There is the Demo file for Book of the dead to download after GDC?

Where is the Book of the Dead, the first-person interactive demo to download?

 

as far as i know it will be available in the asset store in april

 

Will There also be a demo out of various platforms? (like XBOX one)

 

Okay thanks!

 

Still nothing about the Book of the dead demo?

 

Still nothing about the Book of the dead forest demo?

 

I'm sure the blog will announce it if it ever happens. It seems to me though, the assets are not all Unity's to share. If you want to know how to put a HD scene like this together you should check this: https://blogs.unity3d.com/2018/03/1...aking-real-world-objects-into-digital-assets/

You do not need to wait for book of the dead, and it might not arrive, I have no idea. I would assume it's a complete waste of time waiting when identical techniques, source and usable media is available in above link.

 

What a waste of good material they could have shared!

 

I'm not saying it won't be available, only there are hurdles to making such a thing available and lots of options in the meantime. Also, most of the assets are probably available on asset store for a price, like the Quixel assets. I would endorse them but I have not personally tried their assets, so I am unable to vouch for them. I would try them if I had the budget!

 

Most of the Assets used there are from Quixel Megascans. You'll need to buy a subscription on their website in order to download textures and models. Unity and Quixel need to come to an agreement first, I guess.

 

Also note that several Quixel Megascans libraries are available on the Unity asset store. And they specifically mention that the 'Valley collection' was used in Book of the Dead.

https://forum.unity.com/threads/quixel-megascans-collections.522516/

 

Didn't they say they were releasing Book of the Dead during GDC?

 

They can release some demo without source models and materials ?
Just to test the performance on our PC.

 

Did they release Adam Ep2 as an executable? Because I have only seen youtube videos of it.

I don't trust videos. They can (and will) be edited to hide ugly things like loadings and stuttering.
The trailer for Book of the Dead is a very good example of that. With super clean cuts from a scene to another that would NOT happen in realtime.

For me, all those demos are pure marketing stunts, since they make custom solutions for very specific scenarios that don't translate well to other projects and is borderline false advertising. Like the Blacksmith demo's very specific custom shadows to allow both long distance and very short distance resolution: instead of upgrading the existing shadow system, they went for a custom shadow system that is hacky and will only work on their very specific demo, giving the illusion you can do that with Unity in your game and it will work...

The same with Adam ep2 facial animations: Unity doesn't do that from stock and they made a very super specific custom system for it that they (as long as I know) haven't shared with the rest of us. But even if they shared it, the problem here is this is NOT a good example of what you can do with Unity as it ships!

It's like making a tech demo using tons of image effects, GPU physics and liquid dynamics from the assetstore: someone new to unity would expect to find all of these built right into Unity, but it's NOT. Those are paid third party assets, have plenty of compatibility issues between them and can be deprecated any time, since they aren't officially supported and will never be.

All of this is very shoddy, IMO.

 

The ADAM: Episode 2 executable
https://blogs.unity3d.com/2018/04/1...creators-to-explore-on-the-unity-asset-store/

 

Thanks for the exe
The rest of my comment still prevails though.

 

my pc will melt, running this....

 

I just tested it.
It's actually all smoke and mirrors: like the first episode, remove the shaky camera and it loses half the cinematic effect. (I don't like shaky cameras on movies either)
Not that expensive EXCEPT in the interior scene, where my GTX1080 goes 100% at 25-30fps in 2560x1440
At 1080p on a GTX1080 it's butter smooth in ultra quality.
At 4k it goes all way down to 8fps in the lowest quality settings.

The demo is mainly GPU dependent. My CPU never went up more than 18% (core i7 8700K)

 

The level is so simple without vegetation, it should run smooth on a 1080.
I think they will have to work on optimisation at some point; like UE4 did on a real game example like Fornite.

I'm curious to see if the new pipeline will get optimisation and scalability.

 

I do understand that position, and in the past I was a bit sad that certain things done for specific demos didnt make it into the base of unity later. However, when it come to these demos its always been rather clear to me that they are usually demonstrations of what a relatively small team that includes a graphics programmer can do with Unity. I can see how its misleading when not taken in that context, but on the otherhand as a single developer I am more than used to having to use the work of 3rd parties to fill in gaps that are caused by me not being a team. So I wouldnt expect to be able to do all that stuff myself in Unity without resort to 3rd party assets, custom scripts, shaders & effects at all.

Looking forwards I think the picture changes at least a little due to the scriptable render pipelines. At least now there is a clear and obvious system that will be used in demos. And when a custom written feature for a demo has broader use cases, its easier to imagine it ending up in the HD pipeline at some point. Not that there are any certainties for this, its still quite possible to imagine demos written with a 'custom version' of the HD pipeline and a similar situation to the past, we will just have to wait and see.

Anyway these days the demos are more about the assets they utilise than special functionality we dont have access to. ie this time around there is a heavy focus on photogrammetry and the layered materials/shaders that enable practical resolution textures to be utilised and more visual variety. Whatever Unity do or do not release from book of the dead makes very little difference to me in this regard - I am not setup to make my own photogrammetry assets and will be reliant on 3rd parties. I already have the Unity Fontainebleau scene to play with free photogrammetry assets without use limits, and there are several megascans packs to purchase on the store. So for me its a lot more fruitful to start playing with these using latest HD pipeline versions & unity betas than to hang around waiting for the book of the dead. Though I do understand there may be other things in that demo people are interested in.

 

You are correct, but it's still misleading and kind of dishonest.
Not that they will burn in hell for that, but if I wasn't aware of what IS and ISN'T built into Unity, I would be VERY disappointed.
It's like advertising a car showing you videos of the rally version instead of the street one.

 

It's not like Unity is the only game engine that does this. Unreal does the same thing, a bunch of people got excited recently for their real-time ray tracing demo only to find out that it's about ten years away from being on a consumer PC.

 

It's isn't intended to show what "you" can do with Unity out of the box, it is to show what can be done with Unity in skilled hands. Making games isn't just clicking buttons in the editor, it involves writing code, building solutions and your own custom content (art/shaders/tools/solutions). Drinking Coke is going to lead to dancing in the street, wearing Nikes isn't going to win you a gold medal, drinking Heineken isn't going to let you go home with the hottest person in the bar. If you have have the other skills and experience to do these things, those products may help you get there. But ultimately it is on the developer to execute, and those demos show what a good developer can do with Unity.

 

The last demo is all about MegaScan, there is no gameplay, it's lot more a 3D art demo than a developer demo.

 

What purpose would there be to including gameplay? If the demo were showing off new functionality that enabled new forms of gameplay it would be one thing, but if the purpose of the demo is to show off new art tech then having gameplay is a waste of resources.

 

I mean it's a art demo not a developer demo, this is only 3D art with post effects.

 

I consider decent use of photogammetry-based assets using a modern graphics pipeline and shaders to very much be within the world of 'developer demo'. Likewise I am a Unity developer that is more likely to produce stuff that may be described as art or film than game, but I am still a developer.

 

Even without gameplay is still a demonstration of unity’s realtime capabilities. Which is probably more informative. A game demo wouldn’t highlight anything very important as that is reflective of the game developers choices, not engine capabilities.

 

Indeed, and the blog entry for the Fontainebleau stuff makes sure to go on about how the LayeredLit shader is used to add variety to objects and avoid texture resolutions that are impractical for games. Certainly one of the realms where artist and developer requirements and attention to technical detail overlap.

 

Graphics capabilities, demo it's the same.
I hope we'll get a demo to try and see how it performs compared to actual Unity versions

 

you looked at Photogrammetry in Unity: Making Real-World Objects into Digital Assets? check it and the project out.

https://forum.unity.com/threads/pho...eal-world-objects-into-digital-assets.521946/

 

Where is book of the dead release? The 3th may passed !

 

Here's the thing - I don't think people are disputing that one could come up with BotD or Blacksmith if they had the skill and knowhow, I think people are upset that Unity Tech chooses to pass off this content as representative of the product.
Its a bit like Aston Martin lending out their most tuned, most highly modified non-road-legal 2018 model to the media to test then saying:
"boys listen, if you buy this your car will be worse yes, but if you pour money time and RnD into it it'll have a Nuremberg Ring lap time just as good as this review model".

That is hardly in good faith.

That said, UT are going to want to show their product in the best possible light and the ability of a room full of skilled boffins definitely does shed great light on it. If UT had not published BotD and Blacksmith along side their U5 and U2018 marketing material I don't think this would be an issue. But they did.

UT chose to present, in my view, these demos as representative of that particular feature-set just by whacking "UnityX coming Y" on the end. Had the disclaimer been a bit more clear I don't think anyone would be bothered.

At the end of the day, I personally think what they did was just slightly dodgy marketing - not a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers. Unity 2018 is an outstanding step forward with a whole lot of fantastic features that are long overdue. This (small) shambles really doesn't reduce that. Just don't want to see it happen again.

 

It's only dodgy marketing in my opinion if you're targeting someone who doesn't know any better. A brand new game developer won't, and frequently doesn't if the Getting Started section is any indication, understand that the features showcased are not necessarily within their reach and that the game engine won't magically make their game better.

An experienced developer though shouldn't be fooled by this and I can't really blame Unity if they are.

 

There is nothing remotely dodgy about. (Unless it’s not actually real-time or using hardware not available on the market). It’s showing what the engine can do. Any creative tool markets the same way. Look at photoshop or maya (3D promotional material often uses 3D party tools in their gallery images). It’s aspirational at best, of course those visuals are going to be out of reach for new users, but that is a limitation of the tool. If they claimed somewhere that “you can make things just like this with no engineering or art skills and just a couple clicks of the mouse!” Then yea, but they don’t. The are marketing to the full spectrum abilities, not just new users. Arguably, their marketing is going to be focused on the high end, since that is where they are making their money.

 

Your point is valid - but I think the community has to agree to disagree.

What you believe to be in good faith and otherwise is subjective as hell.

Ultimately I don't think it amounts to much - but its our responsibility to voice objections when things like this come up. Again, don't want to see it happen again.

 

Well lets not speak as if the community somehow has one singular opinion about anything. Or that some overwhelming consensus is on clear display in this case.

Anyway I think I already made my own opinion known, I can understand some of the complaints, especially historically. But I think some of them are arguably far less valid this time around as much of what is being demo'd is in the HD pipeline that is a huge mainstream part of Unitys future, rather than entirely custom demo scripts & shaders that will eventually languish in a dusty corner.

 

Thinking about it more, a lot of my issue with some of the complaints can be summarised by responding to this.

Comparing Unity to consumer products doesnt make much sense to me. Its tooling for developers. Complicated tools where a wide range of skills are involved in their successful use. People that look at a fancy demo and dont understand the full spectrum of what goes into getting those end results will have to learn the hard way, and its a lesson they are going to have to learn regardless of how hard or soft and to our tastes or not the marketing for Unity is.

 

Don’t presume to speak for the “community”. They are your opinions and you are entitled to them. But a half dozen people complaining about something isn’t even a measurable amount. Especially considering there are millions of developers.

These demos help unity grow and attract more developers and sales. You can be sure that won’t change. If you are using unity, they aren’t meant for you, they are meant for those aren’t using unity. If they bug you for whatever reason, ignore them. For others it’s a positive reinforcement of effort and advancement of the tool set.

 

Also I'm pretty sure I remember some historical complaints that Unity didnt always have the absolute best impression in the minds of every gamer, that there were sometimes perceptions out there about quality, performance and ability of Unity-based games. Perceptions that dont necessarily have anything to do with the reality at the best of times, but that can linger. On this front, it is in my interests that as many lovely bits of eye-candy that show Unity in the best possible light exist as possible and are seen by all sorts of eyeballs.

 

I remember the discussions too and for the most part it was about the vocal minority that watched a certain personality on YouTube who liked to think entirely too highly of himself.

 

Don't be ridiculous. If one person out of 1000 are hacked off by UTs decisions, that's disagreement in the community. I understand that you may not choose to take issue - but defending UT by making it out to be an issue which only effects a select few moaners is a rubbish approach.

 

Heh, no. That is a called a false equivalency. A couple of people with a perceived slight based on an assumption is not a disagreement in a community, it just that a couple of people with an odd perspective getting worked up over unmerited assumptions. If one is getting “hacked” off about a promotional marketing video, they should find better use of their energies, like learning how to leverage the engine’s capabilities.

There is literally nothing to “defend” here. It’s a Marketing video showing engine capabilities. There is nothing, anywhere to suggest even remotely that it is deceptive or false. Of the two people complaining about this, no one has demonstrated that there is any inaccurate or false or mal intent.

Since it is off topic and non-constructive, negative ranting, this drailment will now end. Please keep responses on topic, and constructive. Share what you like to setid future demos include, etc.

 

How many times we got amazing game teasers and an heavy graphics downgrades when the game is available lol
Yep, showcases are mostly marketing. Better keep energy to work on your game instead of focusing on a showcase demo

 

Admittedly, I'm not sure about this - but before UT started doing high end promotional demos weren't engine demos distributed at publication? At least the standalone executable.

Is it even demonstrating what can be done by a skilled team with Unity... is there any Unity left by the time they're done with the engine customization?

I don't blame Unity for advertising, but there is something really sketchy about how UT releases these tech demos that can never be downloaded and run locally.

 

Part of that is a GDC thing. It falls very early in the year and the big place to show of your plans for the year. Virtually every thing shown at gdc is pre release whether tools, tech or games. Book of the dead, as I recall, is specifically marketing for 2018, which just came our last week, and many of the final features will be coming (or finalized) throughout the year. If they do release it, it’s not likely to be right away.

 

I'm not trying to "engine war" or anything. But I do think that Unity demos tend to be very different from other engine demos, and I do think it's in bad faith.

Here's the GDC talk for UE4's Kite Demo. It goes in depth over the tech and approaches used. They actually used AI systems and the like for herding and animating animals, and various procedural approaches for populating a large environment.

The money quote: "part of this demo was not just about making something pretty. It was about us learning how our system scaled to really large environments and really pushing us"

Again: "part of this demo was not just about making something pretty. It was about us learning how our system scaled to really large environments and really pushing us"

The idea being that they were using techniques and approaches that real games might also use for production. The animal herding is fully AI driven for example, just like it would be in a real game. UT's demos are the opposite. They use extreme techniques only suitable for small demos, that still most likely require heavy engine modification and tech that is never shared w/ public.

UE4's demo here is an example of what you're talking about: "what's possible when used by skilled developers" - I'm not sure that Unity demos are. The fact that full project or even stand alone running demos are never released makes me think that these demos are "examples of how we can internally customize the engine to present a short video clip for marketing purposes" and have almost no connection to realistic application for even highly skilled well funded teams making real games.

Anyway, I don't really care. But seeing these demos like BotD and Blacksmith hyped leaves a bad taste in my mouth. They just don't feel like they're done in good faith.

 

Just keep in mind that at the time that demo was released the engine in question was very new to the market and since it was a massive rewrite from the previous generation they wouldn't have been able to pull any previous experiences from developers.

There undoubtedly would have been some people working with it but no one would have gotten to the stage of a complete game yet, so unlike Unity they wouldn't have been able to simply ask their customers how the engine was scaling. They had no alternative but to create a project to see for themselves.

At least that's my take on the reason why Epic Games is creating demos of this nature. It's good marketing too as can be seen from the fact that new developers keep pointing at it and acting like anyone can make a game regardless of skill.

 

Again, I'm not trying to engine war, or "rah why isn't unity more like unreal" or anything.

Just something about how unity engine demos are done leave a bad taste in my mouth. I roll my eyes whenever people talk about them or use them as examples of anything other than a PR move.

It's like the equivalent of a game using no "in game" footage for screenshots, but only using canned cinematics for screenshots (at least, back when cinematics weren't run in engine). Sure it works to hype up the product, but it's kinda in bad faith and sort of misleading.

 

Right. I just think if we're going to point fingers at Unity's demos we may need to point them at Unreal's demos too. How many new developers have we had show up and create a thread related to them comparing/switching to UE4 now?