Unity 3.4 launched!

I disagree, you can't make it start up in an instant like UniSciTE does, you can't stop it from filling my project folder with a dozen cspro files.

Its not that MonoDevelop is bad, just often overkill when UnisciTE is all that's needed. If i'm working on a large project then I'll use VS 2010 Express which I prefer.

I've logged several bugs on this;

1. Not jumping to correct error line
2. Keyword auto-highlight failure
3. Not presented as a option when initially selecting preferred external editor
4. Mono Develop - doesn't get uninstalled when uninstalling Unity
5. Mono Develop - proliferation of files (e.g. cspro) placed in project, splitting content and folder structure up.
6. Mono Develop - when sync-ing and UniSciTE is preferred editor, it opens up the sln in UniSciTE

edit:
I do wonder though how Unity 3.4 broke line and keyword highlighting and if there might be something the end user can do to fix it, but i've never delved too deeply into UnisciTE to see how it works.

 

Well, it's very well doable (after some changes). imho, version control should not be a part of the engine anyway.

The investment is 17 mln in total, divided in two investments the most recent one is 12 mln, but approx. a year ago they received a 5mln investment. 12 + 5 = 17. Oh i know exactly how investments work, and just on or after the first investment, indie became free.
Reason: the obvious.

in many cases, and i wouldn't be suprised if it is in some way applicable on UT too, is that the receiving company is not able to follow it's primairly focus/visions, and need to confirm to the party investing. (strict control agreements) sometimes this even means, that the receiving company is infact becoming a sister of the investor. (semi aquirement)

 

They where referring to version control from UT's point of view in developing, bug fixing and deploying an engine with highly changable features, not version control of user projects.

The 5million they recieved prior to Unity indie becoming free didn't pay for that change at all, thats not how it works. The money paid for them to expand their development operations - the decision to go with a free version was part of a business strategy to improve market penetration (for the web player) and to give it a competative edge over other engines, that at the time, had no free version.

 

Um

Here it behaves *EXACTLY* like uiniscite does. It opens in a single-window format, compact and no extra stuff. It doesn't do any of what you're saying it does. It also opens instantly. I am using unity js, not c#, so that may explain the differences in what we're seeing. I don't see any project cspro files etc or it splitting my content up.

All it does is add a bunch of project files to the root of my project folder - files I can safely ignore and let it do it's thing. If you don't like it, you can use notepad++ or any other text editor. But it makes a while bunch of sense for unity to just drop uniscite and the mac equivelent. Why mantain 3 separate ide's - it makes zero sense for them and us.

What would be nice is a lot more support for notepad++ and other editors so everyone can go with what they like best. Uniscite was poorly supported at best to begin with - just a bunch of hacks.

 

Mazeltov to all of us, Votre Santé, I'm speechless, Next version of Unity, Pleeeease integrate ME in unity3d.
Wow, looks like unity has a thing for 20th days to launch in, I would say 3.5 would be in October 25th. if you work for unity don't read the last sentence it may influence your choices if you are the red button guy.
Oh, 401MB the .exe file, gooood, did some trimming and left the solid stuff, mm.. wise.
remember, I have no integration fees, totally free, only extra 170GB

 

I don't know... I have the feeling that with every new version of Unity, the community gets more and more angry @Unity. I miss the dedicated community we had 2 years ago... went all down the drain with the free version... for some people free still isn't good enough.

just my 2 cents.

 

In its current form i dislike MonoDevelop as well, it feels bloated. Either i use VS Express or the tiny editor.

Some people might think that after six years of trying and still having serious bugs in the webplayer you have some right to be angry, others might think that's peanuts or just the way it is.

I suggest, either get the webplugin finally working for 3.5 or completely remove this publishing option from Unity.

It's not that webplugins are generally bad but no one needs a webplugin which doesn't work! This would spare us so much time.

 

Awesome! I accidentally join to forum and.... THANKS!

 

It's really ok, if you give it a chance, try using the "very compact" option and other options to remove splash, make icons smaller etc etc. It looks nice and sleek then.

You can accuse it of taking up more memory but in todays age, is that a problem for you?

 

Strange that we are seeing different things. Just did some testing and yes on a simple c# project with a single folder in assets, MonoDevelop does behave like before. However any of my more compex projects end up with this,

+ Assembly-CSharp.csproj
+ Assembly-CSharp-firstpass.csproj
+ Assembly-CSharp-firstpass-vs.csproj
+ Assembly-CSharp-vs.csproj
+ Assembly-UnityScript.unityproj
+ Assembly-UnityScript-Editor-firstpass.unityproj
+ Assembly-UnityScript-Editor-firstpass-vs.unityproj
+ Assembly-UnityScript-firstpass.unityproj
+ Assembly-UnityScript-firstpass-vs.unityproj
+ Assembly-UnityScript-vs.unityproj
+ ResearchProjects 2011 June (u3.4).sln
+ ResearchProjects 2011 June (u3.4)-csharp.sln

in my project root folder, with halve of those transfering into the MD solution directory structure. Each Assemly folder in MD has references and assets folder, inside the asset folder are various other folders from the project, often shared and split or duplicated between mulitple Assembly folders. Honestly there is so much crap int he solution I wouldn't know where to start to find stuff. I think its all this 'firstpass' stuff thats messed everything up and i'm not sure what causes it.


As for UnisciTE I just want it to be maintained, I have a feeling the two main bugs/issues might be due to simple oversight on UT part. I mean all it has to do is call the program giving the line number of the error (which it correctly identifies in the console) and for auto-color presumbly just needs a link to the reference file.

Edit:
..and when I close MD I get even more files
+ Assembly-CSharp.pidb
+ Assembly-CSharp-firstpass.pidb
+ Assembly-UnityScript.pidb
+ Assembly-UnityScript-Editor-firstpass.pidb
+ Assembly-UnityScript-firstpass.pidb
+ ResearchProjects 2011 June (u3.4).userprefs

That's now a total of 18 additional files!

 

Unity Free version is amazing! for learn and get better skill in unity game development.. if you wish a tons of other F***ing awsome features.. move to UDK or Cryengine!! go ahead!! use all the fabulous features there and never publish a game!!
or.. start low publishing your games using unity free!! be a better developer and you will buy the unity pro!!

people thinks the shadowns, defered renders and occlusion cullling will improve hes game to a top quality art assets.. they don´t will do this for you!!

think better in your game visual style and you can delivery a great game with great visual quality using only the free version!

Ps. don´t waste your time in a line of free food, thinking you will get some lobster and caviar

 

Would be better to enhance the buit-in editor as well uniSci(whatever), that's what I use mostly, monodevelop is a big lousy pig full of itchy bugs, i take everything i said if UT made changes to it and not novell.
Oh and some intellisense as well, coloring in shaders, and i'm serious, not all of us use node-based editors, some are just old-school, using print() to debug and will be forever. so UniSci intell+ shader editing improvments+shader debug are crucial to me.
give you guys till October 25th

 

Its strange, when it comes to game engines the users demand to want free things. I've seen this across multiple game engine companies.

But can you imagine if these same types of complaints and demands happened at places like Autodesk, Adobe, etc. (like "Why isnt Maya/Max/Photoshop free" or "Its not fair you have to pay $4000 to $7000 ... it should be free"). You'd get stomped over and laughed at.



Why does unity put up with it? And to the users: Unity is a company .... it sells a product. If they want to, they can fold the free version altogether .... then you'd have nothing. So be happy for what is available because it can disappear if you annoy the wrong person/people if they see it being too much of a hassle.

 

No, cos if they closed up the free version, their sales will stop inmediately (guarenteed!). Unity became famous for the free version and nothing else. (before it was free, there where some mentionings of unity, but since the free came, the attention rose by million fold. AKA free advertising)


PS @most of the respondees here:
And for the record, I did not state that Unity free was bad, or that unity free should have every bell and whistle of the PRO for free.
Why do people think i (and some others) said that is beyond me, and says more about them than me. (learn to read, is my advice)
THINK OUT OF THE BOX PEOPLE. the complaints are about incomplete/missing basic needs.
Not about the fancy bells and whistles, but the bare essential minimum bells for a serious projects need. UT advertise the free version as a serious product that is delivering the professional experience for your customers as developer. This is part true..

The Indie version back then, people complained aswell, with good motivation. But just because it's free (UT's choice btw, not ours!)
we cannot argue/brainstorm/complain about it? quite short sighted.
When UT drops the PRO price (quite possible), or introduces an ever higher priced (e.g. 3000USD) Advanced version of Unity, wich has very professional features the pro will never have.
During the releases, leaving the PRO version, just as the free is now, alone in feature upgrading
I bet my ass, the PRO users start to complain about missing features etc. Watch my words.
Well, according to your behaviors towards free users, the PRO users must not complain when the above scenarios come to play.
Just think about that, PRO licensees.

 

Unity was famous before the free version was there, thanks to the $199.
It just spread virally through the mud thanks to the $199 version becoming free.
But now its there and it has its exposure, don't expect that it just vanish if free becomes $199 again to replace whine-stumers with customers. (I know, the majority of the free users are well manered and capable users, its always the 0.1% black sheeps that cause 99.5% of all support effort and community trash)

 

Don't shoot the messenger, dreamora..

 

The things you complain about not having aren't basic needs, they are simply things that you want for your project. People here can read fine

 

You're allowed to shoot the messenger when they're also the source of the (inane and irreverent) message.

 

prototyping in the game industry in not the same as making an actual game. It's just an initial phase, to quickly have something rough on the table for developers to fiddle/brainstorm with (e.g. leveldesign prototyping, art prototyping, etc)

 

so, you want to repeat human history? (as in, people who think differently than the settled crowd, should be punished/riddiculed for thinking differently, and blocking evolutionary possibilities along the way?)

 

Right... and the wonderful thing about Unity is that you can quickly prototype and publish a complete and polished game all in one environment, even with the incredibly feature-rich free version.

The phrase "Don't shoot the messenger" means "Don't kill the guy that's delivering the message because he may not agree with what it says, it's just his duty to get it there." You're not just the messenger, you're the source of the completely illogical and frankly offensive drivel you've been spouting about a free product.

 

hello!
I can say about unity in Windows 7 multi-touch screens.
I read something but I do not stay clear.
answer is appreciated
don_vladimiro on iMac G4

 

again, not only my thoughts.. far from it actually. (i'm just delivering the compilation of thoughts, with extended motivation attached, i picked up here on the forums throughout time, and diverse blogs, and other forums about game development)
So, i am the messenger afterall.

Ps.. i like Unity so far, don't get me wrong.. (i never said it was bad)
but there is always room for improvements, right? (free or not)

 

There's definitely room for improvement. A lot of my posts have been complaints about the shadows and other graphical features. That's in the pro version though. You know, the one that you can't get for free. You're not safe from ridicule just because you've elected yourself as the Speaker for the Disillusioned Cheapskates. Since we're conversing in idioms, beggars can't be choosers!

 

I found some normal monodevelop files in the root folder of the project, thats unity's business. Our business is whatever is inside the asset folder.

 

What, like you've bought it at all? no you haven't bought it. When you look at the games coming out made in unity, its pretty much all the advertising it needs.

 

My thoughts exactly are this, MrDude has Indie Free and submitted assets to the store then went shopping for a shiny new mac laptop only after 6 months or so. Perhaps if you put some energy in that direction then you would be that much nearer to having pro at which point you wont be making remarks such as the lack of features.

And once you have Pro you might be saying heh i want Asset Server, then i want Android ios. The list is endless.

oh yeah i purchased $50 assets from MrDude

 

@Noisecrime

That was a nice demo with the substances on terrain. Could you provide a little more information on how you did that?

 

from media coverages like these two (there are more):

--"With the explosive growth in new platforms and performance improvement in our Unity suite of products," said CEO David Helgason in a press statement, "We believe that there are no technical hurdles remaining for high quality interactive content everywhere. Now we are removing financial hurdles as well." -- article about the introduction of the free version Helgason being interviewed at the GDC 2009.

--"To get the current version of the free feature-packed Unity to create games and interactive visualizations for the Web, PC and Mac or to get a free 30 day evaluation of Unity Pro or Unity iPhone, go to http://unity3d.com/unity/download/." -- on the unity website news section

also not mentioning the word PRO on the Unity website, makes it unclear to readers, on what is what. (both products use the term Unity, but one is just unity, the other is Unity PRO, quite a difference, if UT themselves don't name their products correctly, how would they expect their audience to not mixup?)

 

So, are you buying unity pro or intending to buy it? I suspect you're not since you're really keen on the free version. That is great and your decision. But, can't really ask for more if its free can you?

 

Thanks
to answer your question:
i'm investigating Unity atm, to see if it fits my needs/philosophy for the project i'm doing. (tech researching).
so, i might eventually buy the PRO version, if it fits the project, and when i think it's financially responsible to purchage it. (which is not the case right now, but might be within some months)

Well, UT don't mind not having income from the free version, as you can read here:

"What was the thinking behind eliminating the $200 fee for your lower-tier option?

David Helgason: The thinking was that Unity Indie isn't generating a significant portion of our revenue, and we've always had this vision of democratizing our tools. We have over 13,000 customers using our product, so we figured, let's take Indie and just give it to everyone. Whether that becomes a cash flow positive or a cash flow negative -- and some people will upgrade -- is not really important. What's important is to get this in the hands of as many people as possible." -- article on gamasutra

This paragraph from an interview with Gamasutra, it clearly states, that they don't care if one becomes a PRO licensee or not, it's for them the upmost importance that the Unity brand/product series becomes well known among developers and end users. Deep market penetration so to speak. Not income. Therefore i (and many others) are entitled to argue about missing elements even if it's a free tool.

 

How does indie stop you from (tech researching) that seems a very odd thing to say, Are you working with shaders or something?

 

You're misreading this. What they're considering as not important is whether their decision to make Unity Indie free is a cash flow negative or positive. The "some will upgrade" statement there is just to state how losing the revenue from indie can turn into a cash flow positive.

They care very much if you become a pro licensee as that's how they feed their elite army of flying ninja hackers.

 

That article was one thing. But what you are talking about is them actively trying to make Pro less desirable.

 

Shaders work just fine without Pro.

--Eric

 

I can remember a time when people were curious about Substance and from their excitement it was pretty obvious that they expected it to be accessible inside Unity which due to Unity's history also was reasonable. Now if you already know that you won't support a feature in a way people expect it to be and no contracts prevent clear words, you can communicate and correct such situations immediately. On the other side careful chosen words or silence often point into another direction.

 

Oh and not that i use the water in Unity (a lot) but i had a look at it and i don't think it's looking good. These two scrolling textures just don't work for me.

What i like are some of the enhancements of the image effects. The image based AA is very welcome, the new depth of field is finally useable and i recognized a few other tweaks as well. So nice improvements on the image effects front!

 

If Gamasutra reported I was going to give everyone $100M, I'd be doing something about denying it. UT did nothing.

 

It's rather tiresome to make grand assertions of Psychology and History to support what is basically a childish "I want" argument.

Again: you do not need AssetBundles. Order and optimize your assets and you can write a vast array of possible Web games. AssetBundles were added to Unity because of the specific needs of a very large customer, IIRC, not because the average single Pro user needed them. Sure, they're a nice option, but no way are they essential.

 

The worlds best game engine just got better!

 

And now I pick on you. There was a big thread that spelled everything out. It was there months ago. Sorry you didn't look. And now I stop picking on you... ol friend

 

Can we take all this pro v free arguments to another thread and stay on the topic of the 3.4 release?


They need to make pro more desirable, accept it. Should some of the features come to free, maybe, i don't know, but start a thread and discuss it there!

 

LOL... do you see the conflict there? Pro's totally desirable as it is btw...

 

Lol, i didn't type that very well. I just meant in general in Pro has to be more desirable to sell, not that it isn't desirable.

But I am sad this thread isn't about all the new awesome features and things people are finding with the upgrades.

For me terrain support on IOS was frigging awesome!.

 

Yeah sorry - I got ya. I should have put a smiley in. Knew what you meant. The release rocks as always!

 

I definately missed that thread. I suspect it came up after the situation i described and during the time i had a big break from Unity. Links, as most of the time, are appreciated as i would be interested in the argumentaion, that was my pick on you. :O)

 

What was wrong with the one on 3.3? I thought it was pretty usable as well. (not that there is anything wrong with the new one).

Also, I don't get what the tilt shift image effect is supposed to do... It's basically just really shallow dof, right? Is the algorithm different? And if so, why?

 

A.o. depth of field before was hard to setup, now it's way more intuitive, which makes it a lot more fun to use - am i this artistically minded? I do have a few image effects i really love to use because in my opinion they just make sense. With 3.4 they've added a few more and enhanced some so that they a.o. look more convincing. The only thing i was asking myself is if i ever would need to setup depth of field just for the foreground instead of background only or foreground&background.

Tilt shift doesn't look the same to me. It's for a different purpose where it can intersect for certain situations with depth of field. So far i don't see where i might use it, maybe it's just faster for what it does.

One thing i found strange is if you place a scene inside a normal flipped geometry i wasn't able to use shadows anymore, not matter how i set them up, it somehow looked weird.