Just to add on top of what Brian has written…
(I don’t visit the forums very much anymore as I’m in a completely different industry now, but I’ll try to check in more regularly. Brian may also give me a heads up if there’s something I can contribute…)
I know a lot of people really love pI3 (the standalone application) because of its speed, power, simplicity and depth. Being a standalone application though meant that the particle engine — the fun stuff — was just a third or less of the code. The rest was UI, file handling, memory management, etc. Remember how the movie handling in pI3 for Windows got slower when we released an update (version 3.10 maybe…)? That was when we had to switch movie handling code because Microsoft updated libraries. There were some UI features that changed or went away for the same reason — the OS libraries changed and we had to adapt.
There have been so many changes like that over the last 10 years that somebody would probably have to work for a few weeks just to get the code building in modern development environments — that’s with no functional changes. In modern software development, that’s quite a bit of effort (and therefore money). I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it’s not trivial. That’s why we started to focus more on the plugin versions of pI (pIAE and pIOFX), even though those had their own challenges.
The fact that pI was 2D is another problem. Not having 3D capabilities was a limiting factor for many even when pI was new — now though it is a deal breaker for most customers. Can it be converted to 3D? Probably. Sort of. Does it make sense to though? I don’t know, and that’s the problem. It’s never been clear to me as lead programmer, then as project manager, now as uninvolved third party that it would ever be worth the effort.
All that being said, I wouldn’t give up hope on seeing pI move forward, evolve, or something else. I’m not saying it will happen, I’m just saying not to give up hope.
Alan.