So, Nanite

Wow your quote brought me back here and noticed the attachment link is broken, fixed!

Spoiler: The attachment

And yeah, it doesn't work well with skinned mesh currently, but hey just recently they made it work with vertex animations. And skinned mesh is already on its way!

 

Now when unreal 5.1 supports VR you can get this detail in VR when you get close to props. It's a game changer.

 

Unreal needs to adopt C# as a domain language. Next game would be unreal 100 percent. The automated workflow with nanites is mind blowing.

Meanwhile in unity we need to manually group near by objects on the same lightmap Atlas

 

That's nice on paper, but the reality is that unreal traditionally always had a problem with huge install size. If you compress static geometry, that's fine, but there's still textures to deal with which probably takes bulk of the data size.

Both Dyson Sphere and Satisfactory do not use "out of the box" functionality of the engine. Satisfactory is heavily optimized, to the degree where at some point you were not allowed to build light sources, because of the high performance cost. In fact the world was almost unlit for a long time - there was only one directional light from the sun and that was it. Lights were emissive materials that did not interact with the environment.

Same deal with dyson sphere, it is definitely not using raw monobehavior.

Basically, let's not forget that cities: skylines is a unity game. But if a beginner were to try to replicate that with monobehavior/prefab approach, that definitely wouldn't fly.

Regarding unity and building - see recently released Planet Crafter. Also a unity title.

 

They'll never do it.. it's been requested for years... They'd be more inclined to add some homebrew scripting crap again.

I'd look at Unigine where they already support C# and the graphics tech is pretty good... give it another year or two.. or Godot... I don't think I'd waste my time with UE I mean I have in the past but I can't stand C++ or Blueprints.. seems like opposite ends of the insanity curve and I just like the middle ground of C# ...Sure the terrain archvis stuff is great etc.. and they give out nice assets ...also there is only 1 rendering pipeline to scale mobile/highend...I like that.. Unity used to have that before throwing us into pink shader pipeline hell . ...still UE doesn't have enough to entice me.

 

That's my point, for good performance it's not enough to simply use the "faster engine" if you don't have the know-how or the resources for good optimizations.
So far, this was mainly the case with Unity, because there were a lot more indie/solo developers here.
But at the moment there is a shift to UE. Probably in the future Epic will have the same problem as Unity, with many badly programmed games flooding the market, and the Unreal logo will no longer be associated with high quality games.
However, the UR logos in many AAA games are probably only there because it's part of a contract to have better licensing terms.

 

am i?
I think i'm talking about this

 

as i said, it already started

 

Keyword there being "demo".

That's almost entirely the assets on disk. Unreal itself is around a third of a percent of that.

Edit: If you create base standalone builds of Unity and Unreal with none of the default packages removed from the project the minimum sizes are about 70MB for Unity (2021.3.14) and 280MB for Unreal (5.1). In both cases the size comes from the binaries.

Adding assets to these projects would naturally increase their size but I strongly suspect that it would do so more for Unity than for Unreal for one simple reason: Unreal uses Kraken while Unity uses LZ4/LZ4HC. If you look at the benchmarks below you'll see that Kraken soundly defeats LZ4HC. Both in compression ratio and performance.

http://www.radgametools.com/oodlekraken.htm

 

Acid is one of the only actual game devs on this forum. How do I know? Because

AcidArrow is very much a experienced dev, probably no one on this forum knows PLM better than him

 

AcidArrow has been complaining for years. If he is stuck by whatever he needs to dig himself out, ask for help with just exactly what his issue is...which the best I can figure is "Unity sux".. migrate to another engine more suitable for overcoming his internal resistance to finishing what he started...or STFU. It is really old at this point. Your argument is not bolstered by playing this gambit as his stance is extremely weak..

In the time he has been complaining i finished two desktop games and seven to ten contracts. Motorcycle sims, photographed and hand made biomes and textures for real world 49 sq km terrain, atomics physics sims with 3400 isotopes and atoms, animatronic stage controls for six robots with 20+ servos each and hundreds of DMX lights, Barracuda AI pose detection based gymnastics training/testing/scoring remote app for Olympics coach, werewolf based Tekken styled fighter, full procedural/no keyframing avatar motion synthesis system, voice driven AI command and control inference engine ..just to illustrate what Unity is capable of from someone who is not a compsci major, a high school dropout (I was magnificently bored..tooo slow) and only marginally decent at complex maths. So if this 3D artist and high school dropout can cut the mustard then I do not see the big problem that certain types make a stink about.

 

The game in your profile have no GI or world building of any sort. It's so trivial that you wouldn't stumble on the problems that unity does have.

 

The game in my sig was a game made to train my son in C# and Unity during the pandemic. I have done world building, used GI. There are ways to approach it so it is not a stumbling block. When I didn't like the GI Unity gave me for a contract project I just rendered my lightmaps in Cinema 4D and exported the baked GI. I had issues with the 49km sq terrain, SpeedTree and performance but came up with my own terrain culling systems and tree planting and an asset named Azure Sky did a fine job of giving the right feel for the game outdoor lighting with judicious placement of reflection probes. I wasn't trying to reproduce NatGeo documentary level graphics. Why should I? The human perception when engrossed in a game mechanic does not care that the roadside plant does not have translucency, subsurface scattering or move realistically when he virtual wind from the motorcycle hit it.. It just doesn't matter like so many think it does.I am hugely into procedural systems whether animation or procedural prop setup or structure by number. So keep fidgeting and making excuses for yourself and why you can't work.

 

Will Unity help this guy :

Come on Unity, go for it!

 

Have you seen what happened to the assets they've acquired?

 

lol ok.

 

Every like... page that goes by in this thread, somebody pops in without having read any posts about why this is a bad idea or how the person creating the asset has said they don't want to sell to Unity.

 

If you wish to be a little less ignorant I recommend reading up on the current state of ProBuilder. Once you have you might realize how bad it would be for Unity to take over for Nano Tech. The most successful assets are the ones that stay independent.

 

Stay independent for assets in Unity means not free and might be very expensive. Unity should just buy nano tech to make it free. Just likes Text Mesh Pro, Pro Builder and Bolt. Unity need solution for the next generation of graphics. Sadly, Seb no longer work at Unity.

 

Free and then languishing without meaningful update or improvement for ages, you mean. You left out that very important part.

 

Software costs money to develop and maintain. Unity buying them up and making them freely available is great in the short term but without the income from them they lose their motivation to properly support them. All three of the assets you've mentioned are in an iffy state specifically because they were acquired.

 

10 times faster and 1 draw call. I need this for VR. I wonder what happens if you import a standard lowpoly mesh that needs a normalmap to look good.

 

Hey, let me go away and read every post here...be back in a few days.

 

What is wrong with probuilder (am I living under a rock)?
I'd give each asset/dev a chance before just saying it will be bad if Unity buy it, that is my view. But maybe in this it is best to keep it as is.

 

You wouldn't even have to go back two pages.

 

People kinda expect it to be an integrated Blender I believe, instead of a prototyping tool like what it claims to be.

 

No, people expected it to work. Edge functionality will routinely fail without any error, clicking surfaces often fails to respect normal direction, conversion to mesh can produce inconsistent results... ProBuilder's issues are extensive and well-documented at this point.

 

this + mobile support would LITERALLY kill unity.

 

Everyone who suggests this is way overestimating the number of mobile games that would benefit from it, and VR is so incredibly niche that it's almost irrelevant to the point that the number is practically in the range of a rounding error. Graphics is far less of a concern than people want to believe.

If there truly were one killer feature instead of the wide range of them like it actually is it would be C#. C++ may be powerful but it's less pleasant to work with and visual scripting is not ideal as the only way of making functionality.

 

I don't know if it would kill it, but alot would move. Unity doesn't understand the problems with workflow because they have never made a real game. They started doing it but it was canceled, I'm not sure why, properly because they got feedback from the team they didn't want to hear

 

It's just not nice gfx, it's performance and workflow related. It's a pain making a world that is performant in unity. Everything is manual. While with a virtualized system you can place how much items you want and the virtualization will automatically handle that for you.

Also when will unity have built in origin shifting? More or less impossible making a multiplayer open world in unity today.

 

Yes, I fully agree, but the problem with the post that I quoted is that it's making the absurd assumption that adding support for it on mobile would kill Unity. The only way that would have a chance of being the case is if mobile were purely 3D. Which is obviously not the case. If anything I would argue the majority of mobile games are 2D.

 

Yeah, it won't kill it. But alot of indies that are making actual real games with medium to large worlds will move for sure. Though personally i hope nano tech will turn out to be as nice. We have invested years in our VR framework and it would be a shame not to utilize it for the next game. That plus C# is a much nicer domain language than cpp

 

I disagree. While it's definitely a technology that I would love to have access to by itself I don't think it will have as much of an effect as everyone wants to believe. Remember Nanite and Lumen were advertised as a package not individually. If it were truly that great on its own Epic's developers would have treated it as such.

 

Have you tried making a large world for VR that performs well in unity? There is nothing working properly, oclussion culling works poorly, terrain works poorly, LODs are completly manual and if you want to eliminate micro triangles (triangles smaller than one pixel) the process is more or less impossible, don't get me started on lightmapping, nothing is automated there, we need to manually use bake tags so that neraby objects end up on the same lightmap (you can't batch meshes on seperate lightmaps). It can't stich nearby seperate objects on lightmap so you will need to manually add those objects in blender, which is a pain plus it will break reflection probes and oclussion culling. This is just some of the problems too

 

No, but I have played around with demo scenes in asset bundles and they ran just fine for me granted my headset is a Rift plugged into an RTX 3070. I dislike working with mobile devices so I have yet to pick up a Quest.

 

You just baked the light and they worked? Must have been super tiny if thats the case. Or they had done all this work i just mentioned but i highly doubt it, haven't seen optimimized asset like that. I'm on a 3090 and still get frame drops before optimizing medium sized scenes.

Edit: rift one has very low resulution so might give some headroom but still

 

I barely remember anything but I definitely know I didn't bake lighting as I never bother doing that with samples unless the purpose is to see it in action (eg Bakery).

 

So basicly realtime lighting with no GI then. Still the pixel lights should kill performance on forward. Maybe you used deferred which really isnt suited for VR.

Well we are derailing.

But you have no real experience with making an actual VR game, similar story to unity, they don't have any actual experience doing game development (VR or otherwise) and it shows in their tooling.

 

About 2% of steam users have VR. Consider that steam consistently reaches 25 million online users during multiple times in a day and that % may mean nearly half a million people in VR on steam at any random point. Now say that steam has about 200 million users(which may be a lowball) and now we got 4 million VR players, with a very small amount of VR games to choose from(low competition). Add that to the fact that the most popular headset is the quest 2 and many of its users dont use it with steam and there should be at least 10 million people with VR.

 

500,000 people on Steam with headsets is a tiny amount. To put this into perspective, 16,000,000 people owned the Playstation Vita. Hell, more people owned the Virtual Boy than modern VR headsets. This idea that VR isn't a niche is absolutely laughable to anyone who has actually paid attention to things or who has dealt with VR in a sales perspective in the first place.

VR has found its niche. It's been nearly 7 years since the Oculus Rift properly released and the numbers have pretty much stabilized at 2-2.5% because that niche has been effectively filled.

 

Niche isn't a bad thing. Its a market that are screaming for content. It's perfect ground for indies.

 

That's debatable. You know what else was niche? The Ouya, which sold about 200,000 units. You know how many people bought its best selling title? 7,000. Understanding a niche and how well you can reach it is incredibly important, but given that the quote in question is presenting VR as something that isn't niche, that's really not happening here.

 

Had to Google that. Sure 200k units sold is offcourse too little to be sustainable. But VR is alot larger than that. I'm not going into a VR debate here because it's not constructive. But being niche is not a bad thing per say. Look at hardcore milsim, extremely niche but the fanbase scream for content.

 

Again, the problem is that the poster is taking issue and pushing back against the idea that it's niche. It is incredibly niche and that niche is effectively at capacity. It's why the only people you see talking about VR at all are either VR devs or VR die hards.

 

again, I said at least 10 MILLION but I guess you'd prefer to focus on 500k to "make your point".

Just a reminder for you that seemed to have skipped statistics tho: stable 2% on a platform that grows every year means that the raw number that these 2% represent is ALSO increasing

 

It's barely increasing and the rate of increase wasn't even meaningfully served by the release of a new Half-life title.

VR is a tiny niche with extremely limited growth. It has been six years. It has basically reached its cap. VR and 3D TV occupy basically the same technological contexts.

 

Not really, it keeps advancing as devices become more powerful and affordable.

 

The amount of Steam users with VR headsets has dropped.

 

Seems to be holding more or less a exponential growth rate.