriousness though, I was hoping to find that T3D was in fact moving toward that exact usage/usability.

Thanks,

Galen

 

Well such a simulation is one thing.

But you are commonly either a programmer or an artist, not both at least not to the extend thats commonly required for a TGEA / T3D like project with its eye candy feature and not too "low end friendly" requirements which also means that you better use some of them to justify the requirements. And even if you were both, it just takes too long to create both sides if you try to do it all on your own.
Thats what I meant with the "unlikely that a single person is beeing hired"

Thats world of a difference to unity that scales down to DX6 / DX7 class hardware

 

Sometimes it's tempting getting a job at a software company because it seems that you for instance don't need a clue about what a certain type of business is all about.

 

???

 

Guys, we all have our own opinions and we are of course entitled to debate - but please keep this a nice happy and friendly place

 

@taumel - I'm not sure I understand your comment? Yes, the highlighted section of the features list, and the item below it, without reading the actual contractual document describing the intended legal definitions, would have applied to the project that I was working on. Which, to my point, would not have made T3D a good choice for the project financially.

Reading your comment literally, I would suggest, tempting or not, applying for a job without the necessary skills and background, and getting a job are two distinct things. If I understand what you're getting at?

Thanks,

Galen

 

I think the list speaks pretty much for itself. Why is a non gaming application punished in a way that you aren't allowed building it with professional?

If i remember the last 3d non gaming projects i or others i know of did, then i wouldn't say that these jobs justify making the product for these jobs more expensive, in no way. It's just ridiculous and with all the splash screen things you somehow get the feeling that either there is a 16 year old newbie in charge who simply has no idea of the market situation or you have to question if they want to sell their products at all.

With artificial downers like slpash screens or things like differing a products price regarding the content you intend to build (do i have to pay more if the colour green is dominant?) you really get into the mood, you know what, just keep your stuff and be happy with it on your own. Loco...

 

I honestly could care about the licensing deal they have. I would be more intrested in a direct comparison of Unity 2.5 and torqe 3d.

 

Your gonna have to wait a little for that since T3D in not even officially released yet but one thing I don know is the Unity's editor will have a 99.9999999999% chance of beating T3D's editor(s).

 

I have a feeling you might be right. Even as a relative n00b with Unity, I almost never need to go to the manual for the editor. It just works, and the way I expect it to work.

Mostly it's the Unity scripting reference that I have open all the time. But even my reference manual usage should go down a lot, now that I'm using MonoDevelop to edit scripts.

That code completion is a life saver.

 

Why SVN can't be used?

 

Because unity stores the object relations in meta data. These are binary data so merging is not possible which basically makes multi designer environments with SVN useless
This is only possible through Unity Asset Server

 

it's rather interesting but I still doesn't get ANY answer from them. (Meanwhile automated e-mails from unity3d(even automated ones from sales@) are coming fine). Can this becouse of me using Google Apps for Your Domain as e-mail system?

 

joktar... I think the entire Unity team were at GDC for the week and I am not sure when everyone is back in Copenhagen and back in the office.

Though I am surprised you have not heard back from someone considering there are always UT peeps monitoring this forum and email channels.

 

I've used both Torque and Unity professionally.

I wish I could say that I hadn't.

Unity makes my work a pleasure.

 

I am very much on top of the trial@ queue, if you've written us there then what email address did you use so I can see what's happened. As to sales@, Joe (Santos, not Ante) is chugging through all of those but the 2.5 launch and GDC have left us quite backed up, so much so that I'm lending a daily hand clearing out the messages. In either case you can PM me your email address and I'll look up your email case and nudge it along myself.