Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Is Unity any easier than UDK?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by techmage, Nov 8, 2009.

  1. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    You should apply what you say to your own. Is a good advise for yourself.
     
  2. codinghero

    codinghero

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Posts:
    450
    Yes I should. Good thing I always do. Take note, tata. :D
     
  3. ZJP

    ZJP

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,649
    Well

    The real question is:
    Is it easier to complete a project (and earn money) with this "poor" Unity or with this "fabulous AAAAAA" UDK?

    :D

    JP
     
  4. niosop2

    niosop2

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Posts:
    1,059
    Depends on the project.

    If you want a FPS and have the manpower to actually use all the cool things that the UDK offers, then it will more than likely give you better results and fairly quickly because it's already geared towards an FPS. If you're a small team and don't want to do an FPS, then Unity will *more than likely* be much faster to develop in unless your team has previous UnrealScript experience and knows the class hierarchy and how they relate to each other already.

    The UDK has some really awesome tools and middleware integrated into it. FaceFX, SpeedTree, Scaleform, the Cascade particle editor, the physics editor and destructible object creator, etc, etc, etc. But to actually make use of all these features takes manpower and there's a lot more to learn.

    Unity offers a simple, low level API allowing you to do most things quickly and easily. Everything is in one editor and asset importing is drag and drop simple (although the UDK is not as far behind in this respect since this latest release supporting FBX and PNG files). Unity doesn't have as many bells and whistles as the UDK, but it offers a solid base to build your own tools. This has been demonstrated many times by people publishing their extensions to Unity.

    The UDK has a better looking renderer. Hopefully Unity 3.0 will narrow this gap, but at the moment (2.6.1) if you take the exact same assets and drop them into both Unity and the UDK, the UDK version will look a lot better. This is because the UDK has a lightmap baker built in (Unity 3.0 will have Beast) and because it uses 64-bit rendering pipeline so it can offer much higher fidelity than Unity can. I'm hoping Unity 3.0 closes this gap as well.

    Anyways, after trying out engine after engine, I'm most excited about Unity 3.0. I'll miss a lot of the features in the UDK, and I hope Unity 3.0 offers a terrain shader that supports normal mapped materials, but I think it offers the best balance between productivity and quality *for me*.

    Sorry this is so rambling, didn't really think out this post before writing it.
     
  5. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,601
    Likely UDK uses a 128bit renderer (HDR) which I doubt will happen for Unity as OSX is incapable to handle that due to its OpenGL implementation.

    But yes with Beast in Unity Pro 3, visually dependent devs can get some good looking stuff and Umbra in Unity Pro 3 ensures that it also runs at acceptable performance ;)
     
  6. niosop2

    niosop2

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Posts:
    1,059
    It really sucks that we're being limited by the least common denominator (OSX) as far as visual quality goes.
     
  7. lion-gv

    lion-gv

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Posts:
    118
    @niosop: Unity uses DirectX on Windows with an Open GL fallback. So you're not limited to Open GL.

    @motojt/tatoforever:
     
  8. niosop2

    niosop2

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Posts:
    1,059
    Yes, but it seems that the only features that make it into Unity itself are those that will work under both Windows and OSX. I understand wanting to make it so you don't have to worry about if the feature you're using will port over properly (more than we do), but it would be cool if things that weren't feasible on OSX would be considered and had a (Windows Only) tag next to them so people could choose to use them or not.
     
  9. Tudor_n

    Tudor_n

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Posts:
    359
    Accidentally found this thread while doing some research on implementing a collision based melee system (page 7).

    Was wondering where it would be easier to implement (first person persp. - UDK(no experience at all) or Unity(limited experience))

    Thought I might get something out of it so I proceeded to systematically read the thread from page 1. The results:

    I am 2.5% stupider now.

    Nowhere closer on the subject I was interested in.

    Had to sift through n*infinity of garbage posted by two trolls posing as the authority in game programming/ design. Both of which were really hard to understand at times due to their misuse of an otherwise simple language.

    Will probably twitch at the word liar for the rest of my life.

    Had quite a couple of healthy LOL sessions.

    All in all, worth the 1H+ it took to decrypt. (5 am now)
     
  10. GeneralGrant

    GeneralGrant

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Posts:
    977
    I have worked with both engines. I have to say, Unity is the best.

    Easy to script
    Easy to import assets
    Even compresses your assets into one file for easy transport!
    thats just a few.

    Cons:

    No matinee (you can still animate within blender/3ds/maya to get the same effect
    no BSP.
    Thats just a few.
     
  11. Tudor_n

    Tudor_n

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Posts:
    359
    That was not really my question (if I ever had one). I'm quite aware of the differences in artistic workflow between the two engines and their respective strong-points/ downsides. A scripting language is, well, a scripting language (it's learnable).
     
  12. sueds

    sueds

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Posts:
    46
    If I did understood the question properly I would say unity is easier to script. First of all because if you are from a basic programming background javascript or mono will make sense to you when unrealscript has his own rules and behave in kind of unique way.
    also the fact that you just have to qttqch script to object make the workflow really cool. Visual studo or mono develop are ;ore stable than nfringe and if you are looking for a stater you can rely on .net tutorial or javascript one to understand the language. unrealscript documentation don't make sense to everyone and there is not much different source.
     
  13. n321

    n321

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Posts:
    29
    I know the question has been resolved about whether or not UDK is a game engine that can make games or a glorified UT3 Mod tool but i thought heck id post this for anyone still questioning what it can do.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErnmP5yjtfo&feature=related

    Now I wanted to give my input after reading all 21 of these pages.

    1 Flamers are just making themselves look dumb. Any person who gets on a forum and says "this is better then that" is a flamer. It is all about opinion and ability. I used unity and could not get used to it honestly. But that does not stop me from saying i think it is a great piece of software and ppl are making some neat things on it. UDK yes is a bit larger and it works great for my team. I also found it easier to understand and the tutorial selection huge and free. With that being said UDK is also a great piece of software and as i have shown above ppl are making great things with it.

    2 What is easier? Well what do you knw how to do? Uscript is similar to java in alot of ways so you could in theroy pick either one up quickly. The question is then do you have the ability to also learn flash for scale form, faceFX use, Kismet, Matinee, ect? I do thats why I chose UDK. Others do not have the time or desire to do so and should choose somthing like unity that has a more streamlined but less robust workflow. As far as getting a game up and running fast. Well both take the same ammount of code it think and you dont have to use all of udks extra features so i think its about the same.

    3 What is better. Graphics? UDK. Support for other OS? Unity. Extra tools and features, UDK. Asset importing and such? Unity. Ect. They all have their pros and cons. its up to your opinion

    And thus this is my 2 cents. ITS ALL UP TO YOUR OPINION, KNOWLEGE, AND THE WAY YOU WANT TO WORK. Whats good for one is not good for another. Sheesh they are both free, (unity has a free edition) Try them out check some tuts on both and decide what works for your wants and project. ITs not about whats best, its about whats best for you. Its like saying Maya is better then MAX. No Maya is better for some people and max is better for some. They have both proven themselves to be great modeling apps. Max has pros and cons just as does maya.

    And remember all. We are all people and should not treat eachother like crap because we disagree on somthing like software! STOP FLAMING!

    ps sorry for typos i typed in haste at work
     
  14. GeneralGrant

    GeneralGrant

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Posts:
    977
    I have tried to script on both engines. Unityscript (javascript), is way easier to learn then unrealscript. Plus, unrealscript takes FOREVER to recompile, while unityscript will do it right as you save. Plus, you don't have the option of editing the variables while your game is runing in Unreal in fact, you have to close UDK, change the variables, recompile with frontend, and reopen UDK. Now, if you are on a slow computer, thats going to take you about 10 minutes. Just to change one simple variable.
     
  15. dongio

    dongio

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Posts:
    16
    unity is way easy for use and creating custom games then udk, unity scripting is awesome, realtime preview twiking for scripting. UDK workflow is littlebit pain, build custom classes in unreal script, compile and after that use it in kismat to twik and create custom logic. on the other hand unreal has awesome lightning system shader editor and way advanced particle editor.

    udk is probebly more powerfull and advanced engine but work environment is extremely userfriendly in unity.
     
  16. Dreamcube017

    Dreamcube017

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Posts:
    253
    I'd have to agree. While you CAN make many different types of games in UDK, to do so requires a lot of moving folders and creating ini and unreal script files and other things while in Unity, you just click "New Project" and you're ready to go.
     
  17. x17Blue_S17MON

    x17Blue_S17MON

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Posts:
    45
    I heard coding is harder in Unreal Development Kit, but don't quote me on that...

    To be honest, I think both engines need a lot of improvements as they are very hard to work with. One does not have a precise level editor while the other is only good for FPS and TPS games. Either way, it would be very hard to program a game type unless both teams have same roles (examples include Team Deathmatch and Domination), and those game types are boring.

    I'll need to try UDK to make a final decision of some sort but it keeps crashing every time I try to launch it. I can still play this one game that uses UDK without any problems though.

    EDIT: I don't even know if UDK's level editor allows anything precise.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2013
  18. LaneFox

    LaneFox

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Posts:
    7,462
    Smells like zombies in here.
     
  19. Saikobooru

    Saikobooru

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Posts:
    31
    This.
     

    Attached Files:

  20. dogzerx2

    dogzerx2

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    3,964
    If you're a small developer you want to hit the market where there's not too much AAA competition. UDK doesn't help you there!