Search Unity

  1. Click here to see what's on sale for the "Best of Super Sale" on the Asset Store
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Good news ✨ We have more Unite Now videos available for you to watch on-demand! Come check them out and ask our experts any questions!
    Dismiss Notice

Unreal Engine 4

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by alt.tszyu, Mar 19, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JasonBricco

    JasonBricco

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Posts:
    936
    I just enjoy programming too much to use visual editors, anyway. I just can't see how that would make me more productive. It feels like more of an annoyance. I can certainly see how many people might like that, though.If Unity added a built in system I might consider it, maybe if they used a system like UE's where you can have a class separated out and do that with the blueprint and hook it into the rest of your code. That's neat. Still, though, I like consistency... must be the OCD in me.
     
  2. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,074
    If you got some guy that can write decent code and knows it's way through learning/implementing game design patterns (depending on your game needs), you got your man and he'll be very happy to create the nodes you need in order to unleash the real power of visual programming. Productivity flows when programmers create complex low level logic inside those nodes and artists/designers creates high level behaviors using those nodes. Don't try to create complex low level stuff with visual programming, you'll fail short quickly. :rolleyes:

    As for new mono addition it have already been stated that there's no new mono version on Unity5. :sad:
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014
  3. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,240
    I'm in the same boat for some of my more advanced prototypes. In an ideal world I'd like to use both tools as I can see some games far more suited to Unity. I still have dreams of completing my 2d roguelike some decade and I would never bother porting that to UE.

    Also UMA for Unity is pretty fricking amazing for a non artist as a way to get lots of character customization into your game, I don't see that being easily ported and is cool enough to stay in Unity almost by itself.
     
  4. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,726
    It's essentially just bone transforms in late update - you could do it yourself with a bunch of little scripts in playmaker even. It's nicely packaged though!
     
  5. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,240
    Well if I was a betting man(and I am) I would say a price change and dropping lock-in period for Pro subscriptions. I still don't think this is one they can just ride out for awhile, the UE4 tutorials are just too good, the price too attractive, and the first impression too polished that it will start eating their new customers if nothing else.

    I think a big announcement with price change, reemphasizing their core features that distinguish them from UE/Cry, and maybe some sort of promo would be a good start.

    EDIT: I don't think it is a coincidence they advertised their new 2D system on facebook today
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014
  6. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,074
    You got any link? Wanna see it. :D
     
  7. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,240
    Sorry by new I mean the 4.3 stuff. But it is definitely +1 for Unity over UE if someone were to go compare.
     
  8. Chariots

    Chariots

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Posts:
    114
    You need to specify which UV will be treated as the lightmap UV. Usually, when you have more than one UV, It automatically selects the second one, but if you generate, it may still point towards the original, rather than the generated one. There should be a setting on the mesh settings for lightmap UVs.
     
  9. lazygunn

    lazygunn

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Posts:
    2,749
    I haven't had a go with FinalIK yet but that thing looks so much fun it's ridiculous, that and a few other things have been really making my sentiments towards Unity extremely positive. I wouldn't be surprised if the creator did an Unreal version though, why not, in fact? But yeah, i've been loving that, i like the whole concept of UMA as a solution to a common problem - Basing your game anywhere near where people live. I think it could form an answer for that along with all sorts of other things and thats why i'm pretty rosy about it. If nothing else, for me its free assets, or cheap if you want to buy the nice looking models and then i can randomly spawn all kinds of crowds everywhere, drop them on top of each other, attach 'magnets' to them and use an asset store magnet simulator to smoosh them together and throw them about the land, and it just generally be everything good conceptually about how I played the sims games when bored. But yeah, UMA's nicely removed a massive problem if you want your game to have people in it, in any respect. I'm more than likely to use UMA for any human protagonists in a game i'd make, i figure i can get stuck in and rearrange their features with zbrush if i feel the need, and thinking about humans in my games need no longer be hell anymore.
     
  10. Waz

    Waz

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    268
    THIS is what Unity is missing by not releasing source code.

    I spent all of today trying to track down a bug in Unity engine code, finally discovering that I still had a SkinnedCloth on one of my objects (as mentioned earlier, I had to remove all use of Cloth since "upgrading" to 4.0 where it is mostly broken for the cases I need it for). If I had the source code I could have spent the day tracking down the actual problem rather than trying to find a workaround. Instead of UT waking up to yet another whine from me about broken Cloth, they may have woken up to a patch.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014
  11. lazygunn

    lazygunn

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Posts:
    2,749
    I'm just reading the UMA docs as I thought the best way to start off a new project would be with some guy and I have to say there's more to it than that if you were saying thats the entire remit of UMA, and it apparently works through mecanim entirely, with no lateupdate fiddling (Which is great cause then you can use FinalIK on them too, because that does a bunch of LateUpdate fiddling)
     
  12. ImpossibleRobert

    ImpossibleRobert

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    Posts:
    332
    If this relates to UMA then I think you are a bit off this time. With UMA I create all players in my game randomly with a single function call, it will assemble a mesh either based on random variables or on a predefined recipe at run time, add all kinds of overlays, bake all textures into a single draw call, apply facial animation to it and make them move with Mecanim. I wouldn't have wanted to create THAT little script myself ;)
     
  13. TylerPerry

    TylerPerry

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Posts:
    5,577
    I'm recording this.
     
  14. Woodlauncher

    Woodlauncher

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    Posts:
    173
    True, but you can't know if lowering subscription costs will actually bring in MORE money. It might bring in less money, even though more people subscribe. If they halve the cost of subscriptions, they need twice the subscribers to bring in the same amount of money (more, actually, because of overhead).

    Which they might not get.

    Actually, Nick Penwarden is the Lead Graphics Programmer at Epic, so not a user :)

    Cradle is made in Unigine, not Unity

    Do you have source for this? I've seen several conflicting statements regarding Blueprints and their performance and if they're C++ code. If it's true, that 's great.
     
  15. lazygunn

    lazygunn

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Posts:
    2,749
    I didn't say it was I said I have no idea what theyre made on, the point is I find art direction a far more important point than constantly trying to strain for realism and theres no reason you need all the bits and bobs some folk seem to think must be vital for a game to look absolutely great. It would be nice to think in the freedom given to us to create new worlds, that we start exploring where that can be taken, but noooo just more exploding skyscrapers- Theres some very nice shading and visual niceness going on in No Man's Sky but it seems a love letter to the aesthetic (imagery ive always loved) rather than pushing exploding skyscrapers at you. I couldnt see anything in Cradle that would be particularly difficult in the video as it stood (On a technical level, the art is pretty sublime), but one thing im happy to concede on is that i've seen a bunch of Unigine videos and that is some deeply impressive stuff, and everything ive seen in it is considerably more impressive to me than the Unreal (Or Unity for that matter) bumph served out so far. But, afaik they arent offering cheap indie licenses
     
  16. Yozies

    Yozies

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    11
    Granted, but realism helps.

    I think there seems to be a lot of Unity veterans trying to 'polish a turd' here.

    I would save yourself the hassle and accept Unity for it's limitations.

    Unity may have a small(er) use case now but UE4 is a superior editor and end user experience.

    All platforms get superseded at some point and Unity's time seems to be approaching.
     
  17. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    LG, go buy some AAA level asset's off the store and try them in CE / UE4 and Unity.. Try to set the scene up similar and notice they look NOTHING like each other, the engine can have a huge impact in terms of look / feel and overall atmosphere.. Lighting and post can be enough to make a huge difference just look at a 3DSmax render with V-ray on a simple model, many of these features the asset store cannot cater for. I'm not saying you can't make a good looking game in U4, but in terms of graphical prowess UE4 does win hands down.

    As Unity are moving over to lighting similar to AAA tech, the gap between "Looks" will become smaller.
     
  18. griden

    griden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
    Posts:
    33
    I don't expect they'd respond to threads like this. Unless they are more community-oriented than I've noticed during my time here (5 months). But I expect they will respond to declining $$ revenue numbers. Probably not just right now, even though I imagine Unity 5 preorders don't sell like hot cakes at the moment.

    But if their marketers aren't asleep, the UE4 offer announcement should be enough to make them hurry up and come out with something new. They shouldn't need a forum thread.

    In the worst case, they'd wait a couple of months and measure the financial performances.

    I saw people stating that Unity don't need to change anything and their business is safe for the foreseeable future just because they announced such great features in Unity 5. And this is pretty naive IMO.
     
  19. lazygunn

    lazygunn

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Posts:
    2,749
    There's not really much point in telling me to unsee what I have already seen, and nothing i've said actually attacks Unreal 4 or cryengine, (or any engine) because i know they look spectacular and for good reasons - no problem with them, and sure go use em if you like them so much, its not like itll kill my cat, although i wish it would

    I don't really care about them, for a start, because i like constructive convo on these matters and the zoo calls arent very readable

    Unity is massively under-represented, calling it 'polishing a turd' was so ridiculous i laughed out loud - if you think a satisfying scene created by unity feels a bit like you polished a turd, well the turd was your incompetence at creating art, simple as that I could say

    Maybe i'm helped by the specific approaches to gameplay - The big plan is paced carefully, non combative. The other stuff i have in mind is some fun mobile stuff enlisting the help of an architect for one and an interior designer on another. I'm polishing up a game by my regular programming associate that i'm hoping will be a great showcase for good visuals. Either way, all of these things have an art direction, its what happens when you let an artist express their vision across the game in a conceptually coherent, intelligent and captivating way, its when your game becomes a piece, not a product and for me i wont be taking payment if any made money, i would give it to the partners who worked with me.

    You do not need a fraction of the features in Unreal 4 to make a great looking game, in fact the more hysterical explodathons a game has, the more put off i am regarding who the living feck directed this mindless bullshit. Thats a key point, you can make a mindblowingly pretty game with procedural meshes and gradients for textures - the features you beg for are nice and all but they pander to that ignorant attitude to art, that everything being a facsimile of the real world with only the most hopeless dregs of genuine spark left, in fact the further it pulls you away to simulating realistic phenomena in opposition to creative impulse and flair, the cheaper it gets

    Now fps, millions spent, explosions everywhere, you are getting off on killing virtual people at MAX SETTINGS!

    I'm rather a fan of the alternative and the bizarre and sometimes didaction gets chucked in but hopefully at a far less obnoxious over stated point when some guy dies in your game and you go 'ahh thats a pity, war is hell eh'

    Unity has plenty of ways to make things look pretty, they just have no mouth atm.. im going to revisit zbrush or modo soon hopefully and correct this. I know what AAA tech looks like ShadowK, i have a powerful computer and I try to stay on top of major releases to take notes. I couldnt make it through the latest cod and bf games - if thats the kinda garbage you desperately need for your AAA junk, go for it, but its definitely not my style, and i didnt feel any 'woo explosions'. I just felt a darkening sense of boredom and irritation and for all that effort in those setpieces (which im happy to concede, it probs beyond Unity) it just seemed like a waste of a bunch of talented artists life

    If I havent laboured it enough ill say it one more time. If youre trying to make a game that is full of bangs and you super need the big bang feature, youre not making a game im interested in - always art direction first, and making that direction look great, while using the less is more principle of making more carefully attended areas as signposting and the bits in between not be boring jogging inane conversations between a bunch of psychopaths, no explosions and awkward derogatory remarks, more time to do things with your surroundings that isnt blowing them up

    I just remembered back to bf4 - very pretty game, Dice know their stuff, it was so boring i had to go to sleep only a few hours into it. I found Dear Esther, a game made on the source engine, of all things, one of the most beautiful experiences of my life after id set it up well for the oculus rift, and blanked the narration out of my mind

    Youre telling me that Unreal 4 S***s on Unity graphically, maybe it does, thats not my point, its more that Unity can S*** right back to a ridiculously competent level (Just like, S*** everywhere, picking it out of your ear for weeks), if your standards of good graphics are battlefield 4 as opposed to say, Journey, or Ico, or Okami actually yeah i'll throw Mirrors Edge in there too for lols and any other game with true, humbling artistic vision

    Oh you know what i've got a treat to explain this, it regards the technical and creative art processes behind The Last Of Us

    http://miciwan.com/SIGGRAPH2013/Lighting Technology of The Last Of Us.pdf

    Get a F***ton of really talented artists, passionate about what they're doing, poke at some old ideas to get some nice shadows to match envirionment, probably best looking game of that generation - pure, solid, incredible art. You do not need a ps4 to make that look any better, and i'm not sure much is going to reach those heights again for a good while
     
  20. lazygunn

    lazygunn

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Posts:
    2,749
    Also I don't know which AAA assets you're actually talking about, could you offer a list? I can probably answer for them in each case. I'm keen to get something small and cool going now to maybe try and prove a point, i dont know, im not sure what it is yet so i'm tasking my fiancee with coming up with a framework to build up some maybe point and click adventure shenanigans with extra sparklies. Please tell me the assets you had in mind though, as if I do it ill have some keys set up to switch between existing shader systems i own for characters, buildings and so on, and I think i'll treat myself today and bring out old trusty my (scrawks actually) whitecaps fft ocean but embellish it a little with shaderforge - then we have a time of day system too, in fact I think i'll try get as much of everything in there as possible.. god i hope i dont wake up regretting this aha
     
  21. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    Not that it even matters, but I spent a fair few years hands on with Frostbite.. (Hint) Boring has nothing to do with graphics or anything but poor game design if that's your opinion of it.

    We are talking about tech to remain competitive and your opinion is formed from the other side of the world to mine, what I want to achieve is probably in the minority for Unity but is quite commonplace in other engines. No I'm not talking explosions either, but I'm not ruling them out :D..

    It all mainly comes down to workflow which anyone at any level or game type can appreciate, we could write shaders galore and replace this that and the other. For the most part we have, but it's not what we want to do it's something we have to do. Plus we are really talking apples to oranges in terms of UE4 to U4, we would be in a much better position to compare Unity Pro 5 to UE4 then see how it stacks up..

    I keep saying, I'm sticking with Unity because I'd much prefer to get a game out there then be soley *OMG GRFX* and I still personally believe Unity has the best workflow. Some may find UE4 simple, but the general feedback from our team was. It will allow us to do more, but we'll spend far more time creating / importing and tweaking. So UE4 automatically starts falling into a no fly zone, if for whatever reason Unity 5 is a trainwreck than at least we have the option to switch. Which is never a bad thing..

    At the end of the day, I'm concerned what our customers think and now the next generation of AAA RPG's are afoot I'd like to keep in the same territory not stand a 1,000 miles behind the terrain.

    As for asset's, just look at Michael O's stuff.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2014
  22. lazygunn

    lazygunn

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Posts:
    2,749
    Ahh i thought you meant actual effects that looked weaker on Unity, not the assets themselves. I love michael o's stuff though not often in a position to buy it, in fact the i may have to remain tacitly quiet about some aspects of any demo I made just so I can pimp them without a backlash, living the dream. There are some good post process effects going now however, and when I used UDK a bit ago it just looked lame without post effects so i imagine its an expected part of the process, much like a dslr owner that doesnt edit/adjust their photos in lightroom or such is an idiot. We shall see anyways I suppose

    For what it's worth, i really do wish you luck on smashing the S*** out of everything in your game and it look awesome, ive no doubt it can be done, so hurry up, i like witcher style games

    And for my part i'm going to prove everyone wrong.. at some point, then eat some carrot cake and feel smug

    Also i'm not expecting customers, so I can afford to be a little weird
     
  23. MaxieQ

    MaxieQ

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Posts:
    295
    Games are an art experience, not a technical experience. I know coders like me would like to think of it as such, and since coders, for some reason, have become leaders in game making it's easy to see why such a narrative have spread. When you can tell the art-guys to shove their vision because of reasons, it becomes thus.

    But games were never about code; it was always about art. Gamers in their rooms at home never go “Oh, that's a clever use of mesh navigation AI right there”. They go, “Whoa, would you flipping look at that awesome vista!” Where coding serves the art, you have awesome experience. Where art leads, you have gaming nirvana. You have Mass Effect, you have Dragon Age, you have The Witcher, and you have GTA V. Now, who here says they play GTA 5 because of it's vehicle mechanics rather than seeing what Trevor will do next?

    When coding leads these art projects, well... Look at Duke Nukem Forever which was all about consecutive coding teams trying to impress with their technical abilities and 'cool mechanics'.

    One of the most stunning games of later years was Dishonured, and you could see how it was lead by an art vision. Yes, you had blurred, mid-sized textures in it. Yes, you had simpler lower poly models. Yes, if you looked closely enough, the implementation of models and textures and everything left a lot for the 'gimme hi def assets right now'-crowd to desire. Even so, Dishonoured was one of the most beautiful games of later years because it was about the art, the vision, and the look, and the style. It was about ambience and story and good mechanics in the service of the art.

    When I look at the art I've done so far in Unity, most of it looks like crap, because I've implemented art through code. I've done all right, I think. For the effort I've put into it. But, over the last couple of days I decided to make a spaceship interior in Unreal 4 editor. And it blows the crap out of everything I've done so far in Unity.

    Materials, coding with blueprints, effects, particles – I have access to it all. Navigation, AI, everything is there. I don't have that in Unity Free.

    My vision for my game was always about art, about the story, about the environment. I've done more in UE4 over the last couple of days than I've done for months in Unity. Because I can concentrate on the art, the style, the vision.
     
  24. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    I don't disagree about art in the slightest and AAA technology serves mainly as nothing but a distraction, but it's a double edged sword and tech is a necessity to compete UE4 gives you that from the word go. What background are you coming from? Looking at your WIP you're aiming at an entirely different market to me..

    No offence, but you do need amazing class graphics, art, storyline and gameplay mechanics to compete in the sea of indies. Wait until you feel the pressure of having to make money out of this industry or losing vast sums of money if you fail...

    It's different giving opinions to larger teams who are suffering trial by fire. ANY advantage is potential revenue..

    Also in the world of tech, there's more than *OMG GRFX* what about performance and stability? Patching etc.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2014
  25. Waz

    Waz

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    268
    I guess if you think "never" started about 15 years ago, I can imagine why you think that.

    Games are a synthesis of art and logic (a.k.a. code), and if you think otherwise then your games will be boring dross with pretty pictures draped over it. The first video games didn't even have the choice to contain art due to technical limits, but their creators (inevitably coders) were smart enough to know that art could contribute massively to the experience they were building.
     
  26. badsensation

    badsensation

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Posts:
    10
    This is my first post here, but not my first time around the bend with this industry in general. You are correct in a lot of your sentiments, but you're focusing too much on the pissing contest going on between members of the Unity community and really not seeing the forest for the trees.

    I have a good deal of experience with UE3, Cry and a host of other engine tech. I have been playing around with Unity for quite awhile as well, but as I have left previous employment and am now branching out on my own - I know that in this industry I have never seen more favorable licensing terms for small studios than what Epic is offering with UE4.

    As someone starting a small studio on their own, but who has direct knowledge of what big studios are in for when they license an engine or build their own, I can unequivocally state that rendering capabilities is now 1/4 of Unity's overall problem.

    I think few people here really get how monumental of a change Epic's licensing decision for UE4 really is:

    Can I copy and paste the Unreal Engine code into my own project or engine?
    If you use any Unreal Engine code in your product (even just a little), then your entire product is governed by the EULA, and royalties are due.

    Can I study and learn from the Unreal Engine code, and then utilize that knowledge in writing my own game or competing engine?
    Yes, as long as you don’t copy any of the code. Code is copyrighted, but knowledge is free!

    Please pay really close attention to Epic's answers for both of those two questions and wake up and smell the coffee. Their decision changes the nature of the game of making games in a way that has never been attempted before - ever, period. I hope some of you realize what a, "clean room implementation" is and how much it costs another company to do one with source they have previously licensed. It's extremely easy to look at other's code and rewrite it in your own way, but I would gather a great deal of you do not understand the sole fact that you looked at another company's code can and will hold you liable (with 99% of licenses) if you are the one who is rewriting it.

    John Carmack fought tooth and nail with his fellow management at ID and their legal team to release the code behind older generations of ID Tech to the public, but was too late to the party when it came to what ID Tech had to offer (especially 4) and the GPL is really not a productive license for game companies. ID knew that and that is why they chose that particular licensing scheme.

    I think some of you are also under some kind of delusion that Epic management met in their boardroom and decide that their sole focus going forward was to kill Unity. The AAA publishing paradigm and the studios that rely on said publishers are going to hit a crisis point in the near future. These games costs far too much to produce because of a massive amount of wasted resources and bad management of the publishing companies. The effect has become garbage in/garbage out in more than half the titles that are released today.

    You are correct in your belief that the majority of games produced today are crap, but I would step away from your religiosity toward your tool of choice for a moment and realize that Epic (who is actually a studio first and an engine company second) realizes this too. The writing is on the wall after all! The future will be filled with just as much garbage as the indie scene continues to grow, but the difference is that the 50+ million budgets will become very few and far between. Missing the boat on this new scene would be a colossal mistake.

    Not releasing the source with favorable licensing terms for those that are in the business of providing engines is going to mean death in the future when those at the top of the ladder start to fall off.

    Unity Pro isn't too expensive for what it offers, but the whole notion of platform add-ons as a separate purchase (besides consoles) needs to disappear and it needs to sell for a set price. This is not enough. The source has to be released to licensees and a deal will have to be made with 3rd parties to release libraries with header files as to not violate licensing agreements. They don't have a choice.

    Trust me when I say it will not kill them in the short term, but over the long term they will continue to evaporate market share if they are not on par with what the terms are for UE4. Whether this is a separate license from UT that costs $20k with no revenue sharing or it's $20 a month with 5% doesn't matter - it has to be done. Newsflash, CryTek will have to do the same or they will remain nothing more than an arrogant and over glorified showgirl fading into obscurity. If you want to be in the business of engine licensing going forward and remain a viable company then there is no choice, but to open the source up.

    To those who like to wax poetic on the benefits of C# over C++ (in ease of use) and at the same time call yourself programmers in the world of video games... I would hope you would have the common sense to broaden your horizons before it's too late. I have been developing in C and C++ for over 20 years. I am well versed in C# as well. I have a variety of experience in several scripting languages such as Python and Lua. Out of all of those languages I just rattled off only one is proprietary, created by a company that has killed off more than one language in the past, and only Unity is stuck using an out of date third party implementation of it because of licensing terms. I do not dislike C# (btw neither does UE4). I enjoy the language immensely! However, I would not want to have my entire livelihood based upon it, specifically not in this industry.

    Anyway feel free to attack me at will! :D
     
  27. MaxieQ

    MaxieQ

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Posts:
    295
    So you think people played Sonic and Super Mario because of their game logic? Nope. It was all about the art. Nobody ever picked up a game because of the clever mechanics. Not even in Portal. But then again, art is a wider concept than 'pretty pictures'.
     
  28. Waz

    Waz

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    268
    Your deep knowledge of video game history astounds me.
     
  29. Xarn

    Xarn

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Posts:
    7
    Apparently they are not.

    Directly from Unreal dev (LINK)
    Blueprints are approximately the speed of UnrealScript in UE3, and our rule of thumb there was about 10x slower than C++. This may improve in the future, and we want to add a 'Blueprint Profiler' to help you understand what are the slowest parts of your Blueprint.

    Still, they are really amazing, and very powerful as they expose most of the API to you so it's possible to do almost anything with them (and 10 times slower then native is still fast) I think many have this misconception that BPs are only useful if you don't want to code. But this is false, Blueprints start to really shine when you use them together with custom classes, at that point you have workflow that allows for really rapid, painless, development process.
     
  30. Xarn

    Xarn

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2012
    Posts:
    7
    Those games were popular cause they were fun. And game play mechanics contribute to the fun aspect, a lot. If you claim Mario / Sonic etc were so wildly popular cause of their pixelated graphics, and not because simple, but addictive game play i think you are naive. Gameplay can make or break your game, and same goes for an art. So depending on the title one or the other may be more important but its never, only gameplay, or only art.
     
  31. saymoo

    saymoo

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    850
    No need to attack, you have provided many good (and true) points to keep in mind.
    Thank you, now the waiting is for UT to follow your made points (or the elemental points at least). :)
     
  32. MaxieQ

    MaxieQ

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Posts:
    295
    And your attitude is execrable. Sod off to my ignore list.
     
  33. lazygunn

    lazygunn

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Posts:
    2,749
    BadSensation - I liked everything you said and dont mind conceding you are right at this current state and if i were to get into an engine now, it would be unmistakeably Unreal 4. However, I have much invested in Unity, including a comforting buddy buddy relationship, and I dont make games for money, i jsut do it cause its what i do, cause i have a lot of free time

    I bear no antipathy towards other engines or those who wish to use them, its their choice and its hard to tell anyone they made a BAD choice, which is quite nice really isnt it?

    My rabid defense of Unity is simply challenging a lot of assumptions I just dont find true, it is not a system beyond reproach, but im comfortable wth it, i love how it works (I find udk a kind of brain horror in comparison), and with the right nudges, what it can magic up on a good day, and make it so fast to prototype and so terribly pleasant the entire time - particularly lately as i keep running into tools in the asset store that i just just excellent, that i wouldnt really expect to see prepackaged - pbr shaders? I find these very attractive and will be doing lots of work with them, but you could expect them to come premade and ready with an engine, but FinalIK? With that leve of support from a rather funny man, thats just pure gold

    I dont really have any NEED to jump S*** either, its just wasted time when I know ive got everything within reach and im sensible enough to count big project durations in months or years, so id hope a few revisions of unity will have them caught up a bit while I just got on with it

    And finally im stubborn, sure Unreal 4 has the best graphics tech, but i care about art, and not just art but Unity making it look lovely, and i dont see why this should not be perfectly within reach. It's simply noone tries to push Unity it seems, very irritating when the asset store guys keep coming up with great shaders and assorted treats then dont seem to get the feedback they deserve saying 'well done you helped make something look bloody great' - the new dDo will make waves in this regard though i think, so theres hope of people finally providing an influx of in-game pbr based art appearing on the forums and raising the profile a bit - gotta admit the unity forums are a bit depressing compared to the polycount for eg forums when checking out game art hey
     
  34. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    7,173
    Yeah, blueprints are great for basic gameplay systems and replacing small chunks of code that have direct functionality in the gameworld, but not like "just make the whole game in this." Though, honestly, my current project could be handled entirely in blueprint, but it's very mechanically simple.
     
  35. sandboxgod

    sandboxgod

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Posts:
    366
    It should be 100% feasible to make your entire game in Blueprint from my glance at the codebase. Everything appears exposed to them just like it worked with Unrealscript. Of course I am no expert on ue4 at all. Going to try to make a quick little mod when time presents.

    It's easy to make assumptions but much more difficult to put your knowledge into practice :)

    edit- Btw you guys seen the LUX mod for Unity? I think Unity looks very, very good. I am so excited for indies
     
  36. NyteTraxx

    NyteTraxx

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    2
    +1.

    I used to work at a top 5 publisher and also game level designer for Heroes of Might and Magic series. They they had their own setup for level design and it was super easy to use. Long story short, I am not a programmer but a writer and designer. I'm getting back into the biz now and started with Unity and C# in January. I made pretty good strides and made a design doc, finding 2 other people now in order to make a TD game.

    I messed around with UE4 pretty much the last 24 hours straight. It's very exciting. So beautiful and in some ways, so slick. the interface, blueprint system, speed... all wonderful.

    But truth be told, C# is too complex for me, so you can imagine, C++ is out of my league. I have to hire someone no matter what, but it's easier to find people in C#. I was really interested in EU4 due to the blueprint system. However with the CURRENT setup (ie- not a lot of assets in the asset store) I won't be able to make my game in UE4 now. Also, I am buying some 3D models that will have problems with UE4 import. But soon, I guarantee I WILL be able to.. because you can just see how dang intuitive UE4 is. It's so fluid and easy to get into. And asset store is bound to grow.

    This assumes that the hobby/ small indie developers are a big piece of the pie - I have no idea... but my point to bring it back to the quoted thread is: Unity should look at some of these ease of use features in UE4 right away if they want to keep their hobby/ small indie developers. The main reason, again is that I can pretty much guarantee UE4 is going to have a bustling asset store and support, as this is only the first week and I already feel like I'm close in my mind (strong willed) to make a TD game. Reality is I am not.

    Bottom line is I am going to be doing my first game in Unity as planned... but I'll be learning UE4 and keeping a VERY close eye on their asset store. As a designer with limited programming - that's my key to entry for game design.
     
  37. sandboxgod

    sandboxgod

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Posts:
    366
    Same here Nyte, I will be keeping my eye on it too
     
  38. 511

    511

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Posts:
    55
    My first experience with UE4 is quite pleasant. Using c++ in ue4 isn't hard because you will use 99% of the time their game code, I think it's not more difficult than using Unity, but it is quite opinionated.

    I made a WoW clone ( + network code) in about 8 hours which is really impressive considering how many features I have already implemented. The only thing that bugs me are the compile times and that you have to restart the editor when you create new stuff in c++.

    I haven't used Blueprints that much but I really love them. I think they are really nice for some simple interactions like Fire hits ice -> ice starts to melt.

    You can make your level completely dynamic with almost no work at all.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014
  39. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    7,173
    The compile times thing has a fix. It's mostly for smaller projects, but it's cut my compile times down by a ridiculous amount.

    https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/3647/how-to-improve-compile-times-for-a-c-project.html#
     
  40. Uttpd

    Uttpd

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Posts:
    114
    wish reads something like:
    (...)
    As a workaround, to get the faster iterative times with small changes, please try the adding the following lines inside your game module's Build.cs (MyGame.Build.cs):

    MinFilesUsingPrecompiledHeaderOverride = 1;
    bFasterWithoutUnity = true;
    (...)
    :mrgreen:
     
  41. 511

    511

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Posts:
    55
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014
  42. sandboxgod

    sandboxgod

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Posts:
    366
    Good post! You must be very talented to crank out something so quickly. My aim is to do something similiar with it one of these weekends
     
  43. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    Oh jeez, I have to see this.. It takes me longer than that to model a house, never mind put the game together set up all the materials and actually code the actual thing..

    Come on show us.!
     
  44. 511

    511

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Posts:
    55
    It is not that hard because unreal provides a lot of base classes that handle all the important stuff for you. For example if you extend from the character base class you get all those character features that you would expect like movement, jumping, crouching, camera, physics, camera etc. And the best part is that everything is from the base class is already multiplayer ready.

    The hard part is to find out what you need to change. From those 8 hours I think it took me only 1 - 2 hours to find out how I can set the mouse coordinates manually.

    Also unreal doesn't use any c++ primitives and provides its own casting functions.

    Another tip is just to use Visual Studio as your API search because most API is not documented, that is why it took me so long to find out how I can change the mouse coordinates.

    In case you are curious.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014
  45. TheDMan

    TheDMan

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Posts:
    201
    From scratch? Or from a modification of a pre-existing code base?
     
  46. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,726
    Let's compare blueprint with playmaker:

    1. Playmaker is built from the ground up for people to make games in. It's easily capable of both blueprint behaviours and actually getting down to the business of making games.

    2. Playmaker has HUGE cross-support with other Unity middleware. It works out of the box with 2D toolkit, core framework and other well known established middleware.

    3. Playmaker is designed around making and finishing a game in - therefore has strong support for all the little things people need like ads, or mobile stuff like game center. In short, people are out there, right now, finishing games and selling them with Playmaker.

    4. Visual debugging works great.

    Vs blueprint:

    1. blueprints are new. They really just replace unrealscript, rather than being a successor to kismet. Even though it was called kismet 2 internally, it's direction has changed. It is less about making a finished game and more about supporting the artist/designer - again, something Playmaker can do.

    2. blueprints take longer to get the same job done. It's not a design that supports making full games. It might be, but there are glaring omissions and lack of ready made functions like Playmaker has. Have you seen how simple it is to open a door in Playmaker vs how convoluted it is to do the same task in Blueprint?

    3. Blueprint is a work in progress.

    4. Visual debugging works great.


    So I thought I would clear up some misconceptions. Blueprint on the surface wowed me greatly. But digging deeper, one finds very clear and different directions. When you get past the marketing, you see one of them has a constant flow of published games and the other is designed to assist level designers, rather than be a replacement game maker. Playmaker does both, and for that I must (at present) endorse Playmaker and Unity as being the easier and more robust option if you do not wish to touch code.

    This is food for thought and worth considering.
     
  47. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    I'm more interested to see if this thread will get to 100 pages..
     
  48. blueLED

    blueLED

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2014
    Posts:
    102
    I did notice the same thing about Blueprint, when watching their tutorials.

    I posted the same thing in another thread that, it's ironic how you have something that's supposed to make things clearer, more designer friendly, ends up like a spaghetti mess of wires and nodes. I'd rather have a clean, simple page of code.

    Also, it's convenient that Unity comes with and a coding IDE for C# vs having to download VS separately for C++.
     
  49. pkid

    pkid

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Posts:
    201
    Let me first say upfront that I like Unity. Having said that I find a lot of posts like this one sided. For example: "2. Playmaker has HUGE cross-support with other Unity middleware. It works out of the box with 2D toolkit, core framework and other well known established middleware." Well, Blueprint is built into UE4, so pretty much everything in UE4 will work with it. Obviously since it's built in more UE4 stuff will work with it than Uinty stuff will work with a 3rd party tool. Also, Playmaker is a separate add on you pay for. Plus, Blueprint compiles to byte code from what Ive hear so its faster than Playmaker. I could go on.
     
  50. amigo

    amigo

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Posts:
    51
    I took the plunge and bought the UE4 subscription last night, and here are some of my reasons...

    After much consideration and contemplation of what I really want to do, I do not believe Unity will offer me the speed and ease of creating in the future.

    To me, Unity 5 looks like its going to be just Unity 4 with several extra plugins, which is simply not enticing enough to continue supporting it.

    Further more, with UE4 I actually can take things into my own hands (if I want to) and carve my own future as I see fit, as opposed to waiting for UT and rely on their vision and pro-/re-activity in adding features, or fixing bugs.

    I also believe that UE4 coder community will grow by an order of magnitude, if not more, well surpassing any predictions we could make. That same community, even though not based around Open Source, will contribute to the main code core with bug fixes, and amazing improvements and features that will greatly surpass any other engine out there that does not offer the source code.

    The ingenuity is not within the walls of companies, but in the garages of normal people - remember where most of our inventions really came from. THAT is the power that UE4 will soon wield, and the power that will truly democratize the industry.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
unityunity