Official Visual scripting roadmap update - August 2020

I don't know if this is a comment on my post, but if ...
If someone doesn't like colors, he can change the settings.

I forgot it was supposed to be an "update" function, I have already corrected it. --->

 

Maybe something has changed, but the Unreal Engine Blueprints suffered from the same condition as Bolt 1, Flow Canvas, and many other visual scripting ---> Reflection.
Of the visual scripting I know, only uNode and Nottorus do not have such a burden.

 

uNode 2 has the same problem Bolt 2 had - it's unstable (dev recommends using uNode 2.0 which is currently in beta) and not ready for production without a stable release in sight. You can't reliably ship games with it yet.

Most alternatives don't hold a candle to what Bolt 2 was. You also have to understand that many people here bought Bolt 1 just for the free Bolt 2 upgrade and didn't receive a refund. And many people were invested in Bolt 2 for two years, contributing to alpha testing, giving feedback, etc. Unity also promised to finish Bolt 2 at the time of acquisition, which is something they went back on. Instead, they’re developing Bolt 1 further, which no one asked for.

There are many justified reasons why the current user base has a negative reaction to this news. So your snide remarks are off base. Recommending a tool that’s not ready for production yet is not a solution.

 

Unbelievable... :/ :s
So many people not understanding the whole point of a "Visual Scripting" tool is not just to simply "script", "visually".


Honestly.
If this were the point, then what the hell is wrong with C# and Visual Studio? -- or with Assembly -- for that matter?
You have eyes, don't you? -- Script is visual, isn't it?

So, if you will -- let me enlighten you.

 

@Ex-Crow
I wasn't referring to someone paying and not getting a refund or other such things, just to looking for reasonably reasonable alternatives.

Besides, someone here is probably a bit detached from reality, since he expects a free engine and cheap tools - professional readiness.
Man - you want a tool that is fully ready for production? Then pay the right amount.
Because so far you are complaining that the free engine and free or cheap tools are not fully stable. The pinnacle of insolence.

 

@awesomedata
I don't understand what you are writing.

Aside from what Unity did about Bolt 1 and 2 and how she treated those who paid.
I really think that it is insolent to expect a free engine and cheap tools to be fully professional.

 

There are no reasonable alternatives to Bolt 2 feature set right now, not ones that are stable and production ready and developed at the same standard of quality. But there definitely are Bolt 1 alternatives in the store. People already have mentioned Playmaker and Flow/Node Canvas numerous times before you popped up.

What does this even mean?

Unity is one of the leading game engines in the world. From what if not Unity, I should expect stability and "professional readiness"? You don't make any sense here. I pay for Unity Plus to get splash screen editing, and I've spent a lot of money on the asset store to fill in missing functionality I've no time (or knowledge) to implement myself. It's definitely not free if you're doing this seriously solo or as a freelancer. Studios also pay Plus or Pro subscription for each dev and make deals with Unity for engine source access.

I paid for Bolt years ago... I've also bought Flow Canvas, Node Canvas, Flow Reactor, uNode, etc. I've bought them all. None of them do what Bolt 2 did.

You've completely missed the point of why people are complaining. This free engine angle you're arguing is not relevant. Unity is a multibillion company that just raised $1.3 billion dollars by going public. They were valued at $6 billion last year. What free engine and what cheap tools? They're not in the business of making a free engine with cheap tools.

Surely a multibillion corporation has more resources for tool development than solo developers that made Bolt, Flow/Node Canvas or uNode.

 

@Ex-Crow
There is not much of a relationship between Unity's wealth - and your expectations.
If you think that Blizzard, when creating his game in Unity, invested in Unity as little as you - then you really wander in the fog.

There are people - who think that they will pay for a few assets, pay the subscription and the game will do itself.


edit//
Of course uNode is not fully stable, but I only paid $ 25 for it. Developer of uNode still helps me for free, keeps improving the tool.
My job looks like this:
I have a great tool. Most of the time when I work and arrange nodes - uNode creates pure independent C# code.
Sure, sometimes there are errors, then either developer of uNode helps me or I find the solution myself - creating code by arranging the nodes differently.
At $ 25 or even $ 50 - it's a revelation.

I have been using uNode for two years and I was able to do everything I wanted with it.

I think that if someone can't deal with the fact that sometimes there are bugs and problems - I shouldn't be creating anything at all.

 

Full Rant Do not read if you want. I do not want any replies as this will be deleted tomorrow.
Oh and ill add here I will come back in 2 years and see .... { rant start .

Bolt had reflection .. bolt 2 was going to have reflection And make c# scripts ...
SO weather " assets " just use my API or what ever its called.. Oh next .. water .. , just
change the shader for the fog.
Oh next animal AI ... hook that to your player ( surely you know how ) .. Oh just use the API again ...
and on and on ....

Yeah making it easy for us dumb people would be like .. then they won't need to buy yet another asset.
I started Unity 5 have spend thousands .. and yes its for fun .. but when does that start... ??

any other asset have reflection .. no ...

So this months " free assets at UE4 = 744.00 . And since Unity is going to VS type work flow..
I went to look at UE4 again after I did 4 years ago..

So blueprints are now easy because of Bolt.. Now i get it. blueprints makes connections for you.. it
assumes the object you click on you want top do something with it.

Last night it popped out of my mouth while looking at it with my mate,,and my only comment was

WHY did i find that so hard the first time. Point is .. Ue4 want you to succeed, yes assets are a bit more..
but you get blueprints and the devs mostly stay and make money on their assets.
I had heard there is a plugin in the works that will turn the blueprints into c++ ( true IDK 4 sure )
More then one forum people have bitched that unity ASKS* for feedback then does nothing.

The humble bundle was my last buy today, since it is for charity.

If you dare.. go look at the Ue4 youtube preview of Ue5 coming this spring in preview and full by the 2021 end.

I will delete this tomorrow so no one needs to reply as this is NOT directed at anyone here.
If i feel it is best thing to do ... As I intend to make a more reason approach why I give up here and am going to Ue4 Before Ue5 comes out

 

First you accuse people of complaining about free engine with cheap tools, now you accuse me of not investing as much money in Unity as Blizzard did for Hearthstone? Umm, what?

I'm glad uNode worked out for you, but using unstable beta release tools in production is not the industry standard. What do I tell my clients when the project gets stuck due to a bug of some 3rd party asset? Just because something works for you, doesn't mean it automatically applies to everyone else. And while uNode offers somewhat similar functionality, its UI/UX is of a significantly lower standard than what Bolt 2 had.

Moreover, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Bolt 2 was never about outputting clean C# code. The C# gen part was developed only for performance reasons, it was still very much reliant on core Bolt 2 tech. On a surface level they might seem similar, but they had completely different design philosophies and resulting functionality. Though that has been changing recently with uNode dev implementing Bolt 2-like class structure.

 

Really?
Well, Bolt 2 would be useless to me.
For me, the strength of uNode is mainly in one thing:
- uNode either creates pure INDEPENDENT C# code (98-99%
cases)
- Or it doesn't create anything (1-2% of cases) and then:

This is a comfortable situation for me, because I don't have to worry if code is correct and efficient, like in FlowCanvas I used.

If I had to use a Bolt and other similar tools that have an "intermediate layer" - I would prefer to write code traditionally.
But if you prefer otherwise, there is no point in further discussing the topic.

Finally, a summary:
Either you have a heart to create something and you find the way (tool) to goal. Either you hang out on forum complaining that something is not working or something is not there.

 

So much this, you can either use the engine that does have free visual scripting for almost a decade.
Or you can wait until Unity will get their things together and stop canceling everything because it's not following their non-existent idea of what VS is. In the meantime, users can only recommend each other to pay for some incomplete solutions.

Other engines do have something like visual scripting, and It seems like the tool isn't that hard to do since people with a fraction of money of what Unity does have can do them. Then why Unity can't? They are struggling so hard with this one it feels surreal.


Also, I just want to remind, over a month this post has been made.

What is even going on with this update? Or corporation canceled this too?

 

Hey Unity Bolt team.

Quick reminder : Unity 2020.1 released July 23, 2020.

Bolt 1 fuzzy finder is broken since then. (you can't quit it without selecting something inside it).

So it's been 2 months that your new visual scripting tool is broken and barely usable in your new Unity version

Do you plan to at least fix bolt 1 in Unity 2020, or should we wait for Unity 2021 ?

 

I'm at a loss then. Sorry. I guess some things do not translate well.

So that free/cheap Gmail account you use...

I guess the occasional 'bug' in that 'free' software that lets hackers view your inbox / emails is acceptable to you too, right?

 

Unity ghosting the community should be a meme now

 

Also -- while I appreciate your gesture to defend your principles -- Unity has a long history of sh*tting on its software or outright abandoning it.


(Check out the Cloth component for the majority of the 2018-2019 release cycle, for example.)

And while I also appreciate the sentiment here (I'm all about having the heart and passion and the fortitude to reach your goals / dreams by taking action), I still do not agree that "half-assing" things just to reach those goals is acceptable.

Without the proper tools / engine support, your goals / dreams are _going_ to be half-assed with the wrong tools anyway (and will never turn out how you imagine them to), as no matter how much effort you put in, if your goal / dream is to paint the Mona Lisa, I really doubt that your tool of choice is going to be colored sand. While, yes, technically it's a 'functional' tool to 'paint' with -- it definitely doesn't 'work' for what you're trying to do. Some dreams are just not worth it if the tools you have to work with don't actually HELP you. Why even use a tool if you're already doing everything all by yourself anyway? Your own fking BLOOD would be a better tool than sand.

Bolt 2 'worked' for many more people than Bolt 1 (or uNode) does right now.


To 'complain' about something sh*tty is to promote change.

Most people here who are complaining simply want Unity to listen to them and reconsider. Many would fix/develop Bolt 2 themsevles if Unity would just release the source for free (as many have already said in this very thread). We are each promoting change in whatever way we can -- and this is the equivalent to "taking action."
Not everyone lives on his mother's dime and can develop their own tools for years -- people have lives.

You clearly don't want change. You want to sit in a dark corner petting your uNode all by yourself forever. No offense to uNode, but you continue to say "Sh*tty tools are okay with me!" -- despite what you think you are saying.

So continue to sit quietly in your corner and enjoy your existing tools -- Let the rest of us do the big-boy work of actually promoting change -- each in our own way.

 

Did Laurent post an answer somewhere else ?

 

That is a solid negative.

 

This does look interesting, but some people are looking for an alternative to Bolt 1, which these other options also satisfy. Also, I believe uNode to be unstable right now? In which case I'm not sure how much different it would be to Bolt 2 alpha, with an arguably worse UI, although I could wrong.

There's also FlowReactor (https://assetstore.unity.com/packag...lowreactor-high-level-visual-scripting-167519) which no-one's mentioned, but as I said, stability is one of the key points after years of waiting for Bolt 2 (one of the reasons Playmaker is often mentioned).

 

not that I’ve seen that week long holiday should be long over. I hope no covid issues have taken over. However complete radio silence from unity

 

I like the look of flowreactor, and its on sale, might check this out

 

Flow Reactor is more a fancy framework for your custom nodes like xNode rather than a fully fledged visual scripting system. Yea, it has a bunch of pre-made nodes, but non-coders will get stuck fast since it has no reflection like Bolt, Flow Canvas or even Playmaker that can access 3rd party APIs which Flow Reactor can't without custom coding. It's pretty good if you're able to write your own nodes, though.

 

Laurent posted this on the discord server.

 

<I am Designer with no coding knowledge>

I loved Bolt 2.0 alpha, It was great. Finally, I was getting a bit comfortable with a tool after using playmaker, bolt 1, and few others.

I would really appreciate if Unity can understand all our concerns make some changes to their roadmap to make Bolt 2.0 happen. I feel like I had good hopes on Bolt 2.0 when it was with Ludiq. But now it feels we have no control over it. :/

@Szaruga
By the looks of it, uNode felt interesting and I was about to buy it. But later realized after researching on it a bit, as everyone stated above it is going to be like a bolt 2 alpha scenario. Long way to go, not sure what the future looks like on that. Especially if you are trying to learn a tool and also use it for production, I don’t think uNode will be of good here because of all the changes and the beta nature of it.

And I don't really care for money, I just need a stable and promising tool to work with and also use in production.

 

Secondly, as most of us here, I bought Bolt 1 in the promise of seeing Bolt 2 down the line. It's not that I spent money on it, it's the time investment I have put in to try out Bolt 2 even when it was in alpha just to be prepared and ready when the 2.0 actually releases.

Is the time I spent on Bolt 2.0 is a total waste and do I have to find another tool to work with? Unity

 

This is exactly where I am with this.

I mainly just want to understand the thought process behind the abandonment of some of Bolt 2's most exciting features. Like were there focus groups or polling to come up with the justification against it or was it just that they didn't want to put in the effort to make it work? I dunno. But when you buy out something like Bolt it's either because you see the promise of such a feature set and want to expand on it, or you just want to buy it and reign it back so people don't stray from your grand vision.

 

I'd say effort is not the right word here. It's time. Unity probably wants a VS solution to spawn as soon s possible and for it to be fully integrated into the engine yesterday. Especially with UE5 on the way. Bolt 2 was in alpha with a long time on the way for a stable release before it was bought. You can easily assume it had a lot of work still to be done, and software engineering is not something you can easily speedup by throwing more people at it. So it makes sense that integrating Bolt 1 would take a lot less work – and by consequence, less time – as it was already stable.

So, yeah, my feeling is business decision. Full integration with the engine is already a lot of extra work for something that was meant to work in a very specific environment (GameObject components, in this case), and Bolt 2 doubles down on this concept a lot, with classes and all. Which is, again, more work.

I do think it is overall a bad decision, but I can see how they would be backed into a wall here. Hopefully the amount of feedback we have here is enough for them to reevaluate the priorities in a way that is better long-term. Which hopefully means just imitating UE4 as much as possible

 

Ok, yeah that does sound probable now that you frame it like that. Still a shame, but I guess we'll see where things go.

 

This isn't really consistent with what has been said so far (by Unity) about "combining" Bolt 1 and DOTS VS into a single "un-siloed" product.

Clearly this is something that will take time. So, as far as I can tell -- Unity is not in a hurry.

That said, it's not like speed will hurt them any.
I personally think they bought Bolt to legally rip out any viable parts and aim to discard the Monobehavior-infested carcass when they're done. They're making Frankenstein's monster -- and developing it alongside the Unity editor while they're at it -- which is actually a really smart move (from a software POV) for a huge piece of software like Unity.

I do still think waving the Bolt 1 banner around is still VERY premature and a bad idea all around -- especially without Unity's own brand to put on the package before doing so. However Unity does still own Bolt (1 and 2), and if Frankenstein's monster does not rise (or rise quickly enough at least) -- Unity still has the option to open-source Bolt 2. So either way, it's a win for users. Screaming from the rooftops about how bad Bolt 1 sucks does give a sense of dire urgency from the user-base, but Unity doesn't have any real business need (right now) to rush it. Bolt 2 is still their ace in the hole (for now), and as long as they know it will pacify users -- they're going to hang onto that card until just the right moment.
They did recently enable the dark theme for free users (after years of yelling and screaming by the general user base) -- so maybe they'll just open-source Bolt 2 too (to prevent further mobs with pitchforks). It might be fun to have a race with the user base to see who can make the best VS tool the fastest. Worst-case scenario for Unity -- but the attention it gets by the media could be pretty epic!


But speaking to your other point -- While UE5 is definitely threatening to steal Unity's console-devs with new PS5 / Xbox hardware on the horizon, PC gamers aren't going to be nearly as affected. Similar to how VR went -- Only those with expensive, super-awesome SSD-powered super-computer rigs are going to be able to take advantage of the new (heavily hyped) rendering pipeline UE5 offers. So while Unity doesn't have much to fight back with right now -- it definitely still has time. Although Unity doesn't stand a chance against the new hardware tech -- a badass VS solution would be a great way to rock UE5's world. After all, not every PC gamer is going to run out and grab a new Xbox / PS5 on launch, and therefore not every dev is going to be developing a streaming open-world adventure.

 

I think the problem with that way of thinking is that you assume they would release a solution only when it was DOTS-viable. Which @LaurentGibert himself said wasn't the case in the original post of this topic (emphasis mine):

And that is assuming UE5 won't have other gamechanging advantages besides what they already talked about. Blueprints as it is today came with UE4. Last year there was talk about implementing a new intermediate scripting language in the engine, something between C++ and Blueprints, with C# being one of the studied possibilities mentioned.

I don't know about you, but if I was in charge of Unity, this kind of knowledge would get me very scared. UE4 is already a much more mature and well-organized engine and editor experience than Unity. There is no reason to believe UE5 won't increase this distance even further in any manner of fronts. So Unity rushing every and any-thing before that time comes makes a lot of sense for me.

 

They definitely are in a hurry, though. The tool will be integrated and ship with the 2021 version of the engine and not as an optional package download. This gives them a hard deadline for their lofty goals. Bolt 1 is usable now, Bolt 2 had unknown development time (anywhere from 6-12 months) needed to finish the first iteration of it. And that's without the added complexity of merging the tools, integrating them into the engine, etc. I think Andrew is really on point with the business decision angle.

But I think design compatibility was also a big factor. DOTS VS is horizontal now, so is Bolt 1, while Bolt 2 is vertical with port proxies. Bolt 2 runs from C# gen in builds, Bolt 1 and DOTS VS don't and Bolt 2's C# gen is not compatible with their established snippet node workflow in DOTS VS. They also don't care about C# gen which complicates writing custom nodes since you also have to write C# generators manually and it's generally hard to develop and maintain.

So adapting Bolt 1 was clearly more realistic than finishing Bolt 2 AND redesigning DOTS VS to do Bolt 2-like C# generation and vertical flow under the current time constraints and design goals.

 

Actually, I apologize for my posts.
After your reactions, I realized that you just need a DIFFERENT tool than me. And it's not about stability, first of all, that none of you value tools that create clean independent code, it is of little importance to you - therefore, indeed uNode, even fully stable - is not a tool for you.
Like Bolt - not a tool for me.

Other needs = misunderstandings.

 

Easy there, I don't think the developer of uNode even claims it to be stable.

 

Anyway, if I need to convert to C#, uNode is the only way to go.
If I give up on converting to C#, is FlowCanvas or Playmaker promising?
I own Playmaker because it's included in a bundle I previously purchased, but I don't own FlowCanvas.
Buying FlowCanvas + NodeCanvas would cost a lot of money.
I wish they would do a discount on VisualScripting Assets, so I could buy some of them and compare them.

 

They might go on sale in a month for Black Friday, but only the asset store people know what'll go on sale.

Both Flow/Node Canvas and Playmaker are viable. My personal preference is for more flexibility Flow Canvas offers - it's very similar to Bolt 1.

I'm holding out for the Bolt news, though. They've added a couple more people to the Bolt team, so my hope is that Bolt 1 will shape up soon'ish.

 

I tend to avoid waiting for tools, it could be at least a year away, and if I know software development, the later, the more likely.

FC+NC is definitely the closest match to Bolt 1, and if you don't miss class-style variables, vertical flow and c# generation, there's nothing you're missing. There's also a lot of great stuff in FC+NC that wasn't in either Bolt 1 or 2.

 

I don't wait for tools either after getting burned one too many times, but Bolt 1 works now, and it's forward compatible with whatever Unity is cooking up behind the scenes. This is not the case for other 3rd party tools, and the new project will take longer than a year to finish. I do most logic in C# these days anyway, so all I need from Bolt is basically only state machines since it's a pain to do those in C#.

Plus, they want to release updates this year for the asset store version as well. They're currently figuring out the pipeline for handling both the asset store releases and the upcoming engine integration. It might happen or it might not, but I'm cautiously optimistic for now.

 

You know what? -- You're both right.
I clearly misread that post! D:

Apparently I was in a hurry when I read that -- I think I mainly just caught this bit:

"Support MonoBehaviour & DOTS with high-performance, snippet-based, high-level artist nodes."

I read the "with high-performance, snippet-based, high-level artist nodes" as a way of supporting DOTS in-addition to standard DOTS support -- not the only way Unity plans to support DOTS. Reading that now -- I can see a HUGE problem with this, and a clear attempt at rushing things. So I stand corrected. D:

I've made plenty of points to the effect of why C# isn't anything to be scared of in my "Data-Oriented Visual Scripting: The Structure of a Language" topic -- at least with a good VS toolset design.
But that was written back in DOTS Visual Scripting's drop 6 iteration -- which was actually a good design!
But if Unity really plans to prioritize Bolt 1 and Monobehavior (and using dumbass artist-based "snippets" as its only method of DOTS support for artists), Unity is just pointing a gun at their own head with this approach. If somebody could make an artist-friendly Visual Script tool by throwing a few nodes together and call it innovation -- PLENTY of people would have already met the requirements of the ideal VS tool I've mentioned in my thread.

Like you said -- Unreal is definitely a seasoned engine, and has just about everything Unity has already (but built-in!), so yes, Unity should be watching its step carefully right now.
Without a curve-ball to throw at Epic's Unreal 5 (such as an innovative new way to script), new features in UE5 will only hurt Unity going forward -- especially if they adopt C# as a language. If this is true, no wonder Unity is trying to rush things!


BUT! -- The current direction of their Visual Scripting tool is the equivalent to Unity running with an axe. If they go too fast, without a proper plan and a keen set of eyes (which they clearly DONT have), they're just going to chop off their own feet when they inevitably trip and fall down with that axe while running blindly at this rate of speed. Their user base isn't going to save them when they CLEARLY cannot f*king hear us.
Unity caught up with Unreal in the graphics department (which was Unreal's major strength), but now Unity neglects its own biggest strength (assuming it's a given), which was "ease of development" at one point -- but users expect a lot more in this department. Now that Unity has caught up to Unreal, they have no clue what the hell to do.

Now, Unity is trying to go both slow _and_ fast at the same time -- and that is exactly what Unity cannot do (just yet).
Unity needs a vision for its technology -- and not just some stale words that mean nothing anymore.

You can't go both slow _and_ fast (at the same time) without a proper plan that will definitely bring you to the place you ultimately want to be. And that vision has to be crystal-clear.
Judging from the tone of that report released earlier in this thread (when Unity went public), that vision is fuzzy at best!
Right now, the only thing that's crystal-clear with Unity is the overall lack of direction (and therefore lack of vision) it has with its software and technology development.

I get that it's a strong point to experiment with new technologies -- but at a certain point, you have to listen to your user base's needs!

Right now, @Unity has a user-base that needs innovation.

 

Have any of the third-party tools had any major issues with forward compatibility? Genuinely interested, as I've had no issues with FC and new versions of Unity.

 

I meant forward compatibility between current Bolt and future Bolt and/or Unity Visual Scripting. You can't migrate FC/Playmaker/etc graphs to Bolt.

As a first party tool, it should eventually be better than 3rd party tools since supporting features like the new Input System should be a priority for them in theory. I'm hearing they're also either backporting or re-implementing stuff from Bolt 2, like the graph search and other quality of life features. So while Bolt 1 is not up to snuff right now, it should get there eventually.

If I had to stick to VS scripting only right now, I would go with Flow/Node Canvas, but I can get by with C# just fine. Unity Atoms framework is covering most of my VS-like needs these days with Unity Event based response lists. It's not great for timed stuff, but otherwise works pretty well.

 

Since Bolt2 was planned, there have been no updates to Bolt1 other than bug fixes.
The new Bolt built into Unity... I don't know if it can be called Bolt, but I'm looking forward to the new, easier-to-use VS anyway.
I'm still not happy with Bolt2, but that's another thing.

 

What I worry about is whether the code I currently write in Bolt1 will be available in the future.
If the new Bolt isn't compatible with the new Bolt, or if the new Bolt is in beta for the time being, then I'd like to decide which VS I can use now.

 

remembering that we don't know exactly where these sniper nodes will be...

From the information we have, we can assume the following:

DOTS VS will be integrating with Bolt, so we know that the bolt backend is a mix of Mono + DOTS. which leads us to believe that sniper nodes are part of DOTS (as a whole) and some bolt functions to improve performance...

However....

Think with me, a point raised in DOTS VS, it was his ability to create graphics without having to compile ANYTHING.
A certain well-known asset in the asset store also does this, and he is our dear Playmaker. but there is a big difference between them, in the playmaker the "NODES" or "actions" are very simple, they are made for artists, but in DOTS VS we even have the update function.

So that's the point.

Unity would not abandon an incredible tool for nothing (bolt 2), the unity team "is already preparing the ground" for the other tool that is coming. the bolt is like a dirt road that is ready to be used, while the concrete truck does not arrive (DOTS)


But of course, all of this is an assumption, soon, we will have news regarding this

 

I am just curious on this one.

What's wrong with Bolt 1? Is FC/NC better than Bolt 1 how? Because I feel they are very similar to BOLT1 and I don't see a reason to switch to them after using BOLT1.

 

Here is the best answer for that question.
https://forum.unity.com/threads/visual-scripting-roadmap-update.951675/#post-6204453

If you feel good with using bolt 1 then don't change it. Both FC and NC are tools for people that need more than what bolt 1 provides.

 

Bolt 1 has been feature frozen for the past two years in favor of developing Bolt 2. Asset Store alternatives have received a steady flow of updates in that time and Bolt 1 has been left behind both in features and performance.

FC vs Bolt comparison chart: https://flowcanvas.paradoxnotion.com/features-comparison/

Some standout FC features not present in Bolt 1 right now:

1. Native Tweening
2. Generics Support
3. Strongly typed custom events
4. Graph Search
5. Connection enable/disable
6. Custom types are added instantly - no need to rebuild the whole unit database.
7. Considerably better editor performance
8. Considerably better performance in builds
9. The ability to collapse node selection to a macro.
10. Dedicated debugging console where clicking an error centers you on the faulty node
11. Safe variable renaming
12. Refactoring window for sorting out missing references

And many more. Most of these were present in Bolt 2, and Bolt 1 doesn't have them yet. banan said it right, if Bolt fits your needs, you don't need to look elsewhere. It's more an issue for long time users who need something more than Bolt 1 can handle.

EDIT: Some things that Bolt 1 does better right now:

1. Large tutorial library (when compared to asset store alternatives).
2. The largest VS scripting community, Discord now has almost 7k members.
3. Arguably the best UI/UX on the market
4. Visually looks the nicest. Design is on point.

 

Thank you! @Ex-Crow @banaa1212 for explaining

Performance would be a big concern for me for sure. I remember working on Bolt 2, when the graph got a bit huge the editor's performance dropped drastically. I was hoping Bolt 1 will be better in performance due to its stable nature. But, seems like it probably will be similar. Thanks for that heads-up though.

What do you guys think about Unreal blueprint vs Bolt? Because I have heard a lot of good things about Unreal BE but never actually spent time on it. (Mainly for 2D games.)

 

I have used it professionally, and it's a really good system. You won't find anything close to it in any other game engine. The main problem with blueprints is that the system is hard to learn.
To grasp the concept of how to properly work with blueprints is as hard as learning the basics of c#. The main difference is that blueprint is slower than pure code (and some things should be transferred later to c++) but faster to iterate.

 

In my opinion blueprints doesn’t seem that hard to learn after using playmaker and bolt , what is challenging for me is using a playerstart and the cameras, I like that in unity you can just change the background color on the camera and your ready to go there are other things such as game modes that aren’t too difficult to wrap your head around. Long story short the scripting using blueprints is more straightforward to me and awesome it’s the learning curve of the other interfaces that are difficult.

I’m using unity and playmaker for 2d games and unreal for 3d games which is turning out to be a nice compromise.

 

I have to disagree with these points, I actually find FC/NC better looking in dark mode than Bolt, although I agree that Bolt does incorporate icons for everything which creates better "UI psychology" and therefore feels slightly easier to read, but I find the flat panelling looks worse than FC. uNode on the other hand...

Also, here's some points: https://forum.unity.com/threads/visual-scripting-roadmap-update.951675/page-8#post-6328467