1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
742
guests, and 6
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Unity 2.5 for Windows - sooner than you think
[Re: MaxF]
#247844
01/22/09 22:19
01/22/09 22:19
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,506 Germany
fogman
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,506
Germany
|
Maybe we should ask them about their scene management.
Their asset management is absolutely hammer! You just drag and drop, and it works immediately. You can even exchange assets between windows and mac with no problems.
Last edited by fogman; 01/22/09 22:20.
no science involved
|
|
|
Re: Unity 2.5 for Windows - sooner than you think
[Re: MaxF]
#247845
01/22/09 22:26
01/22/09 22:26
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 150 Switzerland
Hitsch
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 150
Switzerland
|
The more I see from Unity the more I get to like it. I've bought the commercial version of 3DGS some time ago and I'm not so shure now if that was the right way to go for me.
Don't get me wrong, I like this engine and I learned alot especialy because it is much more basic programming and having to deal with different tools and filetypes gives you a good insight. But having a realtime editor for me is something that feels so natural, I'm shure it speeds up processes a lot. Having to build a map, compile the code and then see that you've done something completely the wrong way around can be very frustrating.
And second, I was blown away by the lightdemo that runs within the browser. I would like to have that, beeing able to show progress to others like that is fantastic. I think it adds a lot of falue to the whole package, and the MAC and Iphone support, too.
All in all, the very things that I would like 3DGS to have, but who knows, maybe Conitec is closing up soon, I would like to stay with this engine and the community.
|
|
|
Re: Unity 2.5 for Windows - sooner than you think
[Re: ventilator]
#247974
01/23/09 19:01
01/23/09 19:01
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
without any scene management? unity for sure uses something like an octree or abt too (octree and abt are very similar approaches). i don't know any 3d engine which doesn't.
As far as I know octree or bsp are not anymore so important as they were in the past At the time the bottle neck was the graphic card Nowadays it is better to render many tris rather than losing CPU cycles to loop through the octree
Last edited by AlbertoT; 01/23/09 19:01.
|
|
|
Re: Unity 2.5 for Windows - sooner than you think
[Re: ventilator]
#247985
01/23/09 19:49
01/23/09 19:49
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Yes ok but in the classic octrees management system your CPU must create on the fly and go through the hierarchy If so ,you must pay an high cost in terms of CPU cycles while even a low level modern graphic card can easly render milion tris per second Unless for octree you mean a simple precompiled " zone " management system This is at least what I read
Last edited by AlbertoT; 01/23/09 19:53.
|
|
|
Re: Unity 2.5 for Windows - sooner than you think
[Re: AlbertoT]
#247999
01/23/09 20:48
01/23/09 20:48
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121 Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
Yes ok but in the classic octrees management system your CPU must create on the fly and go through the hierarchy If so ,you must pay an high cost in terms of CPU cycles while even a low level modern graphic card can easly render milion tris per second Unless for octree you mean a simple precompiled " zone " management system This is at least what I read This is true for simple shaded objects. But if you use expensive shaders and many dynamic lights then it is the other way around. It is better to create many smaller objects instead of one big and to let the engine do a good culling to calculate only the needed lighting, shadows and shaders. Polygons do not bring a modern GPU down, but fragment programs (shaders) do and modern games use them very intense. So a good scene and light management is still needed, maybe even more than before. And because of that optimized engines like C4 will be able to run more detailed and better illuminated/shaded geometry than other ones, especially indoor. There you can use zones and portals to render only what you see on screen. And there is still some visibility culling and intelligent culling of shadows even through portals. This is not trivial. I miss something like that in the feature list of Unity. So it might be a good alternative for casual games but not for beauty indoor games with bigger levels. Though they proved that they can render outdoor very good with LOD and streaming of terrain chunks.
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
|