Not a UE4 thread...but some things Unity needs to consider (imo)

From a programmers perspective...

I did some fooling around with UE4 recently...yes I bought my $20 ticket to board the hypetrain. Anyways...

As a programmer, art is always a concern to me (or the lack there of). I can code an entire games worth of mechanics, but these mechanics are worth nil if there's not some sort of streamlined process to the creation/implementation of "programmer assets" for prototyping.

In UE4 I literally have everything I need, as a programmer, to prototype something graphically...out of the box.

Again on the artistic front...the post processing effects (which I have direct access to), lighting, shadows, particles...(the list goes on)... ALL LOOK AMAZING....out of the box.

To build further on prototyping...Unity has lacked a decent rigid modeling solution forever. I don't know why they've neglected this for so long. It's actually quite key to quickly blocking out a level for gameplay testing and size constraints...Actually I do know why...





UNITY functions from the ground up on the philosophy of "If it doesn't have it, you can buy it from the Asset store!". Where does this end? It gets to a point where 99% of these asset store purchases should be standard in the package. For this reason, I am going to do a little bit more research into UE4 because I actually have the tools to graphically prototype something playable out of the box...and all those mechanics I built in Unity will be fairly easy to transfer over to UE4 since C++ isn't an issue to me.

 

I'd be happy with bugs fixed and features released in a timely manner, after that we'll see what happens.

But yes I agree, they shouldn't be using the asset store to fill holes in their engine. Which I think they've mainly rectified in UT5, from what I've seen.

Now we just need some sort of cinematics system like matinee and some VFX editor and were golden.. (Bar Mono, obviously)

 

They are actually creating/buying standard implementations of asset store best sellers.

GUI
PBS
Realtime GI
Enhanced Audio tools

 

I don't know, this look a lot like a UE4 thread.

That said, I don't think the Asset Store integration is a bad thing; it allows Unity to (theoretically) ship a smaller package, and allow the user to download what they choose. There are a lot of free assets on the store, too, and some are pretty good (some others, not so much, but that's beyond the scope of this topic.)

I think there's two problems with the Asset Store, and they both come down to communication. First, I think the role of the Asset Store in the Unity workflow is severely underplayed; as someone who has leveraged the Asset Store, I know how important it is, especially as someone who's primarily a programmer. Secondly, there needs to be better communication that the Asset Store dosen't unilaterally require payment, as there are free things on it that are useful, and I think some of the cruft can be trimmed out of the initial Unity download, and users given links to free projects such as the Bootcamp or Stealth Project upon initial install.

I choose to view the Asset Store as one of the game mechanics of the game engine, it's something that we should all feel OK about going to when we just need a few quick assets to prototype something, or when we're dealing with some discipline completely outside of our gamut of abilities. It's a tool to help us create our games, but I don't think it's telegraphed to users in such a way that we all get what it's supposed to do.

 

Right, but the problem is they're not doing enough of it. People complain the Terrain engine sucks, so why not work with Terrain engine asset providers or just buy them out? You could make that argument for a lot of top-selling assets: UltimateFPS camera, PoolManager, HOTween, in-editor geometry manipulation ("brushes"), prototyping content, in-editor code manipulation, visual scripting etc.

I guess I am either not well informed enough or not using Unity long enough, but besides NGUI integration I don't recognize the items in your list. However, I would cite NGUI integration as a very positive example of what Unity should have done over the last year working towards version 5. The shader generation feature in v5 smell a bit like a much needed shader generator feature that currently is provided by asset store creators, but for what little is known about v5 it's too early to tell if it's really a replacement.

My theory is that Unity is a bit hesitant about this since Asset Store content creators shouldn't be thinking that Unity latches on assets as soon as they become popular and destroys them. Apple has this problem, where third party software is often copied, integrated or bought (and in case of acquisitions often ruined).

Another element might be that at Unity the mindset of big version number releases might still co-exist with the newer culture of ongoing releases. Sticking to big version numbers leads to a culture of secrecy, withholding features from users and lack of cooperation. Adobe and Unity are moving away from that by switching to a subscription model, but at the same time the short-comings become obvious: marketing still relies on the reveal of a long new features list for a big release. Yet working with existing content providers might spill the news too early.

In Unity's case however I am sure that asset store creators would be more than happy to either work with them or be bought out. Additionally, in Unity's case we are not talking about a simple acquisition, but rather an collaboration. Working with existing solution providers at such a stage can be very fruitful, since they know what problems people have, what workflows work etc. To a degree Unity's is working with people in the field when they develop new solutions (Mechanim comes to mind, linear lighting might be another example), but again it seems to me they are not doing enough of it.

 

One of my biggest gripes is the lack of real "brush" support and geometry sculpting from within the editor. Very basic tools like "Snap to grib" require an add-on...or I have to spend time creating them. It's not difficult, just tedious.

In UE4...I can make rigid things such as a House straight from the editor. Later, when it's time to polish, I can go through and make detailed props to decorate the house. The gameplay will be the same regardless of how deep into polish I go. This is simply not possible without basic brush/geometry editor tools.

And then we have "Programmer assets", or prototype art (which you often create FROM brushes). Sure, I can buy a bunch of cheap/free models/textures from the Asset store.

A) they won't be of very high quality
B) if I need to buy 100+ Assets @ $2 each...that's $200 AND quite a bit of scouring time to find all of those assets.
C) there's no guarantee that I'll find every asset that I need...thus I need to leave the Editor and MAKE art.

C still occurs with something like UE4...but there is far more prototyping power through assets and editor tools with UE4 out the gate.

I'm fairly sure I can even do crazy things like paint terrain on ANY piece of geometry. I'm not limited to a "Terrain object"...why would I need to use this? Well if I'm prototyping a world out of pieces, I can more easily separate things like roads from terrain as I add more detail...using the same geometry.

 

I work with Unity and Unreal, and Unreal is much better in my opinion, the only way that Unity can compete with Unreal is drop drastically the prices (under $19 mo.), but i think that the pride of Unity team not permit this and slowy Unreal will be the engine of the most indie game developers.

 

Interesting...care to elaborate on your experiences?

 

well, UE4 uses now C++, this is better that use a propietary language how UE3 and the Unreal script, you can use Visual Studio (express too) and C++ is a low level language but is maybe the most used and the language with most resources for dev. for high level projects is a incredible advantage can have the source code for make anything, in the Unity side JS is every time less used and have a good C# language, more easy to use that C++ but less powerfull, UE4 start with a new tool for programming, the Blueprints, visual scripting, in teory this can be more easy the C++ dev, only the future will be say if BP are a very good tool.

Respect the API (when use Unity 3 and UDK 3) i see the mayor impact in dev in the deafult samples, when i try make a aerial vehicle with two helices Unity have very poor documentation about this, and i need search tutorials about this type of engines, I think that with Unity happens this because Unity try incentivate the market of the assets give few samples and tutorials, but this is good for assets developers but not for the normal user, in UDK3 have many examples for example this air vehicles, then i only need adapt the scripts to my vehicle, I feel the same case with mecanim, for example after many time of that mecanim is out today Unity not have default Rigs for use with 3d suits, this is a bad thing, i need use the mecanim oficial examples projects and import to my 3d soft to can see a mecanim rig but this not is the better way, in resume I prefer a UE with many default resources and samples that a Unity Asset Store that i need pay for things that would be standard examples or free learning material.

 

I disagree partially.

UE4 operates on CSG geometry, which must be created with a specialized tool to do so (i.e Unreal Editor). Unity operates all on meshes and umbra, thus no special tool is needed for creating the special type of CSG geometry. The 'level prototyping' functions of UE4 are not there because they wanted to add a 'level prototyping function'. They are there because it was necessary to interface with the archaic CSG geometry system. Really CSG geometry is a legacy system that is in UE4 just because. They could of moved forward without it.

Personally I would much prefer to layout and prototype levels in C4D and rely on Unity's very streamlined auto-import auto-update system to update the geometry. Having to use CSG geometry in Unreal editor is actually one of the primary reasons I avoided using the original UDK. I wish they had just taken out the CSG and level editing capabilities of Unreal Editor and made it so it could much more efficiently take in the geometry from multiple other programs. Because the simple fact is, for geometry modeling, Unreal Editor is not going to be able to keep up or compete with full blown modeling Apps like C4D, Modo or even sketchup. I think having to do everything with CSG geometry at the base in UDK was actually one of the greatest hindrances to it's workflow.

 

I'd much rather block a level out inside the Editor...where I can just hit play and mess with things like scaling on the fly (without needing a reimport).

To me this is far easier to do in editor than hopping in and out of Maya (I don't have any experience using C4D's toolset). Also, there's nothing preventing you from using static meshes in UE4 and completely ignoring CSG geometry.

On a side note, you can export selected objects directly to .obj/.fbx/.whatever files which will allow you to open and edit the mesh (including textures/materials attached) in whatever modeling program you desire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5B7UOAT51E

 

Jumping back and forth to Maya? You make it seem like such a struggle to hit a button to go between programs.

Personally to me, having to use a CSG geometry editor seems like a pain in the ass many folds greater than having a system in place which automatically and very quickly reimports and re-updates my geometry output from C4D. Unity's workflow seems like a step forward by cutting out the archaic CSG systems and editors, and just letting you do it all in a real 3D application. And I'm not inexperienced with CSG. I started as a hobbyist level maker in the Quake 2 days. Worldcraft and Valve Hammer Editor were my first modeling programs. I spent years building maps with just CSG geometry, it's where I started. Then one day it became obvious to me how much incredibly faster you can do level design in modern 3D modeling programs, namely C4D, but even sketchup I think is way faster. This was one of the primary reasons I decided to never touch source engine again, and avoid UDK in favor of unity. For the fact that building levels in real 3D apps is very streamlined and ideal in Unity. Wanting CSG-like editing functionality in the game editor seems to me like a step backwards in technology and workflow.

One of the biggest questions on my mind concerning UE4 and if it is a viable option for me is whether or not it's auto-import and auto-update functionality is as fluent as Unity's, to let me do all the 3D work external to the engine in specialized 3D programs. I haven't had the time to check this out in UE4 though. But having to use CSG geometry to make a fully optimized ideal game in UE4 would actually be a deal breaker for me.

 

I have a love/hate relationship with CSG. It makes prototyping utterly fantastic and super fast to work with, but it does add a lot of later steps when you actually want to make the level itself.

 

Basically...but prototyping cannot be underestimated. Nobody uses a "direct to final model" workflow to build games. This bottlenecks any macro development as they now have to wait for art assets. Prototyping is also very important towards the direction frequently stated here of, "Don't worry about art! get some fun gameplay first!". This basically means you need some sort of playable art... ie a prototype.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but prototyping directly inside of modeling software would result in the need to UV everything. With CSG you can simply click and drag your placeholder textures into the scene to create visual references.

Something that needs to be noted is that the export CSG to .obj/.fbx essentially means that you bring a to-scale reference mesh into your 3d modeling solution of choice. Meaning...all you need to do is detail this mesh within the size constraints, and it will fit perfectly directly into your scene after import back into the UE4 editor.

My preferred workflow would be:
Prototype using placeholder objects/textures/CSG brushes in UE4 Editor to achieve a playable testing ground for the mechanics I have coded. The amazing grid navigation tools in UE4 allow me to construct a world where EVERYTHING is snapped together. Anything that I import into UE4 will fit without any size/scale tweaking as long as it was designed around those size constraints.

Detail and Polish to-scale using something like Maya or 3d studio max.







Also, I'm not sure how many LARGE scale meshes you've dealt with in Unity, but re-scaling these OR importing these is anything but fast when done in realtime through Unity.

 

My opinion is that Unity should not create any mesh modeling tool for the editor. There are applications dedicated to modeling, which also allow anyone to create prototype models.

It makes a lot more sense if Unity spends their resources on topics that can't be handled yet. That has nothing to do with the asset store.

 

I agree.

Everyone asking for level building features has:
a) a specific game they want to make in mind in which this would be helpful to them and
b) a limited view on what Unity is used for.

Of course tools are nice.

For me personally not having any modeling tools in Unity makes no difference, should I advocate against it and for something else? Just because you need something, doesn't mean that's the most important thing needed.

 

There's a few in-unity world builder things with csg etc on asset store. It's not something you can't fix. It's nice epic has it out of the box though, including obj export.

 

Unity has Houdini Engine. In raw functionality and power that trumps CSG and hand modeling in a 3d app. It's just not easy finding artists who know Houdini outside of the film vfx industry.

 

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but if you're just a programmer (and not, say, a level designer), can't you just throw some boxes and a plane together and use that as your prototype?
Yes, it looks like utter ass, but then again it's a PROTOTYPE, not the final game.

 

Per the level design workflow (in game CSG with snaps vs. importing from 3rd party programs), in the UE4 "Intro to Level Design" video below, the narrator talks about how Epic prototypes and iterates its levels in its professional game projects. It's a nice system.

Scroll ahead to 10:32 for the specifics:

[video=youtube_share;XDsJOFyxMnw]http://youtu.be/XDsJOFyxMnw?t=10m32s

 

I feel as if first and third person level design is one of Unity's biggest weak points. Even stuff as simple as making a different pattern on different parts of the floors (13:29 in the above video) would need different materials and meshes created for each area, or painstakingly redoing the UV-maps on that part of the floor. Plus you would have to make sure everything tiles nicely, and one element doesn't have a larger texture than another. Need something tiled more often for a larger plane? Gotta make a new material, or increase the polycount, and it's a PITA to make changes. Same with eth bricks on the walls. Making every brick uniform is incredibly tedious in Unity.

Or am I doing it wrong?

 

Honestly, if you really want it, I'd just go ahead and get ProBuilder or something. Looks like it gives you exactly what you're looking for (including world-space stretching of things - so that if you make your walls bigger it doesn't stretch the size of the bricks, it just increases the tiling).

I don't think Unity should bother themselves with directly supporting this. They are first and foremost a game engine, not a modeling package.

 

I dunno. Everything I've seen from Probuilder has been nowhere near as good as Unreal, but I don't know whether that's just lack of user skill, or features missing. Plus, it would be great if it was integrated into Unity.

I gotta disagree. Level design falls into a grey area between art and gameplay. Being able to quickly make changes in the engine (allowing you to easily compare things like doorframes to other object like players for scale) would be great, as well as applying textures to some parts of the levels like floors.

You would still use a modelling packages for the more detailed stuff, like in the video. But for blocking out stuff like basic levels, it seems as if something like blender has so many tools that it's HARDER to make levels.

 

Yeah, I agree. There's purpose built tools for this, where Unity is trying to be a generic tool that's a good starting point for anything.

 

Yes, but... and it's a big but... what makes a good level building tool is different from game to game. ProBuilder-style stuff is great for some games, but it's near useless for others - I wouldn't think about that kind of thing for an RTS or a space sim or... you get the picture.

It'd be great if Unity could be an all things for all people package, but that's not realistic. Instead they've gone the Asset Store route, providing 3rd party developers and end users an easy way to connect to have more specific tools created and shared.

From what I've used of ProBuilder it's not as good as Unreal's similar tools. It's great for the kind of thing I do, though, and the main weakness I noticed was in texture management which is undergoing massive upgrade shortly. Also, ProBuilder isn't the only one available. Check out the others, it could be that one of the them is more suited to your needs.

 

I use ProBuilder for exactly what you're describing, squared. It's fine; I've had some issues using it with prefabs, but whatever. I don't know anything about real CSG, but one advantage I perceive in the pure-mesh workflow is that ProBuilder allows for easy creation of staircases, arches, etc.

A level design like below took just a few minutes to put together, crappy as I'm sure it is.

 

Thing is, the same could be said for almost any aspect of the engine. What good is the terrain engine if you're making a flappy bird clone or a space game or a sci-fi FPS? Same thing could be said for the tree creator. In the same vein, what good is the ragdoll wizard for anything BUT shooters? What use is the pathfinding for platformers, space sims, or The Room style puzzle games? And I can't see myself ever using the 2D tools. I think there's a sufficient number of people making adventure, shooter and RPG games to make it worthwhile for UT to implement.

But it would be far better if they were implemented into the engine. Should UT have not added PBS because it was already part of the asset store? What about Global Illumination? The GUI?

Regardless, I'm definitely taking a closer look at probuilder and other tools.

 

I'm mainly a programmer. I messed around a lot with level design in Hammer/Worldcraft when I was younger.

 

Bit rude.

 

Apologies if I offended anyone.

 

Every 3D program has a 'box' uv projection, it automatically lays out the UV's in an ideal way for architectural models. This is in essence all CSG geometry does. You could argue that having to click 'box' uv projection in Modo is one unnecessary step to workflow. But encountering just one spiral staircase, or curvy complex surface in CSG geometry that you then have to properly UV map with CSG texture placement tools is going to quickly negate any workflow benefits CSG geometry otherwise had.

You can set it up so your modeling to proper scale in your 3D app, you need to read about how your 3D app works with this and set it accordingly.

Also for importing large scenes ensure that you instance things and you are exporting the instances to FBX! I had one scene that was taking like 40 minutes to import and generate lightmap UV's, until I realized that I forgot to export instances, which after doing so it imported in like 30 seconds, it was basically just a few dozen meshes duplicated hundreds of times. Ensuring I export with instances I've never had much of an issue. And I think all the 3D programs now export fbx instances, although in 3DS and Maya you have to explicitly tick a checkbox to do so in the FBX exporter.

I would agree that Unity should come with a 'grid snap' feature by default. But one of the great things about leaving behind CSG geometry is everything no longer needs to be water tight. Grid snapping was super important in Unreal and Quake engine days because CSG levels have to be water tight, and you don't want meshes overhanging or cross into other meshes, all surfaces need to be planar and rectilinear to not make messy BSP trees. But with Umbra and the way Unity works, that just doesn't matter anymore, meshes slightly intersecting, not being water tight, nonplanar surfaces, mesh faces going every which way and not being at exact angles, makes no difference anymore with how Unity works. CSG editors were also designed to largely enforce those rules of geometry, thats why they work how they work, with simple primitives. But the enforcement of those rules on geometry is not needed anymore in Unity, it was only done like that because of the technical nature of the archaic CSG and BSP systems used in Quake and Unreal engines. The 'blocking out of levels' in the game world editor only became a necessary step in the level design process because they needed to design the shell of the level within the constraints of the BSP and CSG geometry system in Unreal and Quake. Not because CSG tools were amazing tools for prototyping levels. CSG is a system inherently designed to put constraints on what can be done with geometry, constraints which are no longer needed with how Unity works. I'd be pretty certain that if UE4 finally trashed their whole CSG system, you wouldn't see CSG tools in the Unreal editor either.

I don't misunderstand you entirely. But I really don't think Unity should put time to replicating CSG tools inside of Unity. If you become highly affluent in C4D, or Modo, or any other major 3D app, having to do design with CSG just seems like a pain in the ass. I'd prefer Unity not put resource to competing in a software field which there is no reason for them to compete in. Unity will never be able to produce a modeling toolset as good as whats available in like C4D or Modo unless they start allocating serious funding towards it, which whats the point?

 

UE4 is not limited to CSG or any rules associated with CSG building. CSGs are simply a tool in UE4 that doesn't even need to be used.

CSGs are useful for non-artists to get something playable without ever leaving the editor.
Blueprints are useful for artists to get something playable without consulting a programmer. (also useful to programmers for simple things like coding a door)

Obviously you cannot replace what a 3d modeling program does. UE4's use of CSGs does not attempt to do this. It's just a tool...just like Unity's Terrain composer, which wouldn't even be touched by someone making a candy crush clone for example.


I know a bit of Maya, and I can get by...but I'm definitely not very familiar with everything you can do with the software.

 

It's not particularly shocking that one piece of software does something different, or even better, than another. People can whoop my a$$ in mspaint!

The game engine is canvas; It's what you do with it that makes all the difference.

 

Demanding CSG in Unity is like an Amish guy demanding NASA put buggy wheels on the space shuttle.

Please listen to techmage. Please?

P.S. - It was very difficult to explain to my wife why I was laughing so hard at this thread. I had a mental picture of me slapping convex hulls together in Quark 14 years ago and somebody thinking "yeah, that's a smart way to do things"

 

Maybe I coud say that louder but not better

 

I am going to have a look at those topics from a different point of view.

Global illumination as it will be available in Unity 5 could not have been integrated like that by anyone else. At least parts of it will work on mobiles and that would have been almost impossible for anyone else.
Could we start an already existing application next to Unity to get that? No.

PBS is not that spectacular. But Unity will only have one standard shader for it and will generate the shader variants as needed. That's clearly a huge step forward.
Could we start an already existing application next to Unity to get that? No.

Although there are alternatives in the asset store, it is high time that uGUI gets released. A GUI is not just an asset. Although a GUI can be designed in many applications, there is no standard solution to import them and to get something that just works.
Could we start an already existing application next to Unity to get that? No.

Modeling in Unity.
Could we start an already existing application next to Unity to get that? Yes.

If Unity decided to have built-in modeling for prototyping, the next request would be to more and more options in it until it becomes a full blown modeling solution. Doesn't sound too bad, but Unity needs people to implement that and Unity needs people how maintain it.
Besides modeling, people may ask for texture painting and/or vector graphics drawing, and certainly audio recording and editing.
All of those would be nice to have, but they are not really needed, because there are already solution that can be used.

 

I prefer for Unity to do what it does best and not become an over cluttered mess. To me, Unity is a base bones system which allows for anything to be built on top of it. Look at all the games that came out by indie and pro developers. If I wasn't told which engine made that, I would never have known because they all look different. UE3 games can be spotted by an everyday gamer. Also, remember this is UE3, not UDK. AFAIK, only one games was made with UDK, Hawken.

I would prefer if Unity3D came with a nice visual scripter though.

 

I believe there's a few modelling apps for unity in asset store, and I think it should stay in asset store. It's something that doesn't please everyone: people like modo, people like blender. This isn't a difficult thing, and it's not something I see as being necessary.

Unreal Engine 4 has some basics in because it's always had some basics in - and it's actually quite challenging to extend UE4 like this, unlike in Unity. If it comes off like I'm a fan of Unity then this is particularly true for the editor, which I extend to fit my own needs at every chance I get. In TOB I created custom editors and components to allow the team to practically just build the game themselves.

For Unity I think it's better to teach people how powerful it is to extend the editor, it's not very difficult to do and benefits people more. Hopefully UE4 will mature at some point as well to allow this to be easier.

 

But it can't match the ease of use and development time of a built-in BSP editor.

Thing is, implementing people's requests into the engine is literally Unity's only purpose. All those features WOULD be great to have. The alternative would be for Unity to not add anything -and I don't think that's what anyone wants.

I just want the level editing stuff to move up on the priority list.

But it would be a pretty nice "nice to have" and there is a competing product with said feature that I could use instead... called Unreal Engine 4.

Would it be nessecary? No. Would it be nice to have? Heck yes!

The 2-D stuff is cluttering up my 3D workspace. I don't think it should be removed. If clutter is such a big issue (which I really don't think it is) then it could just be standard asset which would have to be imported.

I could of and had built my own pathfinding solution for Unity Free before pathfinding was implemented. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate it's addition. The less work I have to do to get results the better. And creating my own extension is quite a bit of work. Telling people to "make it themselves" or buy it off the asset store doesn't hold up when I can just get another engine that does it for me with no extra cash or time commitment.

 

I'd be happy if Unity made a new terrain builder with easy to make mountains, hills, rivers, roads, cliffs, plateaus, and maybe extra tree city building add-ons...

low-poly of course so polys can be used on characters and pickups.

 

Unity funded UMA for character modeling...which will eventually be very good but it's not a core part of Unity.

 

Here's the thing - everyone is happy for unity to take a big hit in pay and reduce the prices everywhere but at the same time keep nagging unity for non essential features or more free goodies. I mean what pays for that?

Something's got to give.

 

If given the choice between lowering the current prices and getting more features, I'd take the extra features any day of the week.

Also, what defines an "essential feature"?

 

I guess it's different for everyone for me it's less garbage collection, and more finished features and less bugs

 

+1000

 

That would be cool, however that would be quite an undertaking for Unity Technologies. Have you seen the videos demonstrating the Houdini Engine in Unity?

https://vimeo.com/70073569
https://vimeo.com/88794901
https://vimeo.com/80008979

You can get the Houdini Engine here http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=28&Itemid=391

 

+1

 

"Free goodies"? Just to upgrade my existing licenses would be $750 X 3 = $2250. If I want to continue web development I would have to pay $1500 for the WebGl so $2250 + $1500 = $3750. Im not sure how any of these "goodies" are free.

 

More features in Unity free, not paid. That is what goodies people nag for. Goodies in free, which you and I pay for. You've misread the context.

 

You do realize they aren't discontinuing Unity Web Player, right? Not for a LONG while.