Eve: Valkyrie moves from Unity to Unreal Engine 4.

The devs have moved from Unity to Unreal Engine 4.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/1/5671020/eve-valkyrie-unreal-engine-4-starbuck

 

(...........wind in the trees...)

 

I think it was looking good in Unity. I'm surprised they went for an engine change as it looked as though they were well on the way to releasing one of the first VR space games and one made with Unity?!

Would love to know why they changed over, any more info, I get the impression that Unity was not giving them the AAA umph they wanted?

Update - Ability to release to PS4 with Unreal a major factor - http://www.destructoid.com/eve-valkyrie-s-moved-to-unreal-4-and-is-looking-amazing-274079.phtml

 

Yes. I think the ability to release on PS4 was a major factor. They also say it looks better. I thought it looked pretty good in Unity.

 

From that article ^^

Would have been a great game to have in Unity's gallery....lost to competition.

 

Yeah, and I'm sure more will follow if UT decides not to change their strategy soon...

 

I wonder how much value in marketing they lose from something like that (AAA studio bailing for a different engine). Like if Eve used Unity, a huge number of people would be exposed to unity and think wow, what an amazing game/engine/etc.

 

It seems that on the marketing side, Unreal did one more good move.

 

This is pretty lame, only one thing for it... make a better looking game!

Dunno what Unity have to do to change their strategy or anything, to be honest anything ive read as comments from them they seem somewhat confident. Somethings going on there. Anyways maybe U4 just favors larger teams if the lead guys are more familiar with it, c'est la vie

 

There is a lot more to it when you get into the AA / AAA sector bud.. Give it a try, come back to us with your thoughts.

If you have the knowledge to make tech for AAA games, you would be worth your weight in gold. Hence why there are generally teams of 50+ working on decent engines.

 

Considering what a mess Unity collaboration is (merging scenes, svn, dodgy prefabs, etc) I'm not surprised a team of 23 is way more productive in UE4. I'm sure Unity is still better for solo and tiny teams but I wonder if with all the graphical glitz in Unity 5 if they are improving any of that workflow.

 

I dunno how that relates to my post! First comment was a silly joke, second comment was.. pretty much what you said

 

this is a Unity forum, you should be publish news about companies than moves from UE4 to Unity.

 

This is relevant to Unity and the Unity community as it should help Unity improve it's game, now that the big boys are all stepping down to battle for developers in it's space.

Unity Alpha Version

Unreal Alpha Version

 

Companies leaving Unity is just as relevant, if not more relevant, than companies joining it.

 

With such a big experienced team, and a graphics focused game, it's not a shocker they go for UE4.
It's like if Hawken had started with unity, would make more sense to use UDK and make their brute force and experience work with more graphic features.

As they didn't have ue4 at first, and maybe weren't confident with udk.. they went for unity. It is yet to see if ue4 workflow suits them. And if unity 5 doesn't just step ahead graphically.. I mean, guys the videos look promising or what?

 

It also depends heavily on your production flow/pipeline. I would have agreed that Unity was a problem for large teams about a year ago, but being on a Unity project with 40-50 people working on it (about 10-15 are engineers, the rest ui/art/design), we have had very little problems at all. We use git, and there are no "scenes", so that would improve the experience. With using bundles and a structured pipeline, it all runs very smooth.

 

doesnt surprise me.

the unreal one looks heaps better.

 

We found git to be terrible when we were using it a year ago, uploading large files 2gb+ took forever and would randomly freeze 90% uploaded. Having no scenes would make a big difference...but not everyone likes to work like that. And at some point you're going to have scenes in your game, so you just haven't crossed that bridge yet....

 

The problem being that Unity uses scenes heavily and it's a big part of the workflow. Baked lighting? Culling? Etc? All part of the scene.

It's a pain for my small team, I can't even begin to imagine how bad it would be for AAA.

The problem isn't really git, it's Unity.

 

It does and not by a small amount, just everything the lighting / post / particles just look great.

 

Absolutely.

It's a nice demonstration. Not exactly a side-by-side one. But it shows clearly that Unreal's version is definitely better looking.

I doubt that Unity5 will change that.

 

All of our source assets are in SVN, git is for game deliverable assets only, which keeps it small. Also our git install is local, so that makes it faster I would imagine. I love the branching in git.
Our game is pretty much complete, we are just polishing and wrapping features. There is only one scene, and it has nothing but a single object with a script. Nothing is built or done at the scene level. It is like flash, you can build games in the Flash IDE, but for larger projects the IDE is just used for adding/building content. We work in Unity the same way.

 

I'm not sure about that to be honest, from what I've seen so far from the pictures similar to what were doing in U5 for the Medieval portion. Unreal 4 still looks better to my eye, our main game certainly looks better in UE4 think a mixture of effects caves / elemental and some of it like the infiltrator for the outdoorsy stuff mixed in with a 24KM squared terrain. (I keep getting told off for posting unfinished work so I'll stop )..

Unreal is just a damn good looking engine, not realistic but pretty never the less. Devils in the detail and that's where UE also excels..

Still really interested in UT5.

 

I far as I know, Unity 5 won't have better particle rendering and better post FX. Two things that really shine in UE4 and make a big portion of what people consider as "current/next gen graphics".
I mean, what does it matter if I get Enlighten, and PBR and at the same time I'm still stuck with the same 2000's style particles and FX? It's like putting a cheery on top of a dog turd

Not to forget, that until Unity5 comes out, UE4 will also rapidly evolve if they keep that pace.

 

Certainly everything is wrapped in a scene as that is the starting point, but the rest (for us) either resides in code, or bundled as prefab/assets. We use local scenes to assemble the elements (as part of other projects), but nothing is directly added to the game scene, it is all managed by the game. Granted, this isn't for everyone, and takes planning, but it runs really really fast, and you can have many people working on many parts at same time. It also allows certain elements (art/audio/ui) to be directly inserted into the flow/game by the artists. An artist can build or change a model and export it into the pipeline and if it is called by the game, it will just show for everyone working on the project next time they run the game. Which can be a little startling when you are working on something and when you play it the art has changed since a minute or two ago.

 

That's why I said devils in the detail, you'd be surprised how much a nice waterwall particle effect, some glowing blades with particles flying off it can make a big difference to a game. You strip the post from the Elemental demo and it just doesn't look no where near as impressive..

I was playing Mass effect (the first one) and batman arkham city.. Particles look better in Mass Effect and that was released 2007.

 

Ohhhh, :-( I was expecting a Valkyrie themed game and maybe a Barbara Norris lookalike ready to kick but. :-(

There really wasn't a huge difference that I could see that Unity couldn't mostly solve by make competent prefabs demos widely known and available but the forums still have newbies coming and asking how to get started even with 2 semesters worth of excellent learning material available.

a)

Unity scene was marred by what looked like a hybrid game controller made with a beta of Unity GUI and so somewhat lacking. The blue and other light energy pulses is poor design as it looked that it was a light pulse without a source but put there to make visual noise. The particle effects trails are cartoonish and it didn't look as if any work was done to improve them. The 'stellar space' background well those looked OK but you can tell they are shots from NASA and look somewhat blurry.

b)

UE4 opening scene in the bay is definitely nice in that when it 1st starts moving if you aren't looking directly at it and paying attention it looks to be a live action film shot and not a game engine model. They obscured the weakness of the NASA static stellar space pictures with fog, and the particle trails are still the weak point although much improved from Unity's. That was likely liable because UE4 supplied better prefabs not because Unity can't do that. The blue light pulses without a discernable source are gone. It looks like the designers corrected some of their own design flaws or disguised them as much as it looks like UE4 helped in that regard.

I'm still going to give UE4 a whirl myself.

 

The two videos show that you can make the exact same game with the two engines. The artwork is the only real change in the videos: different models, textures, lighting, sound, and effects.

 

Our models look completely different in Unreal engine, Particles look nothing like Unity's and lighting is a technology part of the engine or third party middleware like Enlighten.

No two engines will ever look the same, due to various implementations of all kind of technologies out there. But it's up to the developer to make it look good.

If you believe what you say then the R&D guys at CryTek sure are wasting a butt load of money for no reason. Then again you could make it look better with just OpenGL and some good artwork , but I sure as hell wouldn't want to to put that amount of time in. Games would never get released.

 

While I agree that would work well for many things, it's not really a typical use case for Unity projects and it shoots plenty of features and a huge amount of the default workflow in the foot...

 

I don't see much that's different in the UE4 version that couldn't be put back into the Unity version. It just looks like they developed their assets and particle effects further. Perhaps the lighting is the only part that might be an issue in Unity. Still disheartening to hear the about switch, would've been great for UT to have Valkyrie done in Unity

 

Yup I thought about that workflow a bit, but I try to play to my tool's strengths and intended use cases as much as I can.

Sadly with Unity the intended use cases tend to get you in a lot of trouble... Nested Prefabs anyone?

This is sadly the pattern with most of Unity's stuff. I dive really deep into it and use it as it seems it was meant to be used, only to later find out there's some crucial thing in the workflow that's broken or simply not up to snuff.

I had to create my own Nested Prefab alternative. This is not the crap I should be spending my time coding, creating workarounds for things the engine is supposed to do out of the box. And the annoying part is that time and time again it has gone unfixed, despite the community asking for it for over 2 years.

So yup, on topic, I definitely am not surprised to see serious developers go for other engines. Unity's toolset is ok for prototyping or gamejam games, but it shows its huge weaknesses whenever you embark on a large project.

I'm sure anyone with a project that takes 1+ years has suffered at the hands of Unity many a time. We shouldn't have to be working around Unity's basic features in order to get a proper game shipped!

 

Default shaders might be different. If you made your own shaders, then they are probably much different.

I still say the artwork in the two videos is much different from each other. That's the biggest change.

 

So what's the point in Enlighten then? Also what's the point in there cascade particle system?

Shaders in what way? Post FX? Materials? There's much more too it than you're making out. Anyway, it looks better in Unreal.

Just to hazard a guess, you're an artist right? Im just wondering as Ive been around in circles with other artists on fhis one before I split open an engine and went through every little detail.

 

There's probably a reason they don't have as much dynamic lighting in the Unity video posted in comparison with UE4......because it can't run at the same smooth FPS with the same looks, especially with an oculus rift rendering everything twice!

I notice a lot with Unity that you EITHER have the looks OR performance. Today, for example, I opened Quantum Theory's Urban City Pack, and it ran at 20fps, but looked great. Similar experience with many other top artists...their demo phenomenal but doesn't leave any room(performance wise) for code or gameplay.

Until getting a rift I primarily only do mobile games, but I can't even use pro postprocessing on most mobile apps because I watch my FPS drop significantly with each effect added. Even with Colorful and asset store plugins.

 

Haven't used Enlighten yet, but looks like global illumination and tools for dynamic and baked lighting. Looking forward to trying it out. Not sure how that would help in outer space considering there's no nearby surfaces to bounce light off. Might look cool in the cockpit.

I've used Cascade, works great. The major difference is how you can link particle shaders and other particle parameters to events or whatever. Change particle colour based on a vector, etc. I made a normal-mapped cloud system that lit up when the lightning was triggered. Great system, but doesn't do much more than Shuriken. What do you see in those videos that requires Cascade?

If you took the same models and same textures and lighting values/positions/types, etc. and got radically different results in different engines, then there is some default feature or setting that you enjoy. Could be a combination of fog and fake bokeh and lens flares or materials or something. A diffuse + spec + normal map equation should be almost identical on each system. What I see in those videos is completely different artwork that has been relit. Just look at the cockpit.

Yep, I'm an artist. And I see two videos of nearly identical gameplay and design that have different art in different engines. Nothing wrong with that, but switching engines doesn't auto-magically make different art.

P.S. - I've used both engines and they both are great. We are lucky to have such amazing technology.

 

What chingwa said

I couldn't see any reason why unity couldnt look like the Unreal version, i just imagine Unreal gets you there faster

 

Because of the lack of good FX and superior particle rendering for starters?

Besides that. To come close to Unreal's level, you have to hack and bend Unity and buy several third-party add-ons. In UE4 I get that out of the box without any hassle and thus I can focus on the things that matter as a artist.

 

Ahh i see when you guys talk about Unity you actually mean Unity minus Asset Store. I understand. I think it's pretty stupid, particularly if your employer or if you are the employer have enough money to pay a team full time, the asset store stuff is absolutely nothing

I wouldnt try to defend Unity without the asset store, vanilla Unity is, lets face it, a bit crap. Augmented with a few bits and bobs though and it becomes absolutely great. In these discussions it's definitely worth recognising this distinction

Ok i'll revise: Man vanilla unity could no way make a game that looks like the Unreal version, yay unreal! But I don't see why spending a couple of hundred at the asset store on some well chosen items wouldnt smash the unreal version into a million little pieces. Do you not have a couple of hundred? Or are you of the mindset of 'No my game shall be S*** as i shall not lower myself to the dreadful depths of asset store user'

Anyways, games like that, what a way to sell an engine. Homeworld happened over ten years, i get the engine trails

 

They both certainly do have there merits, although I'll probably PM you because this is a subject close to my heart. I spent a lot and I MEAN a lot of time upgrading and making shaders / post / rendering additions etc. etc.

I'll try not to take this thread too far off topic .

 

I'd love to hear what you have to say about this stuff ShadowK

I'm pretty passionate and enthusiastic about computer graphics myself

 

+1, I like a good read in the afternoon.

 

It's not about the money.
Relying on third-party plug-ins is never the best idea. It happens regularly in the AssetStore, that add-ons get abandoned, are not well supported, or simply work not well together with other add-ons. Not to mention the cluttered workflow.
So having most features out of the box is desired. You also focus better on the things that matter, your game, instead of hacking stuff together and chase a visual quality that you simply can't reach with Unity.

I know where you're coming from. You are the guy who tries to demonstrate Unity's awesome graphical capabilities, buying tons of stuff in the store to get there.
But for 20 bucks a month, your stuff looks awesome almost instantly. This is the way it should be if you aim for great visuals.
At least if time and money matters to you. If you just like to tinker around and doing this as a hobby that might be another story.

 

Well, you just kinda said what I said. Unreal gets you there faster. I dont spend 'tonnes' as my living cirmumstances don't allow me to spend 'tonnes', and i'm aware of the downsides of the asset store. I have, however, spent enough time watching it to know the good sides too - have you actually ever gotten a good knowledge of it and used the better supported, stronger assets? Or had an asset that you understood well enough that should it be abandoned, you still fully understood how to maintain it? I don't make games for a living but the idea of buying something from the asset store you used in a major project that you didnt fully understand sounds irresponsible, lets say

You just said the same old mantra a bunch of other folks ive heard say, one from a pal who knew sweet fa about unity, saw the asset store then said that. A year after I still have a little laugh at the 30 quid we could have spent that would have simple as pie solved every AI problem in the game, but instead we went with something homegrown, it took 6 weeks and was a mess. The fellow writes software for satellites so programming is not a shortcoming of his, an easily adopted attitude that anything anyone else made cant possibly be good is. So when I say 'well chosen items' i mean there are items that are plain good investments and are not that hard to get your head around and if you took enough time to look into them as you do fawning at an incomplete engines feature set then you could maybe move swiftly along with Unity doing awesome stuff, which it can actually do

Its a bit unfortunate that in this case theres now a big deal being made over this game, it looks significantly less exciting than tie fighter

 

I'll post my thoughts on it sure, probably need a bit of time to prepare on that one.. Main issue to do a true comparison, I need more information on UE4 I've scanned the source but not entirely clued up as to what exactly they're doing.

 

I don't exactly want a comparison as such, Unity's going to come up short, maybe a good thing would be examples of typical things you expect to see in a game, and how one might excel over the other in that circumstance. I said on some post I couldn't see BF4 being made on it. I just couldn't. I don't think the sheer hectic amount of explosions and watery bits and planes falling over made it any less able to send me to sleep, what a boring game, but that level of mindblowingly pretty (This is 'pretty' in the most technical sense of the word, its a long way away from what i think is actually pretty) with things breaking and theres got to be at least one skyscraper falling over per game lately.. can't see Unity doing it. If that's what I wanted to make I wouldn't use Unity

I must say though, what compels people who are using unreal to come over and complain about unity like its being a right pain in the arse for them does confound me! Just use Unreal! When it's actually a thing i'll no doubt have a go at using it for something, in fact since it's so cheap it's just another tool in the toolbox isnt it. From what i've seen, Unreal's great for making certain types of game, you can get a vibe about piece of software that just has you more comfortable using it for some things. Thats my explanation for macos almost entirely. The right tool for the right job, look at epic and UT, throwing their stuff at us to use on the cheap, free choice to use the most appropriate tool for the job, funtimes.

Don't have anything against an accurate statement like Unreal is much better for graphics (Well, this can definitely depend on what you're making, they're going to be on par unless your pretty graphics happen to also be demanding, which is not always the case). Just don't like flagrantly untrue things said about unity (But i'm fine with the true things)

 

Unity can't match the post fx stuff Unreal provides by far.
While most don't even realize, proper anti-aliasing is one of the most significant visual improvement an engine can provide.
Unreal has its own developed temporal AA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_anti-aliasing) , that even removes specular aliasing (http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/82887-Fireflies-Anti-Aliasing). A huge asset when it comes to AAA development.

UT seems to be primarily focused at adding middleware products to their core product, while Unreal develops most of their AAA tech in-house.
This makes Unreal more agile when it comes to delivering and maintaining tech such as TXAA.

 

I think Unreal gives a certain vibe to the art of games that makes them look very similar, for some reason

I much prefer Unity graphics from an artistic point of view, both from what i see in projects like the stunning one with the mouse hero, and what i have managed to acomplish so far with Marmoset+FXLab.

Personal opinion always , i just would never pick Unreal engine for my game, for the art i shoot for Unity or Cryengine would be the best ones

Isnt Unity supporting release on all major platforms as well ?

 

Shhh... That's a secret!