Why everyone only compare the programming side? How about the whole workflow, the asset import capability? That's the stength in Unity I think.

[/quote] I don't know why Unity is really bad then [/quote]
well although i think cowabanga goes about saying this the wrong way, i think its bad because there is no ability to do postprocessing effect/ dynamic shadowmapping which also means you cant do ssao either because you can use rtt.

Ok, thanks. And i've searched in the tutorial 1000 times!!! And it's not clear!

Probably because it is so evident that Unity3D is much better than 3dgs as a far as the workflow is concerned that it is not worth while talking about

About the programming side on the contrary I have my doubts, too
At a the first glance this " component " programming approach seems ok but I wonder whether it is actually suitable for complex gameplay

For example, to have to attach components to " empty objects " in same cases ( see previous posts.. ) uhmm...it sounds to me like a sort of "plastic" programming style...just an impression, anyway

However ,in my opinion Lite_c, despite the name, is actually a javaScript like scrpt language , same as Unity, at least for the programming style

P.S.

I wonder also whether Unity set of functions is complete
Apparently it lacks many common ones
For example I did not find the equivalent functions of vec_for_bone, vec_for vertex, etch which I sue very often

Lite-C has that as well (e.g. no enums, but function overloading)

This Gameobject-based programing is different of course, but you have no disadvantage by assigning a script to an empty gameobject. Also it was just an example. If you change a level, you probably have some kind of door you use, an trigger or whatever where you can attach the script to.

It won't be a problem to create any complex gameplay by attaching scripts to objects. It's not like you have to pre-create the object and have it loaded in the level with the script attached to it, before you use it. You can create an object/model, apply any component you need (collision, particle emitter, sound, etc), attach the script it needs, save it as prefab and delete the object again.
So now you don't have the object lying around in your level but create it, with its by you predefined settings, at any time while playing.

That sounds pretty nice as this is the way A7 does it as well (unless I misunderstood you).

If the basic concepts are similar, a engine switch will be easy, in case someone wants to do this.

I find unity Cool , but not extraordinary !
The indie Version of Unity is too limited , they could do an intermedaite version ?

For same price with A7 you have essential visual features (even if A7 have not such powerfull editor).
Some question :
-Can Unity import Blender static and animated model ?
-How do you do lightmaps in Unity ?

Caus i doubt everyone have an official 3DSMAX license and Blender is my favourite

Ratchet: Please look at their website and you find this information easily:

• Maya .mb & .ma1
• 3D Studio Max .max1
• Cheetah 3D .jas1
• Cinema 4D .c4d1 2 3
• Blender .blend1
• Carara1
• Lightwave1
• XSI 5.x1
• SketchUp Pro1
• Wings 3D1
• 3D Studio .3ds
• Wavefront .obj
• Drawing Interchange
• Files .dxf
• Autodesk FBX .fbx

http://unity3d.com/unity/features/asset-importing

A lightmap can easily be added with a model providing a second uv-set. Then you just switch to the lightmap-material and done.

I don't get why "The indie version ... is too limited". The limitations are really small if you make games. You can easily start to make games and use everything you need except of post processing. And if you have a really good game in the end then you still can upgrade before you release it. But if you never finish a game at all then you saved a lot of money.
I like this kind of pricing.

I find it quite amusing that the same complaints were pretty much common in earlier times of Acknex. And the same answers were given.
It's pretty funny how history seems to repeat now