When comparing MonoGame vs Esenthel, the Slant community recommends Esenthel for most people. In the question“What are the best 3D game engines?” Esenthel is ranked 10th while MonoGame is ranked 23rd. The most important reason people chose Esenthel is:
Esenthel has a built-in code editor which drastically simplifies the programming process. Programming with Esenthel is based on C++, however, when using the code editor there's no need to make separate .cpp or .h files. Code can be written once and the editor will be separating definitions and declarations automatically in the background allowing for quicker development.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Support for iOS, Android, Mac OS X, Linux, Windows (both OpenGL and DirectX), Windows 8 Store, Windows Phone 8, PlayStation Mobile, and the OUYA console with even more platforms on the way. Though it is an extra cost to do any platform other than Windows.
Pro Open source
All the code is available to you ensuring you'll have the ability to make changes when you need to or even port to whole new platforms.
Pro Managed code
By leveraging C# and other .NET languages on Microsoft and Mono platforms you can write modern, fast, and reliable game code.
Pro Performance on desktop
The performance on desktop platforms matches that of C++, but you still get all the pleasant features that C# has to offer.
Pro Good community
The community MonoGame has to offer is helpful and mature.
Pro Quicker development by using the integrated code editor
Esenthel has a built-in code editor which drastically simplifies the programming process.
Programming with Esenthel is based on C++, however, when using the code editor there's no need to make separate .cpp or .h files. Code can be written once and the editor will be separating definitions and declarations automatically in the background allowing for quicker development.
Pro Can be easily extended
Built in pure C++ so it is easy to use and extend however needed.
Pro Engine issues are resolved quickly
The author is very device minded and able to handle any problem quickly and effectively and he has a good track record of listening to requests.
Pro Incredibly stable
The engine is rock solid and stable which, considering its extensive feature set, is a huge plus for game developers
Pro Helpful and responsive forum
Pro Constant development and progress
New features or update to features are provided monthly.
Pro Can import a wide variety of formats
- 3D - FBX, DAE, OBJ, 3DS, B3D, MS3D, BVH, ASE, PSK/PSA
- 2D - BMP, PNG, JPG, TGA, DDS, TIF, WEBP, PSD, ICO
- Videos - VP9, Theora
- Sounds - OGG, WAV, MP3 (once decoding patents expire)
Pro Available on Steam
Pro Can be used for collaborative development
Esenthel comes with tools allowing for multiple developers to work on one project at the same time in collaborative mode. Every change made is instantly visible by other team members.
Pro Attractive licensing
Free to try, with license as cheap as 9.50$/month (with yearly subscription), 11.40$/month (monthly subscription) or full source code license 228$/year.
Pro Access to full source code
Having easy access to the full source makes it possible for any skilled developer to add features that a project requires.
Pro Good support for Android and iOS
Android and iOS support is pretty stable and easy to develop on. It's possible to, for example, develop the entire game on Windows or Mac and then easily compile for Android and iOS.
Pro Rock solid
Pro Supports modern graphics and sound APIs
- Graphics - DirectX 9/10/11, OpenGL, OpenGL ES, WebGL
- Sound - DirectSound, OpenAL, OpenSL
Pro Oculus Rift native support
Oculus Rift API integrated into the engine platform.
Pro Supports multiple compression libraries
LZMA, LZHAM, LZ4, ZLIB, Snappy, RLE
Pro Supports in-app purchases
IAP support for both mobile and desktop devices.
Con Non-Windows tools are a bit funky
Monogame support for Xamarin Studio or Monodevelop is a bit shaky especially for library references.
Con Slow roadmap implementation
Bugs are fixed promptly, but the developer maintains a growing 'roadmap' of features with no indication to users of time frame and priority of feature implementation.
Con One-man developer
Although the complete engine is maintained by a single, highly-skilled individual, he can be limited to what he is able to see or perceive, and sometimes he doesn't recognize broken or incomplete features until he sees it firsthand and sometimes doesn't recognize valid reports from his users. But when he does recognize the gap in the engine's feature-set, he is quick to make adjustments and updates.
Con Lack of in-depth tutorials
There are plenty of beginner coding tutorials which serve as a basic introduction for a new user to get up to speed, but once having passed that stage there is a real lack of free more advanced tutorials/examples/code snippets demonstrating the finer details of the vast and varied API functions.
Con Lack of editing tools
Con Web support practically non-existing