Tiny VS WebGL

I've been tasked to output our Unity project to Web for all devices and browsers

Unity's WebGL features/compatibility to my shock, is horrific.

I don't know enough of either to make an infomred decision either way.

Currently the project I built to WebGL, works fine on desktop, but only with certain browsers. In Android I get a warning that Unity WebGL doesnt work with Android, but after pressing ok, it partially loads the app. On iOS it says graphics apis not supported

Is Project Tiny suppose to replace the build to WebGL and work better?

Seems Unity have not updated anything "WebGL" in some years!

 

I've happily deployed a Universal pipeline build last night in 2020.1 and it worked so I suspect Unity do work on it. Tiny is being absorbed into DOTS mainstream.

Mobiles do not typically run WebGL content well unless high end mobiles. This isn't Unity's fault though. If I was doing a 2D application for web mobile I would probably just stick with Tiny/Dots.

The sticky here: https://forum.unity.com/threads/pro...y-racing-preview-3-020-0-is-available.792999/ represents the current state of affairs. Does it run well on your phone?

 

Only Tiny is only available in 3D at the moment?

 

All of it is 3D yes but performance wise you would want to use quads / keep GPU work to a bare minimum for phones. It better suits '2D' games for web if targeting a mobile.

 

Could you clarify a bit for me please? You've deployed a URP app with 2020.1....... you mean using WebGL, or do you mean using Tiny?

Our AEC app needs to work on all platforms including mobile, without the user needing to install anything. So something web based I geuss.....

We'll be exploring models with simple pan/orbit/zoom navigation and some models will have minor interactivity like parts spinning or opening closing. Imagine mechanical objects in exploded view, or architectural models with roofs flipped open to see indside, or product configurators etc

 

Sorry - I deployed with WebGL. How good or bad WebGL is depends on the customer's browser. I'm not the best person to be asking about this - you should test Tiny and also test WebGL/URP.

 

I don't think Tiny has animation yet so you will probably need to write code to animate the parts.

Also depending on your projects timeline you might want to wait until the Tiny roadmap is revealed later this year and factor in its current level of features and it's roadmap features. Also taking into account the pre-alpha nature of an in development technology platform that will probably change over time and have bugs.

 

Good advice. However, Tiny does have some sort of animation nowadays: https://docs.unity3d.com/Packages/com.unity.tiny@0.21/api/Unity.Tiny.Animation.html

 

Isn't it called Unity 3D???
I wish you would spend the time improving your WebGL builds

 

Oh that explains why the product's 3D performance is so rubbish on the browser and WebGL then.

And you don't mention 3D as part of the platform at all, I mean it's not as though it's a big thing in your marketing at all right, I mean it's not as though it's on your front page of your website or anything right? Sarcasm intended. At least announce you intend to support WebGPU as Babylon did, if PlayCanvas or UE does WebGPU before you then you've lost my $1000+ dollars a year.

 

What use is WebGPU support to you, if users have to enable it with a browser flag?