Unity Visual Scripting 2017?

They don't. They want YOU to do the programming WITHOUT them, because the artists can't do it themselves.

Give the artists something they can use, and they can do the thing they need instead of you. Nobody wants to do it. But it still needs to be done.

 

This will be the end of Unity if it ever happens. Programmers will be locket to template visualization and not doing flexible architecture design. The result will be games that looks the same , like with UE games

 

What about compute shaders ?

It's entirely depending on your project size and features. There is so much plugins integrated with Playmaker, indeed small devs doesn't try to make Witcher 3.

Again it's about how you use it , you can make your own nodes for parts that become too hard to read and you can make macros.

There is lot of non coders that make games with Playmaker or artists that can make something.
You are simply stuck on your own needs and ideas.

When the look of a game is depending on coding or visual scripting , you made my day lol

 

Omg that is horrible!!... I hope this never happen to Unity, make at least a option NOT to use this stupid visualization. This is the reason why i dont use UE or any other template based engine.

 

Writing scripts directly is a lot simpler than using visual scripting.

 

Pretty much the same thing. A graphics card basically amounts to many simple calculators in parallel. The reason to use a gpu for anything is when you have many, many simple calculations that you need to do fast, like rendering pixels from a scene. Shaders (compute or otherwise) have a limited range of input/output formats, and they aren't able to access anything else in the scene, you have to pass information directly to them. This enables them to be optimal for crunching many small bits of parallel information very fast. So compute shaders don't change the fact that you typically only want to pass very simple processes to the gpu.

Unless you have photographic memory, the moment you can't see most of something, it loses most of its value as an information source.

 

The Unity editor is more than enough visual for you to remember what is going on, each object has script attached,
for me i have 100 of scripts, and i feel i have 100% overview of whats going on.

 

Not for debugging though, which is 90% of what programming is. If everything in your scene works well, yes you can forget about most of what it does. What you describe is more like the perspective of a level designer rather than a programmer. A programmer's job (and therefore the tools that they use) has more to do with what goes on inside all the components in the scene, rather than their ultimate effect on the scene (unless of course you're the level designer as well).

That's why blueprints and such are a great way for programmers to hand off carefully exposed processes to level designers and artists, but not really a great way to create code itself.

 

Like code, you must remember what is doing a function or a class when the project contains thousand of classes.
Anyway it's only a matter of preference and Visual Scripting suits very well small indie games and mixes very well with projects having lot of coding parts to work in a high level.

 

Not sure if your a programmer at all, finding codes and debugging is pretty darn simple. Visual programming is not for real coders, its hell.. Themplate means, your game is going to look exatcly like the game some other guy made, just different assets. Its a horrible idea for developers who takes there dev serious. If visual programming can be an option for students and new commers its ok, but it should not be a mainstream thing. Its just horrible for business.

Now that we can use visual studio for our game development, he have access to allot of helpful tools that will help development , like GIT and team solutions.

 

Phew, I'm glad someone feels the same as me about that!

Templates are the death of creativity.

 

I would like to hear Visual Scripting users, there is only coders complaining and not happy about something that is not an issue for anyone

 

ffs, if Unity gets VS, they're not going to just drop c#. The two things are completely able to coexist. Quit your panicking.

 

Don't you guys see that this is all subjective?
6 pages of people debating what is best and you guys are like... almost fighting, wth...
if you don't want it you can... you know:


It's not like UT will force you to use visual scripting, PlayMaker is there and lots of people use it, if you all are wondering why, why don't you guys go to their forums and ask them why do they use visual script instead of coding?

 

As long as its not mainstream or interfere with the scripting nature of the engine, its ok

 

Here are some of the game engine using vs:

CryEngine, GameMaker, Kodu, Stencyl, Unreal Engine 4, Lumberyard, Stingray, Snowdrop
​

Here's a $20 game engine from Steam and it looks amazing. It has a better terrain and visualization system then Unity.
Man after seeing this I can't beleive Unity with all of it's 1500 employee can't get a complete game engine.
Is like the the episode from Spongebob " I ripped my pants" it was funny, but now its starting to stink.

​

I like to add that just cause something worked for you very well in the past does not mean it will work as well in the present. In the past their were 60% programmers, 25% artist, 10% designers and 5% audio.
Now is 20% programmers, 40% artist, 30% designers and 10% audio. The need to iterate and crunch ideas quicker means you need a tool that can get your logic quicker and more intuitive.

 

They don't have 1500. They have approximately 400 according to @Andy-Touch.

My immediate thought upon seeing that animation was that Spongebob was "talking out of his ass" which is pretty much exactly what you're doing. Come back once you have experience with games more complex than Flappy Bird. Enough experience that you can actually make a line of reasoning that isn't absurd.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Talking out of his ass

 

Maybe. People tend to think that visual scripting will spare them the trouble of learning how to code. Using visual scripting suppose that you already have knowledge in coding, otherwise you'll never know how to use visual scripting.

 

Except it's how that code is visualised and worked with that makes all the difference, which is why people actually use visual scripting tools.

 

"talking out of his ass"
You clearly lack imagination or just plain dumb. Would you like me to explain the picture for ya.
I did not know the exact count, someone mentioned that number here.
I only call it like I see it. It does not take a "game developer" to or anyone with special skills like you to see what's happening here.
You can kick, moan and cry all you want, but the fact is Unity is joining in and getting with the program. You have that wolf pack mentality and can't stand changes. Well changes are coming buddy. You better strap on.

 

Did you take a look at the image posted some time ago here: https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/unity-visual-scripting-2017.462181/page-5#post-3010237

 

Some people may believe that visual scripting will spare them from learning programming, but most of them want a visual programming language because seeing a representation of their program's logic in shapes is easier for them than it is trying to make sense of words and character symbols.

Did you read my post on exactly why it's a bad example?

https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/unity-visual-scripting-2017.462181/page-5#post-3010339

 

Yeah? And? Complicated things merit complicated graphs, and that one isn't laid out particularly well anyway? What's your point other than "I don't use visual scripting and everyone who does is wrong"?

 

Not my point at all. My point is that writing scripts is simpler and faster than using visual scripting. That's it. You do whatever you want with it.

 

Except, as has been stated in this and every other goddamn visual scripting thread on the forums, it's not that easy for a LOT of people, especially beginners and people who aren't experienced in coding. If this wasn't the case, Playmaker wouldn't be the second best selling asset on the asset store.

 

This PS4 game was developed by a single Artist, 100% coded in Blueprints:

c ya nerds

 

Thanks for the example!

Just remember though us nerds are the ones building the visual scripting systems.

 

100% Blueprints

 

If listening to the other experienced developers rather than listening to developers with little to no experience is a wolf pack mentality then I'll howl at the moon any day.

 

Good one. Got anymore?

 

Here's Planet Alpha 31
100% Blueprints. Just think how much pretty your games will look when artist can finally start working with Unity's vs.

 

If visual scripting does end up offering any real advantages in terms of productivity, you can bet programmers will jump on. We've been through paradigm and frame work changes before. And when they work, we jump ship.

On the other hand we've also seen plenty of other 'industry changing' paradigms that have gone nowhere.

So far the only advantages offered for visual scripting are it's better for beginners, and it's better for artists/designers. That still doesn't help with the vast majority of tasks programmers are doing today.

Give me a clear advantage visual scripting gives an experienced programmer working on difficult challenges, and I will switch today.

 

There is no advantage for experienced coders, stay with code

 

Visual programming languages being one of the more prominent examples. Just check out this beauty from 1968 called GRAIL (Graphical Input Language) which was an experiment sponsored by DARPA.

You can read the three final reports at the links below. Understand though that it was built to run on a mainframe computer with a CRT and a complete dependence on a stylus for bringing information into the system. No keyboard whatsoever.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2005/RM5999.pdf
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM6001.pdf
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM6002.pdf

Yet having experienced programmers coders give up their text-based languages is exactly what @stormwiz is promoting.

 

OK,
Tale blueprints for example:
Pro's:
Amazing debugging, you can see the logic flow and where its stuck.
Super prototyping system. Very fast at firing game logic and compiling.
Can do 95% of the logic depending on your game needs. The 5% is usually
reserve for heavy calculation.
Can visualize your logic non-abstracting. This means your entire team can understand it.
Who wants to code shaders by hand.

Bottom line is, these days more and more game designers and artist are taking the roll of the programmer
especially if you're a one man team. Programmers are free to develop tools, etc. Also nobody is saying you must follow this method, but once you start prototyping this way you'll never go back to just coding.


I don't know what Unity will become with this new addition of coding, but I wish them the best and hope they make the right move.
Blueprints was design originally to replace uscripts and kismet, but since then It has growned into a must have tool for coders and designers. Its very nested in UE4 and it gets more and more powerful with every new version of the engine. I don't think a company like Epic that's been around since the early days of video games would invest so heavenly in blueprints if they did't know where the technology is heading. Those guys are not taking no prisoners and is pedal to the medal.


Visual programming language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_programming_language

 

I have always liked this saying: "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
IMHO, most opinions in this thread are described by that.

My opinion, is that every tool has its purpose, and no tool is perfect for everything.
Visual Scripting is a tool, and it serves it purpose very well.

I don't see VS as replacing coding, and in fact, if you try to do with VS what you are supposed to do by code, then it will look like an spaghetti and will be very time consuming.
But if you try to do by code what you should be doing with VS, then it will be less easy to understand and modify by artists.

In my opinion, Visual Scripting is perfect for gameplay and mission scripts. I have used it extensively to setup the levels:
"When this trigger is touched, spawn 3 enemies, wait a second, then open that door and move some lights around, until the health of the boss gets to lower than 10%, at which moment, switch its firing mode to rockets instead of machinegun."

Making that sequence by code its not so trivial as it involves multiple conditions, several systems, timing, scheduling (can be done with coroutines, but that becomes an spaghetti on its own, if there are branches that loop, etc).
However, making that in Visual Scripting is easy, clean, and artist can modify it quite easily until they get to the perfect gameplay.

Said that, I woudn't dream to make anything more complex in Visual Scripting, thats why the C# code is for.

That's just my personal opinion. Adding Visual Scripting to unity will be a huge step forward for better gameplay, more legible sequences and better development overall. As far as developers understand that its ANOTHER tool, not a replacement. They should do most of the nodes in code, and only use visual scripting for scheduling, and making the game flow.

 

Breakpoints allow the same thing. You can even modify variables in memory and execute lines of code one at a time.

Except like @neginfinity mentioned earlier (https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/unity-visual-scripting-2017.462181/page-3#post-3007358) he often had to restart the engine in the case of UE4. Unity's compilation time after making a modification to a script isn't insignificant but it isn't exactly that much of a headache either. At most it's about one second on my six year old computer.

This is not an advantage when every other language can do it too.

None of us have been stating that it isn't a good thing for artists. If your entire team is having to dive into the aspects of code that the programmer is assigned though then there is a serious deficiency in your programmer.

Shaders are a whole different beast from actual game logic.

You've been saying we must follow this method in practically every post you've made. Additionally for some reason you seem to fail to understand that we have tried to use visual programming languages and they weren't sufficient for us.

 

Then stick with what you want and let the rest of us be.
btw: I'm learning c++ with by taking this course:
https://www.udemy.com/unrealcourse/
I guess I'm a jack of many talents and a master of none.

Also I'm not in a hurry to make a game. I love the experience of learning and sharpening the sword.
I already made my money online and retired at 45. The reason I do this is more of a hobby and a childhood dream of mine back when the commodore 64 days, it was a passion. I've been playing games since Atari, colecovison, commodore 64. You can say I'm a gaming whore and don't get excited too mush with some modern games.

 

I'll give you that one. Setting up breakpoints and watches can be a pain. Although I would contend that with blueprints at least you are trading knowledge of where with knowledge of when.

C# in Unity is very fast for prototyping too. And C# compile time is typically a non issue.

C# can do 100%. So no real advantage there.

But are they going to? I mean honestly? High level stuff makes sense. Push space -> jump. But does a designer or artist really care about the rest of what happens after the jump? How velocity is changed, what that does to position, and how velocity changes over time? And that's a relatively simple system.

Most designers and artists I've worked with don't want to go that deep.

Trouble is every moment they spend in hard core, low level programming is a moment they are not spending in art or design. Giving them the high level tools to do their job makes sense. Gimping the low level tools in order to let non experts use it doesn't make sense.

Great. When you actually grasp what text based programming is, your opinion will change.

 

I dough it, most of the simple task are all done in bp and it would be stupid to try it in c++. I just want to maximize certain parts of the game once I get to that level c++.

 

As a designer, a good jump arc is a pretty huge deal. Most designers who have done any amount of studying should know the value of having a decent amount of control over a system when it's basically the entry point to All(1) Game(2) Design(3). Designers also want exposed access to things like how the camera shakes, both its amplitude and frequency, and countless other conditions. That's all game design, and a good visual scripting system exposes lots of functionality, not just simplified "move forward" and "jump."

 

Okay, jump was a bad example. But as a designer do you really want to be exposed to the inner guts of every single data structure that drives the game?

 

As a designer, I may well need to. Design is a massive pillar of games production. I don't just design jumps. I have to design menus and how they fit into the game, which means I need access to all that data, which includes item functionality, which itself is going to be handled by, you guessed it, more visual scripts. Since I'm working in Unity I'll need access to gameobject components, which will likely have scripts on them, visual or otherwise, that I'll need to access and tool around with. The fact is that Unity could very well expose the entire API and so long as the lookup system for the nodes was handled well enough, that'd be fine.

Visual scripting isn't just about making things "simpler." It's also about how data and structures are presented. There's virtually no downside to not exposing everything.

 

By exposing everything you are exposing your designers and artists to the full range of pitfalls that come with programming. Code maintainability concerns don't go away just because you've moved to visual programming.

And if your artist or designer is going to go learn all of the intricacies required to write performant, maintainable code, then they have become a programmer.

One of the best use cases I've heard for visual scripting is to effectively sandbox designers and artists. But exposing everything basically defeats this purpose.

 

You will ALWAYS be exposing those pitfalls if you want a suitably robust system. ALWAYS. That is a non-negotiable fact. And again, how the data is structured and presented is a huge benefit to people who are used to working with visual tools already, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

 

You know what, I've changed my mind. I think Unity should have visual scripting. Let artists and non-coders wire nodes together and make what they can make.

 

Well, one possible benefit of it is that there will be more "please salvage my project" kind of paid work for programmers.

Overall the situation where a lot of non-programmers are trying to work with game code sounds.... very unproductive. and the whole thing starts resembling more and more the mythical "make a MMO" button or worse.

But whatever.

P.S. Isn't it the time for the thread to die? After 6 pages of "discussion" nothing constructive will come out of this.

 

Not only this, but also since Unity is all about making game development approachable, it's probably a good way for beginners to be introduced to coding.

 

...kind of like exactly what Unity has always been.

 

Why ? you can't stop posting when you see some alert message ? Turn off Unity alerts and it should be fine for you and let us continue discussing VS

Indeed, that's also why Playmaker supports so much plugins and is so much popular, there is a real need.