A Unity ID allows you to buy and/or subscribe to Unity products and services, shop in the Asset Store and participate
in the Unity community.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Visual Scripting' started by LaurentGibert, Sep 28, 2020.
Visual Scripting in 2021.1.0f1 is an Official release?
what do you mean by "official release" ? unity 2021.1.0f1 is a non-beta release of unity. it ships with the new version of bolt, renamed Unity Visual Scripting.
Does this mean that the current "look" of Visual Scripting will be the same even in a DOTS project? Or are there going to be separate VS packages for both DOTS and Mono projects?
The new look has a darker background ( can I change the color? if no, why not? )
The top shading of each node is now almost the same as the bottom of the node, I prefer the older way of lighter gray at the top, ( can I customize this, if no why not ? )
the current plan is to have an extension of Unity VS for dots - so same ux, different backend.
The answer to "why not" is usually "because we didn't have the time to do it"
Thats a nice answer, thanks, I'll be patiently waiting
You shouldn't have said that.
Get the chains. Tie the man to his computer. Get the whip, just in case he wants a "lunch" break or something.
In the corporate world, we call this "MANDATORY" overtime.
Not having this "MANDATORY overtime" make it possible to not over burn the employees and keep the team at a reasonable sanity level, making it possible to have a better quality of life. This enables us to continue to grab the best elements in our teams and also enables us to support the users as best we can in a better working environment where we feel that we can help each other as best as possible.
This is part of the reasons why I stopped working in the game industry on AAA projects with crunch times that are just supposed to be normal and seeing some people leave burned out and some other people never coming back.
I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm, but I felt it was important to point this out. In the end, all we want is to make development as accessible as possible to anybody.
I think they were trying to be sarcastic. Oh wow I'm blind.
Yes. I _definitely_ was being sarcastic.
Wow. That joke blew up in my face.
Geeze -- How could someone _not_ know @theor-unity (and everyone there) work hard enough? -- Clearly this is the case.
In fact, who the hell in (or around) the games industry doesn't work hard??
Visual Scripting is just not an easy thing to implement -- much less effectively -- otherwise there'd be a slew of these solutions laying about (and I wouldn't have an entire thread devoted to discussing the subject!)
In short -- I 'get' this. And I was trying to nip any potential problem with this exact thing in the bud with my joke (in case anyone was thinking about really saying something like this) -- which clearly (unintentionally) made ME into the enemy.
Besides, the content of my reply was to poke fun at this one line -- not the whole games industry (much less the people, like myself, making tools for those still in it!)
I was only joking that he opened himself up to someone (apparently not less considerate than me) saying something similar -- though way less exaggerated of course -- by explicitly giving his reason for x/y/z feature not being implemented as "we didn't have time to do it" -- as somebody (much less understanding -- and much more 'entitled' than most of us) would complain about this sort of thing, and naturally expect superhuman feats out of him. And there are no shortage of these people in the world. In effect -- I was arguing your point for you.
Clearly "chaining the man to his computer" is not a humane solution by anyone's definition (except the corporate one, as you pointed out -- which I thought I too had clearly pointed out through intense sarcasm). However, (like you pointed out) there are hugely important problems with this 'corporate' approach, and in no way was I trying to condone such activities. :/
That said -- the times are definitely changing (thankfully), and this "crunch" problem is becoming less and less a thing (even though it definitely still exists), but I didn't expect to trigger anyone on this. Therefore I made the joke.
That being said -- point taken. I retract my (terrible) joke meant to invoke fun banter into the thread, as I am clearly terrible at humor. Go me.
Are you... just coming in this thread to criticize VS and promote your own tool ?
Mic drop. Then it rolls off the stage hitting an audience member in the eye. There's blood. And an ambulance now.
Seriously though. I get the frustration. Mistakes were definitely made in the past. However, Unity is learning from them. There are (visible) changes in Unity now that very clearly reflect a commitment to key learning points. While I might not always agree with their design decisions myself, I don't beat them up on them just because I think _my_ decisions are better -- because, trust me, 'better' is _definitely_ relative sometimes -- especially when dealing with tools meant to be used by everyone.
Rather than ripping on the visual scripting team's hard work, why not take time to propose solutions to fix visual scripting for everyone, instead of just yourself? -- How about making solutions in general -- instead of just more problems?
That's what I am doing. While I don't inherently like Bolt's design, I understand there are people behind the scenes who made those tools. Passionate and willing people whose hard work you are beating up on right now for what seems like no reason outside of selfishness (i.e. shamelessly promoting your tool) and the fact that it isn't quite what fits your idea of what visual scripting should be.
Again, I knock on Bolt once and a while because of its design, but Unity's Visual Scripting tool is far more flexible (and probably quite a lot more performant!) than what I see in your tool's design -- all _because_ of the very same reasons you've chosen to rip on them for.
Considering the immense task given to them, I think Unity's Visual Scripting team so far has done an excellent job.
(Keep up the good work, guys!)
where is bolt 2
More precisely it got integrated into the roadmap:
I think asking "where is Bolt 2" is like asking "where is Windows 11".
There is no "Bolt" in version 2021+, only VS, which will be upgraded and developed with the engine.
The features that were specific to Bolt 2 over Bolt 1 are not entirely integrated into the roadmap though. So there are some features that have been dropped, specifically for the sake of backwards compatibility.
Hi! I'm very curious about the mention of "High level nodes" in the roadmap, but couldn't find any pieces of information about them anywhere.
Can you give us some intel about the direction you're gonna go with this? Are they gonna be aimed at prototyping/coding faster or something else entirely?
Think "nodes that replace a bunch of API nodes". they'll probably be either generic or prototyping oriented at first. We're working on scoping them right now.
That's great to have, but isn't that kind of like what SuperUnits are for?
That leads me to another question -- If not, and these "high-level" nodes are meant for "in the trenches" style logic (for the sake of efficiency thanks to the interpreter layer), then is there going to be some way to quickly edit or duplicate and modify the "breakdown" logic of those high-level nodes into their (more constituent) parts and/or modify / override the existing logic of these high-level nodes? Perhaps with an accompanying script that describes the linkage/flow or something?
That leads to my curiosity on (dynamic) variable scope:
Ideally variable scope would be adaptable to whatever layer of contextual complexity exists in the script being called, rather than requiring its own 'sub-scope' in the high-level node and linkage / output that would naturally be required to follow (like SuperUnits require). To me, more adaptable variable scope happening dynamically at the interpreter level for these high-level nodes (based on the script's own context) would be the value of the interpreter layer.
Is the former or the latter how scope is being handled in these high-level nodes? The former kind of behavior (i.e. more localized and context-based) would be better for faster/more efficient "in the trenches" style logic. SuperUnits, on the other hand, would be where I would actually expect the latter extra-high-level (read as "routing-style") behavior.
EDITED for clarity
Hey there, been reading through all the posts in this and the other VS related post... Recently I have been on a Macro rampage trying to make as much of my Bolt logic to use Macros instead of imbedded ones, thinking it would be better for performance, and besides a few hiccups with macros being used in sequence breaking the game,it is been working great so far.
Since I am no coder, like i can read and understand sometimes 100% sometimes 10% of a code, and can write basic C# to help with my logic. My greatest question is if should I leave Bolt to do only basic State Machine functionality, like a Playmaker/C# Frankenstein, or can I really use it without worrying that my game will be a bloated mess?
Any good VS good practices, like using coroutines instead of updates or something else to consider?
Then again, everyone says that VS is too performance heavy to use in a production game, and it is more likely a door to push designers into learning code, than to really use it in the project. And that kind of thought makes me want to quit more than to learn C# to the max, and while working in my project, there is always a thought in the back of my mind that all this work (in VS) is gonna be useless and I will have to redo everything in the future...
So is there any point on using Bolt and any other VS tool, or is it all waste of time and I should force my self to move all the logic to C#?
Progress is never a waste of time. Work until you hit an impassable road-block, do the minimal amount of work (or C#) to remove it, then continue.
This aged nicely.
Yeah if the original developer of this still had it ... I can not even imagine how far along
it would be now.. not only that .. yeah a hopping forum with tons of posts.
What do you mean ?
I guess he means what all of us mean: if you guys haven't bought it up, Bolt 2 would have been out already with code generation and all and people could use it with flourishing community.
Not sure why code generation is namedropped so frequently. Bolt 2 was never going to generate clean, human readable, standalone C# code. It was generated for performance reasons only with a lot of boilerplate code and a bunch of features that worked only in Bolt 2 context like macro subgraphs, Bolt 2 enums (which couldn't be accessed in regular C# scripts), Class Assets (the Bolt 2 version of scriptable objects), etc. All of which needed the Bolt 2 runtime to work even with generated C# code.
I don't doubt the Bolt 2 community would be flourishing. It was superior to Bolt 1 in many ways but let's not pretend it was some holy grail of visual scripting or code generation. Unity are still doing code gen, just per node code gen which will yield similar performance benefits.
Yes I agree, pretty much that, exactly. And people shared a lot too. And his forum always had tons of postings.
As for the post underneath that. what may have been planned for bolt 2 .. and code gen c# output .. That was then.. it is Impossible to say what Could have been... you are trying to say he would not have found a way to take it Bolt a Lot further, and that I will never believe.
IMHO, this is a great example of time line manipulation.. one can not really say 100 % sure what could have happened had something Not happened. To suggest that Bolt 2 would have been " this far along now " I can't believe because imho he was a brilliant developer that Could have helped many people here.. and many would have had the courage to slowly learn C# in a painless way.
Except for holidays, he worked night and day on that. And had the help and support of the whole bolt community behind him, including many top coders working for free helping him, because yeah it was that good and they believed in him, and his mission with Bolt.
Just to get the record straight: if we bought it, it's because ludiq was selling
Why? Did he foresee Unity heading into an uncertain (but long) period of instability and fragmentation?
Its allright that unity now has Bolt, Is just a bit of a loss that the original developer is not on board with unity to continue the journey with the added resources, That I think would have made a difference, because all the lessons learned along the way could be used for the next version.
But I'm sure there was a handover that addresed most of it.
Original developer is only one guy and has his own game studio and several other pursuits like others assets on the store (Peek).
My guess is he burnt out, the community had grown larger than he (alone) could handle, bug reports came in by the bucketloads and while support was great at first, by the end you couldn't get your bug fixed for months if at all. Support response went from 48h to once a week to then once a month if you're lucky. Many bugs were then left for Unity to fix after acquisition.
Same with Bolt 2 development. It didn't move at all for 6 months straight, then had a 2-3 month sprint with lots of progress only to stop for another 6 months, repeat the cycle. So it was always around the corner for nearly two years but never really landed. It was like a year away still from a stable release.
He sold it because he wanted to sell. Probably for a life changing money too. No one forced him to and he still develops assets for Unity.
Waxing poetic about Bolt 2 now is pointless. It was cancelled a long time ago, Bolt 1 is integrated into the engine and will receive a new, high performance runtime soon'ish. Spewing wild conspiracy theories is not productive and won't change a thing.
" Why? Did he foresee Unity heading into an uncertain (but long) period of instability and fragmentation? "
" Spewing wild conspiracy theories is not productive and won't change a thing. "
All this reminds me of, off the top of my head is... Like even IF* ALL global warming emissions were stopped at this, instant. We are still in for the next 50 years at-lest of continuing increasing more deadly weather conditions. And some scientists are saying it will take the earth 1000 years to get back to say 1970 weather type of system, if all emissions were to stop now. But of course a lot of life including animals will be wiped out, long before then.
And yeah, I agree, whining about what Could have been with Bolt ... at this point is useless.
just like where we are at with global warming.
P.S sorry for off topic in some way's... just the words conspiracy theories, reminded me of
how some are looking at global warming. Not saying this poster... am just making an analogy,
I hope a semi correct one.
Right, and thankfully now it's owned by Unity which are notorious for their fast tournaround times.
At least Unity fixed a critical Bolt 1 bug I couldn't get the original dev fix for 6 months. So in my eyes they picked up the slack if anything.
I know this is stating the obvious to people " in the know " about Unity.
No matter what is said here, there is one Fact ... Ludiq him Self Can Not Comment about anything because, I would assume he has had to sign a NDA that would prevent him from commenting on anything here, including my belief that it would be better under his control, he could have hired more people etc...
So for me the fact that he can not say anything about Bolt one way or another is maybe a point to
consider. sorry but this NDA thing is a fact and per-sorry if it hurts some peoples feelings..
at any rate, this should be my last thing to say on this. He has to be mute on this unless released.
Ludiq / Lazlo sold Bolt 2. He also refused to refund people or work with Unity in helping deal with some basic unresolved issues around it (like people who gave him money and wanted a refund after he broke multiple promises). Unity reached out to him, I reached out to him, and others reached out to him and we never got any resolution to some very simple things. To me that screams of unprofessionalism.
While Ludiq / Lazlo might have done some amazing things with Bolt 2, it is more likely he sold it for a reason. Either it wasn't coming together like he wanted or he was under a lot of stress or financial uncertainty, or a million other reasons.
I'm a huge critic of Unity, but to say that "if Ludiq didn't sell it and continued working on it then it would be amazing now" is a bit silly because it isn't really supported by the facts. I would have loved to see Ludiq continue on it as I think their original direction was better than Unity's (sacrificing backwards compatibility for more flexibility and advanced features, while Unity went the other direction), that clearly wasn't part of Ludiq's plan.
I wonder what would have happened if Unity didn't buy it... but again, Unity could only buy it if Ludiq was selling it. So there isn't one group to blame.
I'm still hopeful Unity does something amazing with it... but at the same time I think their direction is overall misguided, especially now that they are a publicly traded company. But what can you do... =/
I'm not sure why you're continuing on that line. You make it sound like he's silenced by the big bad Unity when he sold it happily for a pretty sum. Good for him, he might be even set for life which is amazing.
People still seem to be invested in this imaginary idealized version of Bolt 2 that would solve all their issues and let them work and code for regular projects without being an actual coder or other some such fantasy. Or magically learn C# scripting just like that.
It makes it clear that most of the complainers are not and never were actual Bolt users, nor did they test the Bolt 2 alpha when it was available. Or know what Unity are doing with Bolt/UnityVS now because their plans far exceed what Bolt 2 could ever be.
Bolt 2 would never become the industry standard but UnityVS will be. It might take awhile but we'll get there.
There's only one thing we know for sure:
Unity has bought a visual scripting 'solution' and made it free, and combined the philosophies of Bolt 1 with their own ways of doing no (or very limited) abstraction visual programming and started promoting themselves via their limited vision of visual scripting.
There are two results to this:
The incumbent becomes Unity's visual scripting, because it's free and so heavily promoted as TheOne.
Established market rivals have less of a chance to ply their wares, as new users expect Unity's solutions to be sufficient, and struggle with it rather than buying Playmaker, FlowCanvas or something else better suited to getting things done, early on.
All visual scripting solutions for Unity stop moving as fast forward as they might otherwise in a level playing field, competitive market.
I'm still using playmaker as for me its easier to use, and I don't see a reason to switch to bolt.
Unity are aiming their official wares at AAA and AA studios (including all the serious mobile devs) which are their real money makers. Those studios don't use 3rd party assets from the store, they might even have in-house proprietary visual scripting solutions with teams of developers supporting and developing them.
FlowCanvas and Playmaker don't service those markets, these tools are aimed at indies and hobbyists. None of the available VS tools (or the now defunct Bolt 2) are fit for actual, large scale productions in studio environments.
Your conspiracy theory therefore is a good laugh. Unity don't think on such a small scale nor they're interested in disrupting a small corner of a store for a specific kind of niche tool for absolutely no gain.
Playmaker is used by milliondollar selling games, including heartstone, inside, hollow knight and more. good enough for me.
Why you think they don't service AAA ?
By the scarce info I could find, Hearthstone does not use it anymore (it also was a rather small team initially with limited resources before the project proved itself). It was probably used for initial card behavior prototyping.
Hollow Knight was made by 4 people, it's an indie outfit with limited resources. Hollow Knight uses Playmaker for AI state machines, it was not used for anything else as far as I'm aware.
Can't find a lot of info on Inside development in relation to VS at the time and team size. They're now 50 people strong which is quite sizable but they've also ditched Unity for Unreal for their next project so there's that. And from the Unite talks I've seen of their efforts of optimizing the game, it definitely was not made with just Playmaker, probably used for AI state machines as well.
Node Canvas also has some well known games under its belt like Kingdom (definitely indie) series and The Long Dark. In Kingdom it's used for AI behaviors. The Long Dark went way deeper than just AI but I also know for a fact that The Long Dark devs were shopping around for a different VS tool a couple years back because Flow/Node Canvas combo wasn't performant enough and they struggled with sustaining 60fps on target configs.They evaluated Bolt but it's way slower than Flow or Node Canvas.
Yes, there are a few multimillion grossing games that use some of these tools in very specific scenarios. But they're not the defacto industry standards like Blueprints is, and they don't scale for AAA be it in performance, features or engine integration.
Playmaker gets a good amount of publicity, and is still heavily under-hyped. It's very good.
Using Unity without it, in a team or as a beginner, is just painful.
If you're seeing a conspiracy theory you probably are getting a chuckle out of it, and most of the other things you imagine, too.
Have you ever come across a big team that's not, in some way, using Playmaker?
Suggesting the whole game needs to be made with Playmaker for it be somehow a valid and a beneficial tool is building a strawman. The word used was 'used', to describe the fact that it's used. Nobody suggested whole games are made with it, although some are.
I edited that because I didn't intend the meaning. What I meant is that Playmaker is used in very specific niche scenarios in a few well known games but it's not an industry standard and it never will be. Therefore it doesn't service the larger studio market. Definitely not at AAA scale which is Unity's target for UnityVS.
? None of the teams I've come across use Playmaker. Not my team, nor other Unity devs under the the developer/publisher I work for. We used Bolt for one project but we won't use it in the future. It has too many problems.
If that's the case, Unity has missed the target, completely.
Every big team I've met that uses Unity has devs customising PlayMaker for the non-coders, and are getting huge mileage out of its customisability and instant and friendly ways of abstracting.