Yay Unity has a great new UI but...

Nice, Andy. You should fire up a kick starter for it. From the sound of things a lot of people would get behind it.

 

Totally agree and totally irrelevant regarding the context lol. The time period was very much caveman BC so the concerns of the day were eat, hide in a shelter, drink fluids and don't get eaten by a predator / the bush gods.

mind blown

 

LOL Wow page 3 and very little in the way of quality suggestions for improved standard assets, well apart from a hang up on the idea of a universal door gadget, anvils, pillars, flappy birds and shields.

I'm impressed with a community so proud of Unity they think it is so perfect that no basic Free assets could or should be added to it to make it easier, faster and simpler to build games out of the box for new users or experienced users to build prototypes quickly.

I regularly take part in the Ludum Dare 48 hour game jam and I have been using Unity for a number of years.

The new UI is great it makes it so easy to put together simple menus and ui elements and linking buttons to code! Great work Unity!

But after using the new UI that makes building common UI elements so easy don't you get the feeling that Unity could extend it's basic components and assets to include a wider range of commonly used game elements???

 

There have been quality suggestions. You're simply ignoring them because they disagree with you.

Common UI elements have not changed in decades. A common control, such as a button or label, is the same in Windows 10 as it was in Xerox's Alto computer built in the early 1970s.

 

OK what if Unity opened up the FSM used by Mechanim as a reusable scriptable component. Most entities in a game and their behaviours can be mapped to a FSM. Couldn't this open the way for more flexible standard assets, AI subsystems, Doors , Elevators, Bullets, Bombs, Turrets ect???

It's OK I know you all live in a little Unity Box and I keep coming along and pointing out that it could be a better box, but you're happy in there, fine the world moves on but let's hope noone else is making a better box eh!

Just thought you might like it!

 

It is amazing how you try to start up threads as "discussions" only to completely ignore or belittle anything that is in disagreement with your statements. You don't want a discussion, you want people to pat you on the back and tell you that your ideas are not worthless.

 

So are you implying that the common elements in most games are constantly changing, every generation of game designer has to re-invent the bullet, healthbar, health, power-ups, gun, wheel, turret, zombie, enemy, wall, floor, gravity, physics, terrain, sky, clouds, sun, lighting, polygon, line, animation, particles, collider, hinge, color, textures, splines???

 

No, I'm implying that the method of implementing them is constantly changing. There are only so many ways to implement a UI element, but I can implement most of your list in ways that could never be completely covered by a pre-fab.

I do love how your list has changed to list those elements that are generally implemented in one way. Whereas your prior list was of elements that are very much not implemented with one method. Most of those are not even close to the door prefab that has been used in most examples.

 

Yes I would like to have hidden all posts in this thread that do not suggest useful new basic standard assets that could make using Unity easier and better. But that would only leave the first post!

What's your opinion on opening up the FSM used by Mechanim as a standard scriptable component?

 

Yes, I'm certain you would like to. Unfortunately it would also hide the vast majority of your posts.

We already have multiple ways to create FSMs. We have PlayMaker for those incapable or unwilling to script one, but we also have multiple ways to code them too.

 

Unity is a 3D engine. If you want to use GameMaker, go ahead. Trying to turn Unity into GameMaker isn't doing anyone any favors, and shows that you don't really understand what the point of Unity is.

--Eric

 

Well the same could be said for any complex component and even the default Unity Game Object, however what components do you find yourself using over and over in multiple projects?

I'm not suggesting that Unit invent the Universal Door although a switch trigger and animation running component could be showcased with a nice little door prefab, that would serve most uses or quickly allow people to adapt and use it.

 

Nothing that could be easily implemented as a drag-and-drop prefab without extensive design. In the short term it would waste a lot of time and in the long term it would be very iffy as to whether or not it would cover any other potential needs.

Extremely simplistic elements might be re-used, but those are also easily and quickly coded from scratch.

 

@Arowx, I appreciate your needs but if Unity made all these things, I wouldn't use them. For a start, I would hate the fact my game looked and (worse) acted like every other game that used the same thing.

It is better to teach a man or woman how to fish.

 

LOL I thought it was a 2D/3D game engine with a shiny new UI. Unity would not lose any of it's power and features by adding reusable standard components that would allow developers to quickly put simple games together.

Actually Eric it was one of your tutorial/example projects that allowed me to get to grips with Unity and how it's component model scripting system works.

How many dumb noob questions could be answered or be nullified if Unity had a set of simple components that would allow a new developer/design to quickly throw together a space shooter, twin stick shooter, FPS, RTS, endless runner.

How much easier would it be to make tutorials for making games with Unity.

I just thought Unity was about empowering people to make great games, to democratise game development.

OK these components will not be the ideal building blocks for all projects but then the Unity Terrain system had problem on mobile phones, the Particle System does not support high end GPU particles. Unity is not perfect but it does provide some great features to get people making games.

 

That's the catch with dumb noob questions. It doesn't matter how much you try to simplify, they will still be asked. If you don't believe me, go read the GameMaker forums.

 

Currently struggling to prevent myself from following Ryiah. I'd just feel like a stalker or something.

 

It's not for me I can write these quite quickly or copy them out of previous projects. But find I'm repeating myself and thought that other developers would be experiencing this as they re-code or re-use code from project to project and therefore there was probably a common sub-set of components that would work across most projects.

This could benefit noobs and pros.

A noob might be able to get their dream game up and running in Unity in a fraction of the time.
A pro should be able to prototype their dream game more quickly and then move onto adapting or dropping and building from scratch their dream game.

And maybe a need for a simple to use cross project component/asset library feature that Unity lacks.

But I bow down to the superior knowledge of the Unity community and admit it was but a dream of mine!

Spoiler: Edited Out

Just Imagine a better Unity! Peace! Out!

 

That's just it. We already are re-using existing code and prefabs. The difference is that we are not trying to design them ahead of time for every possible use case. Rather we make adjustments when we go to re-use them.

 

http://blogs.unity3d.com/2014/01/17/new-sample-assets-beta/

 

You actually can do that in Unity 5.
http://blogs.unity3d.com/2014/06/26/shiny-new-animation-features-in-unity-5-0/

 

Great.

Maybe Unity needs a news feed feature that would let us know about these new sample assets and tutorials and updates when we start Unity!

 

That sentence out of context will make you feel a lot better about it

I'm very happy about the character controller update. I went FLYING when I ran down slopes lol

--edit

Can't wait to see how PlayMaker responsds to that meccanim link. Hopefully something interesting

 

Obviously you woundn't ONLY be stuck with a high level customizable prefab, that's just the default.. you'd then let it be broken down bit by those who want to make it more specific... you don't have to please everyone, just a majority of cases, and then everyone else will likely write their own code still.

 

What is the point of Unity, then, if not to make it EASY and PAINLESS to make games?

 

And it really is. It's easier than any other engine in it's class.

If it's too difficult for you it's because you're not putting much effort in to learn it. The alternative would be that you're stupid, but that's insulting and neither of us think you're stupid, right?

 

Unity's goal, as their public relations page states way at the bottom, is to "democratize game development and level the playing field for developers across the globe". Essentially it is to bring quality game development tools to everyone.

Ease of use has slowly worked its way into the mix as the tools gain new features and become more robust. It is now far easier to develop a game than it has been in the past where we developed everything from scratch.

Should Unity hold your hand through every step? I suppose in the early stages of learning, but at some point you need to leave the shallow areas and dive right into the more complex aspects. Having everything done for you only gets you so far.

 

It is easy and painless. Coding makes my hands happy

I knew this conversation would get back on topic

As for everyone else, maybe this is what you're looking for.

@hippocoder my suggestion there in the hyperlink is probably more offensive than your alternative ^-^

 

Unity already makes it easy for game developers, I don't think they ever said they wanted to make it easy for non game developers. What I find odd is why game development seems to be an area where people refuse to understand that 'easy' is a relative term. Everyone thinks you can start from nothing and create a masterpiece.

The magnificent computer engineering programs out there today make it really easy to design a new car engine, assuming you are an engineer. If you don't know the importance of things like airflow through the engine and thermodynamic properties of the various parts, it will not make life much easier. But if those programs were game engines, people would be expecting to design an 8-cylinder from scratch without even knowing how internal combustion engines work.

Modeling programs are making 3d models easier than ever to create, but nobody complains that Maya or Blender don't come with a predefined library of every object, texture, or animation you may need. Scrivener makes writing a novel easy, but not if you can't write a sentence.

Unity, like all the tools above, is a tool for people who have some idea what they are doing. If you know nothing, you have to learn. If someone hasn't gotten to the point that they realize how unique to a given game even the most seemingly simple tasks are, then they've still got a lot to learn. UT spending too much time trying to create the Swiss Army knife of assets, for every genre imaginable, so that its users don't have to be bothered to learn does nobody any favors.

 

...And there we have it. Thread's over.

--Eric

 

I've actually always liked how much of a blank slate Unity is. Its cool that Unity is general enough to make your own game architecture on top of it. Turrets, guns, Options menu, Main menu, Hi Score system? I find those things extremely specific to a game and wouldn't want UT to use their time making them. Even doors and elevators have vastly varying implementation. Pooling and procedural destruction might be good things, though there are definitely things higher on my priority list. I'd rather UT continue to focus on making a great framework for us to build truly unique things.

 

I do think pooling could be better as an interesting native feature of Unity, in that Unity is better positioned to manage allocation deallocation of data than we are with Unity objects. But the original list is somewhat a mashup of the OP's own desires, so I don't think it's the same thing as just a door.

Essentially, Unity pooling could be a feature extension for the existing Instantiate. A soft Instantiate, that is you have a pool = true parameter in the instantiate command. This will internally pool the object, with destroy putting it back in the pool again. This sort of caching behaviour is a really nice to have, since you can liberally abuse Instantiate but also quickly fix performance issues.

 

It certainly would make for another nice incentive to buy Unity Pro. Unity Free users could simply use the existing solutions in the store or write their own.

 

If the needed count is greater than the existing count, instantiate more. If the average over time is lower than the existing count, delete a few from the pool. Sounds nice.

 

I don't think that would make anyone buy pro. A $15-$30 feature that you can basically buy from the Asset Store and has no bugs? Pro costs $1500. No little feature that cheap to get will make an impact on sales. Stuff like the profiler, splash screen that you can't get otherwise? Totally.

 

Ah but it wouldn't necessarily be just a simple little object pooling system that you can code in a couple of hours, or even a more robust object pooling system one that would work for all situations and take a day or two to code.

Most big game engines or even smaller crafted game engines especially on console platforms needed to manage their memory usage so they would build memory management sub systems as their games we're limited to a fixed amount of memory.

OK the memory in modern PC's and Smartphones is huge in comparison but still once you get to a sufficiently large enough game it will need to be better managed.

Now you can bet that the Cryteck and Unreal engines have memory managements subsystems built in allowing them to be able to dynamically stream in level data and give the player the impression of a much larger world.

Fingers crossed Unity 5 will have just such a system, it would help speed up loading times and allow for more dynamic streaming of levels. All of the things Unity needs to go toe to toe with the big dogs!

 

Creating and destroying instances of an object is performed by the core engine. Existing solutions involved scripts managing the pool whereas this would be processed internally. It stands to reason it would be more efficient.

 

Actually why I would like Unity to improve is because we are about to make the jump to VR sometime this year we will see the Oculus Rift Mk1.

And I think the Killer App for VR will be a flexible world/game/experience building app, just like Unity but where you can work with it in VR. The trouble is Unity does not have enough out of the box 'lego' or modelling tools to be a good world builder. It has some simple primitives but no way to model, sculpt, modify and build with them.

OK Say you put on your VR HMD and are dropped into a default scene in Unity, you have access to all the standard assets and tutorial materials but like a casual user you don't want to spend any money.

And you want to build a castle like this.

Image changed as had link blocker!


I challenge you to build it, actually I'll start as soon as I post this, are you ready... go!

 

There are several issues that appear when you suggest a VR-based Unity Editor:
- VR would have to feel comfortable for hours and hours in a row. It currently doesn't for most people. Maybe the retail kit will?
- Switching between Unity and other software (Maya, Blender, Photoshop, Chrome, whatever) just wouldn't work (Unless those had VR Editors too, but ive seen nothing of that sort for the programs ive suggested)
- The Unity Editor simply wouldn't translate well into a VR space, for various reasons. How would you maintain multiple editor windows and their neatness? Unity has ALOT of editor windows for all different areas of game development and in the VR space, it would look like a mess without them being tabbed or 'hidden' to the 'Window' dropdown list. Anyway, where would the taskbar go?
And probably a bunch more that other users would probably post.

Of course, I am always willing to be proven wrong given decent examples. Could you put together a mock up of the Unity Editor, or a game development tool, that looks attractive, functional and production-worthy for hours and hours of dev time, in a VR space?

I honestly have no idea what you mean here. Could you elaborate more?

 

What you are describing is not a game development platform but rather a sandbox game with modding. There are already existing games that fill that role. Second Life, for example, gained support for the Oculus Rift back in October.

http://www.roadtovr.com/second-life-now-official-oculus-rift-dk2-support/

 

Not bad but took me 49 minutes ouch, I am old and slow tho!

 

OK But I charge $10 per an hour is that OK with you I will begin now, should take a couple of days to get something presentable working?

And you get to keep the prototype and all source code generated!

 

easy save game method

(.. although, its been nice to learn it myself.. leads to level editing and stuff)

 

Now imagine what people could throw together in Unity with just a few basic modelling tools and operations. Ideally you would provide a way for people to prototype and build things then export them to modelling packages and re-import the refined and polished version.

And note I didn't name any competing game engines that have more modelling features built in!

Although arguably what we really need is a way to drag into VR the functionality of Blender or Maya, regardless of the world/game/experience engine you are in.

 

So by 2016 we will see them

 

Some of your ideas probably have merit, but you're all over the place with them. Maybe try to focus them more?

You started with easy to use pluggable modules and now we're at modelling tools within VR. Is that something you really think UT should provide?

 

You're "all over the place" is my Holistic Dynamic Vision of the future or Ideas Change and adapt over time and with good feedback they evolve. No idea or vision is perfectly formed they tend to have fuzzy bits around the edges and sides.

 

I prefer my flexible modules to have hard and well defined extendable edges, not fuzzy ones. Can you imagine how long it would take to finish a puzzle if the edges were fuzzy? D: