A Unity ID allows you to buy and/or subscribe to Unity products and services, shop in the Asset Store and participate
in the Unity community.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by intruder77, Jul 18, 2014.
Whoops, good point.
I wondering why certain people are still here and bitching about every aspect in Unity, if they think UE4 is so superior.
If I'd think that Unity sucks for my projects, I'd simply switch and not look back. Simple..
How dare we want long standing issues that have gone years without being fixed be improved instead of migrating to a new engine.
No need to get cynical.
Repeating the same stuff over and over again, doesn't gain you anything in this situation. We told them thousand times now that the prices are too high, that they need to ramp up their development speed, that Unity offers too few compared to UE4.
They should be well aware of that now.
All I see here is simple bitching and cycle jerking, beating a dead horse.
Except it's not just these things.
It's the outdated version of OpenGL for deployment on non-Windows desktop platforms. It's the terrain system that's had an update request sitting in the feedback section for five years, it's the ancient implementation of Mono that is only seeing any improvement by being replaced on mobile platforms, it's the fact that Unity can't handle having a controller unplugged and plugged back in, it's the lack of properly exposed particle scripting. These aren't new problems, they're old problems that are getting ridiculous.
Yes and we mentioned those issues as well. Several times. I just picked some examples.
It's pretty obvious that UT will announce their news at Unite. You might not like their secretiveness. Me neither. But that's how they work at the moment.
I'm not a part of their beta. So I don't know what they're cooking up. I'm waiting for Unite and form my opinion after I collected the relevant informations about Unity5 and possible price changes.
But repeating the same stuff over and over again doesn't seem to help anyone. Especially if nobody here really knows what they currently planning, or working on.
It's not that I didn't criticize UT and Unity. I did that too. But I think we reached a point where UT gained the infos they needed to actually improve things.
If they don't, well I'm one of the first people here who jumps ship. On that you can be sure.
But until any official announcement it's just beating a dead horse in my opinion.
And what happens if Unite comes and goes and nothing changes?
Ultimately, you vote with your wallet.
I've been waiting for improvements since years. And believe me, I'm tired of that and UT's hollow promises and teasing.
The stuff they have now in the works plus the pressure to deliver something great and work on their prices (thanks to UE4) still gives me some hope.
But in case they fail. "Bye Bye"
I doubt that telling them the stuff, they already know here will change anything.
If they are really that stubborn (which I hope not), I think they need it to learn the hard way (a.k.a losing tons users/customers to UE4).
And get an error (+3 sec)
Blueprint is about 10x slower than C++, that is what the devs themselves say. Which is pretty close to other scripting languages, even faster than some of them. Lua (without luajit) is what, 30 times slower than C++?
Considering Epic used almost all Unrealscript on UT3 (and 100% Unrealscript for UDK utgame), I wouldn't worry about the performance of it.
In any case, if you got performance issues with the blueprint, you can always move that to C++ and expose it as a single blueprint node, easy and efficient.
this dispute make no sense.
if someone want a mobile game -> Unity3d is the only choice
if someone want a cool AAA-game for PC/console and you doesn't care about mobile platforms -> UE4 is the only choice.
my opinion based on PRACTICAL experience.
a lot of people ask Epic to fix the support of mobile platforms but 4.3 didn't bring any major improvements for this.
Assuming UE4's mobile support won't be in an acceptable state by the time a game is ready to ship.
Assuming the indie team can produce AAA assets and has the funding necessary to license middle-ware such as Enlighten.
Epic touched on this in a forum post. They are working to improve compatibility and claim it'll be better come 4.4. At the rate they are advancing with each update, I believe them and wouldn't be surprised if most of the problems are fixed within a few updates.
I think a lot of people think the grass is greener but the issues with UE4 aren't as easy to deal with as the current issues with Unity. UE4 has a lot of things they need to fix with their lighting and lpv, while sounding like a good solution, is not very good in practice. With LPV there's a radius of influence and you can see the lighting popping and changing as you approach. You can see divisions in the lighting grid too. For distant lighting you would still probably need light baking or some type of ambient lighting fake. It's almost certain that these methods would not match the look of lpv lighting.
One of the main reasons I'm using Unity is that it's much easier to code and implement things. For terrain UE4 sounds promising but it's easy to forget that each terrain heightmap takes up a lot of memory. Terrain heightmaps are not dynamic or able to be generated at runtime in UE4, and even with that in mind their collisions are not very reliable (at least as of the time I was testing). I knew early on that a procedural method would be better for what I wanted and the detail that I wanted. Unity felt like a better fit for that. There's no way I'd do such bulky mesh generation in a blueprint construction script and UE4 coding was beginning to get on my nerves.
Unity has something somewhat elegant about it's workflow and pacing that is hard to appreciate until you've tried something else, especially UE4 which can have a very bloated feel (if that makes sense). I like the UE4's tab system though.
On the UI creation side of things UE4 doesn't have a good UI system yet either (as far as I'm aware), so if you're going over to UE4 for the UI tools prepare to be disappointed. They currently do UI in a very similar way to Unity, albeit with blueprints.
Of course we could create our own game engine!
I started making one years ago. It had PhysX, integrated python scripting, import of 3DS files, all sorts. Could only make games in it's own player though. Then I got bored with it because PhysX couldn't do Mesh-Mesh collisions (like Unity). I wonder if I still got it somewhere? Probably lost on an old computer. Oh well. Got me my first job in software though.
I remember another time I was making a social network. Then I though. Nah, this will never take off. So I stopped that too. Two years later... FaceBook.
Why don't I have ideas like that anymore? Maybe I'm getting old. Maybe I'm having too many thoughts and they're cancelling each other out. Maybe I'm just lazy.
NOT greater than me.
I don't think we need ANOTHER Unity vs Unreal thread. Everyone has an opinion, there are existing threads on this subject already where you can add that opinion, please search before you post so we can keep everything in one place.
[Edit in response to this]
The forum threads where we are asking for your opinions and experiences give us a more in depth perspective of what your pain points are. Brett (our VP of Engineering) typically asks, who you are, what you're working on & what you need from certain features.