Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Godot 3.2

godotengine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 141 posts

Re: Godot 3.2

#61

Post by shmerl »

arminiusreturns wrote: post #9

Godot has been a breath of fresh air for me lately (been running master branch for a while) and I know that it is going to only get better. I can't wait for the vulkan renderer to be ready, I think it's going to a game changer for godot. After Epic originally promised to make linux a first class citizen, I went all in ue4, but they lied and went back on all those promises, and I have since moved to a completely open…

Do you know if Epic scraped the effort to make a parallelized Vulkan renderer in UE?

https://trello.com/c/lzLwtb5P/124-vulkan-for-pc-and-linux

While it's great that you could move away from it, a lot of in-development games are already stuck with UE, and it's a concern if they won't be able to make well performing Linux releases.

Re: Godot 3.2

#62

Post by shmerl »

zubspace wrote: post #30

Been playing around with the Release Candidate, coming from Unity. Here's a list of things which I like / dislike: ++ Open License and friendly community. ++ The scene graph (node tree / prefabs) is well done, better than Unity. You can easily switch between scenes (Prefabs) through tabs and convert subtrees to separate scenes. Nesting scenes works really well. ++ The inbuilt scripting documentation is great. - C# is…

Aren't top to bottom coordinates actually common in computer graphics?

The reasons seem historic: https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/83570/why-is-the...

Re: Godot 3.2

#63

Post by uoaei »

vincent-toups wrote: post #59
arminiusreturns wrote: post #9

Godot has been a breath of fresh air for me lately (been running master branch for a while) and I know that it is going to only get better. I can't wait for the vulkan renderer to be ready, I think it's going to a game changer for godot. After Epic originally promised to make linux a first class citizen, I went all in ue4, but they lied and went back on all those promises, and I have since moved to a completely open…

I'm planning on using Godot for my next game but I hate the scripting language. It feels ad-hoc and I can't stand the absence of anonymous functions.

Houdini apparently is nice to work with, but IDK how inexpensive it is.

Re: Godot 3.2

#64

Post by ttctciyf »

EamonnMR wrote: post #50
zubspace wrote: post #30

Been playing around with the Release Candidate, coming from Unity. Here's a list of things which I like / dislike: ++ Open License and friendly community. ++ The scene graph (node tree / prefabs) is well done, better than Unity. You can easily switch between scenes (Prefabs) through tabs and convert subtrees to separate scenes. Nesting scenes works really well. ++ The inbuilt scripting documentation is great. - C# is…

I second the missing vim shortcuts. At some point I'll probably figure out where the editor source is, mess with it until I have 'i', 'esc', 'd', and 'w' working, then submit an issue on github. I think that sort of pattern is why you see so many open issues - there's just an absolute firehose (dare I say a generation of junior devs) of people looking at this project.

If you search for "vim", you'll find there's already an issue: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/17213 - the latest comment is about a year old and says:

> The current implementation of the text field looked pretty much straight forward and exchangeable. So at anyone reading this, feel encouraged to grab this issue! :-)

Re: Godot 3.2

#67

Post by arminiusreturns »

diegoperini wrote: post #25
arminiusreturns wrote: post #9

Godot has been a breath of fresh air for me lately (been running master branch for a while) and I know that it is going to only get better. I can't wait for the vulkan renderer to be ready, I think it's going to a game changer for godot. After Epic originally promised to make linux a first class citizen, I went all in ue4, but they lied and went back on all those promises, and I have since moved to a completely open…

Did they ditch the entire idea of having Linux support or is it just that they were slow on improving the compatibility?

No they keep saying words about linux support, but their actions don't match. For over two years community forks had more bug fixes for the linux editor than official because they wouldnt accept pr's. Then they refused to make the marketplace crossplatform, and started doing some other things (like Sweeney publicly talking shit about linux coincidentally around the time they made some deals with MS) All in all it felt like a complete bait and switch. You can cross compile for linux, but often with many errors and almost never if you used marketplace assets that werent just models or blueprints.

To be clear, I was talking about two things, linux as a target client platform, and linux as a dev platform.

Re: Godot 3.2

#68

Post by YoukaiCountry »

Kiro wrote: post #16

I make 2D games and it seems that Godot is good for that. I'm scared of GDScript though, e.g. not being able to use a package registry that normally comes with standard languages. What's everyone's experience?

I've made several small games for fun, and used Godot in Ludum Dare: https://ldjam.com/events/ludum-dare/44/meter-maid-dx

GDScript is very comfortable for doing simple game and UI logic, but it can be problematic that there's standard/easy way to import other people's code libraries besides copy-paste jobs.

When trying to do some sort of complex logic or when I really could use an external library for something, I simply go to C# to scratch that itch, and it's been working out pretty well for me. You can even have the two languages inter-operate to a degree within a project.

Re: Godot 3.2

#69

Post by TeaDude »

arminiusreturns wrote: post #9

Godot has been a breath of fresh air for me lately (been running master branch for a while) and I know that it is going to only get better. I can't wait for the vulkan renderer to be ready, I think it's going to a game changer for godot. After Epic originally promised to make linux a first class citizen, I went all in ue4, but they lied and went back on all those promises, and I have since moved to a completely open…

If modding is your thing there's a proposal to implement it in a secure way: https://github.com/godotengine/godot-proposals/issues/389

Obviously having full game engines available for free has pretty much usurped modding's place in the games industry but they're still cool and you still get new games based on mods (PUBG is a recent example)

Re: Godot 3.2

#70

Post by jokoon »

I tried to learn it a little but I did not manage to understand how it works, I don't really like the whole WYSIWYG thing, it forces the developer to surrender control, and you waste a big amount of time teaching yourself how it works internally, time that could be spent being productive with a simple renderer.

It also seems to support c++ as "gdnative", although it requires another compiler to link against godot's binaries. It seems awkward because you still need to use the godot editor, and there is still a lot of interfacing to write.

It seems like a good alternative to unity, but in the end, all I want is an engine, not a "framework" or some awkward scene editor with some kind of Node hierarchy/interface.

I could say the same thing about UE4. I hear everywhere that's it's the place to go, that "everybody uses it and it's the norm in the industry if you want to make a game from scratch", but the reality is that those frameworks are too big and too feature rich. It sounds like they want to attract young developers to lock them into those awkward frameworks, because they advertise it as being full-featured engines, but small developers might not really need to focus on bleeding edge rendering, so it doesn't make sense.

I know there are engines like Ogre3D, but I would rather spend time learning an actual universal graphics API that works on all hardware, which has more value on a resume, and I can just use what I need. All other things like audio, animation, inputs, physics, etc are available as C++ libraries.

Those frameworks are saying "see? you can make your own game with those tools!", but when you actually learn how a computer works, and know how to write code, you realize you want to avoid those frameworks because they conceal too much from the programmer, and usually you don't want a developer to not understand what the framework is doing. I guess this is why people have a problem with certain object-oriented practices and abstraction.

EDIT:

Here is a nice video which benchmarks unity against a simple, very similar from-scratch equivalent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tInaI3pU19Y

Post reply on HN