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

Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

unrealengine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

#81

Post by warfangle »

blister wrote: post #78
rdudek wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly free. I would like to learn from the pro version, but not at the price tag they charge: http://unity3d.com/unity/licenses I can learn from crippled free version, but eventually I'll be running into things stating "you need the pro version features for this, this, and that". With UE4, $19 got me full engine to mess around with.

What is crippled about it? The company I work for literally builds games and we very rarely have to use any of the pro features. The free version contains nearly everything you could ever realistically want to do. And some of the "pro" features can easily be written into the engine manually. The only hard and fast licensing requirement is the sub-100k revenue requirement. Up until then, Unity is about as free as it g…

> The free version contains nearly everything you could ever realistically want to do.

Except publish to something other than desktop windows - or has that changed?

Re: Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

#82

Post by fr0styMatt2 »

philtar wrote: post #73
fr0styMatt2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately some more Googling has turned up a disappointing result: http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/how-to-change-font-size-in-... The thread has a recent answer down the bottom. It amazes me how this has seemingly been such a low priority item for the Unity Editor team for so long. This is a tool that people are expected to live in for an extended amount of time. This problem needs more widespread recognition th…

Don't you think it not getting more widespread recognition means this isn't affecting as much people as you think?

That's a valid point, but I wonder how many people just don't complain but would be more productive if this were addressed?

The absence of a fix is frustrating but not in and of itself - I know what it's like to have an old codebase and the massive job that it can be to retro-fit a feature like that. I just wish that Unity had given some proper statement on it over the last few years. The editor is the face of their product - you're expected to spend a great deal of time in the tool. This _has_ been a frequent complaint (just Google 'increase Unity editor font size' for example).

I just wish there had been one statement as in "we know it's an issue, this is what we're going to do to fix it / this is why we want to fix it but can't right now". It's an issue that plenty of people seem to be having - I mean, anyone who owns a high-DPI display is going to run into it and there are many threads on the forum about that kind of thing.

I'm glad at least to see that they've started working on it. I hope it makes it into the 5.x cycle.

Re: Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

#83

Post by midnightclubbed »

warfangle wrote: post #81
blister wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is crippled about it? The company I work for literally builds games and we very rarely have to use any of the pro features. The free version contains nearly everything you could ever realistically want to do. And some of the "pro" features can easily be written into the engine manually. The only hard and fast licensing requirement is the sub-100k revenue requirement. Up until then, Unity is about as free as it g…

> The free version contains nearly everything you could ever realistically want to do. Except publish to something other than desktop windows - or has that changed?

You can publish to OS X, iOS, Android and Windows Phone on the free license of Unity.

Major restrictions are no render to texture and a Unity splash screen on the app boot.

I suspect html5 will be supported in free Unity 5.0 (it is in the pro version currently in beta).

Re: Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

#84

Post by teamonkey »

benihana wrote: post #13

People who develop on Unity: How does Unity compare to Unreal performance-wise? The only experience I have with Unity is playing Kerbal Space Program which is often a performance nightmare and I'm wondering if it's Unity or the game developers.

Two different engines optimized for different purposes but in general Unity will run much better on low-end hardware than Unreal. Unreal has a renderer that is (out of the box) definitely aimed at high-end hardware.

KSP's performance is probably bound by a physics system that is abnormally complex for games. Unity's version of PhysX is based on an older, slower version. Unity 5 brings that up to date so if Squad decide to continue development on 5 there should be some improvements straight away. Unreal uses the same physics middleware out of the box.

Re: Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

#85

Post by je42 »

keyle wrote: post #66
cwyers wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xamarin supports C# for Unreal with Mono: http://mono-ue.github.io/

Careful about that one. It's out of date, and half baked. You need to build unreal from source for it to work(!), and their doco refers to UE 4.4 .....

not to mention the build errors people had when they released it.

Re: Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

#86

Post by nailer »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #69
Impossible wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what the exact ask is here. Are you building an open world or virtual world game? Do you just want a 3D renderer without the game engine? Both Unity and Unreal 4 can be used for non-level based games, and Unreal has some special facilities to support that (world compositor specifically - https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/LevelStreami... ).

Looking for an open world/3D renderer for AR rendering that can handle a lot of Polygons, textures and lighting. We don't need a game engine with physics and all that as it is but down the line, physics might be handy. A lot of the renderers like Ogre3D do too much file handling - we need something more bare bones. OpenGL is what we are using but we would like something more powerful.

Surely AR would be scene based? You've recognised an object through VR, you want to display a note near it, it would be much easier to specify that relative to the object (scene based) than relative to the bottom/left/close corner of the image (world space).

Re: Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

#87

Post by AndrewKemendo »

nailer wrote: post #86
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking for an open world/3D renderer for AR rendering that can handle a lot of Polygons, textures and lighting. We don't need a game engine with physics and all that as it is but down the line, physics might be handy. A lot of the renderers like Ogre3D do too much file handling - we need something more bare bones. OpenGL is what we are using but we would like something more powerful.

Surely AR would be scene based? You've recognised an object through VR, you want to display a note near it, it would be much easier to specify that relative to the object (scene based) than relative to the bottom/left/close corner of the image (world space).

Not in the same "scene" sense that you have dedicated levels like in a game that load statically. With AR, you are generally putting an arbitrary model into the 3D rendering environment and then using different sensors to "place" it accurately.

Traditional game engines want you to build levels/scenes inside of their editors like Unity, as opposed to being an open engine that you can feed in real time from a separate library.

So yes, AR is based on the scene you are "shooting" at the time, but not the same way that game engines are built to be generally static at the time of loading.

Re: Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

#88

Post by nailer »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #87
nailer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely AR would be scene based? You've recognised an object through VR, you want to display a note near it, it would be much easier to specify that relative to the object (scene based) than relative to the bottom/left/close corner of the image (world space).

Not in the same "scene" sense that you have dedicated levels like in a game that load statically. With AR, you are generally putting an arbitrary model into the 3D rendering environment and then using different sensors to "place" it accurately. Traditional game engines want you to build levels/scenes inside of their editors like Unity, as opposed to being an open engine that you can feed in real time from a separate…

I understand what you're saying - you need dynamic environments. Minor terminology quip (which might make discussion easier in future): that's a very different concern with being 'scene based', which is a specific term the 3D industry uses to mean 'items are located relative to their parents in a tree shaped data structure called a scene graph, and not absolutely positioned in world space'.

Re: Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

#89

Post by warfangle »

midnightclubbed wrote: post #83
warfangle wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The free version contains nearly everything you could ever realistically want to do. Except publish to something other than desktop windows - or has that changed?

You can publish to OS X, iOS, Android and Windows Phone on the free license of Unity. Major restrictions are no render to texture and a Unity splash screen on the app boot. I suspect html5 will be supported in free Unity 5.0 (it is in the pro version currently in beta).

Good to know. Thanks!

This wasn't obvious from their site.

Re: Unreal Engine 4.7 Released

#90

Post by markdown »

scott_karana wrote: post #46
markdown wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 2015 and people still don't know the difference between open source and free software? As you describe it, Unreal Engine is open source.

Unreal is neither. The source is copyrighted, you must pay them to see it, and you're not permitted to redistribute it, and can only modify for your own purposes (or merging into mainline) I believe.

Ahh ok. That's not how he described it.
Post reply on HN