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

Godot Editor running in a web browser

godotengine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 128 posts

Re: Godot Editor running in a web browser

#41

Post by eggy »

kencausey wrote: post #22
gnulinux wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 order of magnitude in 40 years? Doesn't seem a lot, but if applies exponentially would mean we will have some IDE in 2060 that's 25GB and someone will find it impressive. That's a lot of bytes for an editor.

Defining an 'order of magnitude' as 1024 seems a little odd to me. I would consider this to be closer to 3 orders of magnitued.

1024 (2^10) is ~10^3 (I know switching bases!) vs say 10 (10^1), so two orders of magnitude larger in general. A gig 10^9 would be many orders of magnitude. An order of magnitude is generally a jump to the next power of 10. So 10 (10^1) is an order of magnitude larger than 1 (10^0) as 100 (10^2) is to 10 (10^1), and so on. People frequently misuse the term when speaking in technical terms. When the average person uses it to denote a big jump, I let it go - usually ;) If you stick with base 2 I guess you could say many orders of magnitude (2^32 = 4,294,967,296 vs 2^8 = 256, or 24 orders of magnitude?).

Re: Godot Editor running in a web browser

#42

Post by z3t4 »

nightowl_games wrote: post #25
z3t4 wrote: post #10

It's amazing that a native Windows/Mac app can be compiled to run in a web browser. However Web-assembly does not mean better performance. A native browser app would most likely be faster.

What do you mean by native browser app? Like JS + WebGL?

JS is usually not the bottleneck in web apps. The bottleneck is most of the time rendering. Rewriting the app in JS would make it faster then the Webassembly version. It's a common misconception that Webassembly is faster then JS. Although theoretically possible, the compiler wouldn't be able to beat a skilled JS developer's hand written JS specific for the web platform. A turtle is faster then a rabbit - in water.

Re: Godot Editor running in a web browser

#43

Post by nightowl_games »

turova wrote: post #38
nightowl_games wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean. Godot has asset formats that translate from project to project.

I've used both Unity and Godot at a hobby level and what I found was that with Unity, I spent almost all my time playing around with game mechanics. With Godot, I always spent a considerable amount of time importing resources and fiddling with them before being able to do anything useful other than add basic shapes to the screen. I think it's probably a problem of being the underdog with a much smaller asset market,…

There are some issues with the 3D importing pipeline, GLTF is the best supported file format, but they recently added .fbx support so thats good.

I agree that there could be further improvements made there but I've had good luck with .gltf.

Additionally, I've had problems with materials or animations importing into Unity as well. Seems like its a big, common problem.

Unity imports started getting smoother in recent years because marketplaces and artists started specifically targeting unity.

Re: Godot Editor running in a web browser

#44

Post by kick »

snazz wrote: post #29
xigency wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we should be impressed with 25MB for a decent game editor since the other players like Unity and Unreal Engine are probably around 25GB. It's also a fraction of Slack or Chrome or even the Rust compiler I believe.

The Chromium package on Arch Linux is around 68MB. The Electron runtime is a surprisingly reasonable size. Interestingly, the Go package is over 110MB. Rust is larger.

The Chromium package on Arch Linux is actually just a bit under 200MB when installed. Are you looking at the download size?

Re: Godot Editor running in a web browser

#45

Post by nightowl_games »

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #35
nightowl_games wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya way fewer. The scene file is actually _readable_!!!! The node and resource systems are vastly more accessible than Unity IMO. Workflow feels so much better in Godot than Unity. Godot's problems are in it's 3D renderer. It's not very performant nor good looking and has some shadow bugs... Godot 4.0 should fix all that stuff. The renderer is fine for my indie/low poly style, but is pretty limiting for advanced post…

I don't know, to me the choice of their own NotPython as the main language seems like an incredible misstep to me. It's lacking in features (last time I checked they didn't even support basic things like lambdas), tooling and libraries. There's a reason why both Unreal and Unity moved away from providing their own language.

I thought it was a massive misstep until I started using it heavily.

Now I really like it.

As to lack of lambdas, yes there are no lambdas, but coroutines are a first class citizen in gdscript, and network libraries, like Nakama for instance, use coroutines heavily. I prefer coroutines to lambdas anyways, and I think the industry is moving towards coroutines.

There are a ton of good things about gdscript. I was a hater on it until I started using it, and then I realised how quickly it allows me to do stuff.

Besides, I'm staring at the worlds worst Unity project right now.

Languages dont matter as much as system design.

Re: Godot Editor running in a web browser

#46

Post by SquareWheel »

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #35
nightowl_games wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya way fewer. The scene file is actually _readable_!!!! The node and resource systems are vastly more accessible than Unity IMO. Workflow feels so much better in Godot than Unity. Godot's problems are in it's 3D renderer. It's not very performant nor good looking and has some shadow bugs... Godot 4.0 should fix all that stuff. The renderer is fine for my indie/low poly style, but is pretty limiting for advanced post…

I don't know, to me the choice of their own NotPython as the main language seems like an incredible misstep to me. It's lacking in features (last time I checked they didn't even support basic things like lambdas), tooling and libraries. There's a reason why both Unreal and Unity moved away from providing their own language.

Seems lambdas are coming in 4.0.

https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/2684#issuecommen...

Re: Godot Editor running in a web browser

#48

Post by kroltan »

leddt wrote: post #28
kroltan wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visual Studio is probably way more than 25GB, and it's 2020 still.

Depends on what packages you install, but my VS 2019 install folder is 2.5GB.

My VS folder itself is 4.1GB, but there are tons of other stuff that gets installed too. I know I downloaded about 28GB on my first install.

Re: Godot Editor running in a web browser

#49

Post by tetris11 »

yepguy wrote: post #32
gnulinux wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of the godot size is the images it packs in itself. For comparison, emacs's installed size is 76K [1]. [1] https://packages.debian.org/sid/emacs

That's the installed size of the metapackage containing no emacs executable, no elisp files, and no documentation. On my system the emacs executable is 39M and the entire installed package is 128M. (Additionally, my Doom Emacs folder takes up another 840M.)

> Additionally, my Doom Emacs folder takes up another 840M.

HOW?

Re: Godot Editor running in a web browser

#50

Post by jay_kyburz »

nightowl_games wrote: post #16
the_other_b wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's getting there, I think it's missing the top layer of polish. I've been working with it for a couple years now and it has some bugs that really hinder development speed. That being said, once those issues are fixed I think it'll be a hard choice to not use Godot (for what I do, more 2D work).

> I've been working with it for a couple years now and it has some bugs that really hinder development speed. What bugs do you think hinder dev speed? I am vastly more productive in Godot than in Unity. Currently I think the only criticisms I have are the 3D renderer is bad (whoop 4.0 lets go!), and there is not a strong community/asset marketplace. I _love_ the workflow, though.

I'm a full time game dev and started a fairly large 3d project in Gotdot last September, I worked in it for about 2 months full time before moving to another project with another team.

The bugs that hindered my productivity were mostly "land mines" that I discovered along the way.

1. I thought having my scripts as internal scripts sounded good for a week until I realized there are all kinds of undocumented problems with storing your scripts that way. I had to refactor.

2. There is no selection outline around mesh in the editor window. Makes it impossible to build a 3D scene in Godot. My guess is that the developers expect you to build the scene in Blender then import it as one big FBX. (But that's not ideal for some things)

3. Then I hit the dangling reference bug and that was a heavy blow to my enthusiasm. The fact you can save a reference to an object in a variable, and that the engine can then change what object your variable is pointing to under the hood. It's such a fundamental bug it makes me wonder what other massive issues are there waiting for me to run into. My work around was to listen for signals for when object references were removed from the scene and manually clearing them, but its a real drag.

There were a few other things, but those ones stand out in my memory as examples of why I don't think I can work in it yet.

The reference bug won't be fixed until 4.0, so have another look at Godot then.

Update: Here are the bugs I logged.

https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/31758 https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/32383

Post reply on HN