Earlier quoted context omitted.
And as mentioned in the article/release, they are serious about maintaining Godot 3 and won't neglect it in favor of 4.
The more comments I read in this thread, the more this sounds like Perl 5 and Perl 6.
Godot 3.3
101–110 of 138 posts
Re: Godot 3.3
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I shipped a game exclusive to PS4 using UE4 about 4 years ago. Godot by default does not support consoles. Yes, you can to employ another company to port it for you, but that is a no go for me. UE4 on the other hand you can do it all yourself once you get the developer kit and access (legally) to the platform of your choice. On the other hand you can easily do mobile with Godot.
Any idea why Godot does not do consoles? Is it a licensing problem, resources problem (ie technical difficulty), or..? I'm curious because i'm dabbling in some gamedev and wanting to eventually ship mobile and console. I'm more focused on bleeding edge tooling though, Rust gamedev specifically, but i'm curious if the reasons Godot doesn't ship to console also means any Rust project won't be able to ever, either. Is t…
Console SDK seems to be not compatible with open source
https://docs.godotengine.org/en/3.0/tutorials/platform/conso...
Re: Godot 3.3
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any idea why Godot does not do consoles? Is it a licensing problem, resources problem (ie technical difficulty), or..? I'm curious because i'm dabbling in some gamedev and wanting to eventually ship mobile and console. I'm more focused on bleeding edge tooling though, Rust gamedev specifically, but i'm curious if the reasons Godot doesn't ship to console also means any Rust project won't be able to ever, either. Is t…
> Any idea why Godot does not do consoles? Console SDK seems to be not compatible with open source https://docs.godotengine.org/en/3.0/tutorials/platform/conso...
It is another, smaller engine. I would say less featureful than Godot, but I imagine there are some overlapping use-cases?
Ed: and for something quite different - dragon ruby seems a lot of fun (not free, not open source, though): https://dragonruby.org/
Re: Godot 3.3
#104I've shipped a commercial game in Godot 3.2. I'm also well versed and shipped games in UE4. All I can say is working with Godot is an absolute bliss. Seriously, it's fun, it's "easy" and it gets out of the way. Within a couple of weeks, you can be focusing on making your game, rather than a constantly evolving tech-demo. There are only two caveats: understand what Godot is not good at, 3D open world / large landscape…
Looking forward to better tilemap support in 4.0
Re: Godot 3.3
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also slowly, becoming an alternative for VR development. They even had hand tracking on the Oculus Quest before Unity and UE
> They even had hand tracking on the Oculus Quest before Unity and UE facebook is a large financial contributor to the godot project. I think they do some dev work too. I get the impression they really want more VR games to exist, and work well on their device, no matter how they get there.
Re: Godot 3.3
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, it's perfectly fine for 3D, such as traditional "isometric" style 3D. It suffers more with the lack of clever culling in first person style cameras, especially near large objects (it renders the whole object, even if 5% of it is seen).
it renders the whole object, even if 5% of it is seen Do other engines cull parts of objects?
Re: Godot 3.3
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any idea why Godot does not do consoles? Is it a licensing problem, resources problem (ie technical difficulty), or..? I'm curious because i'm dabbling in some gamedev and wanting to eventually ship mobile and console. I'm more focused on bleeding edge tooling though, Rust gamedev specifically, but i'm curious if the reasons Godot doesn't ship to console also means any Rust project won't be able to ever, either. Is t…
> Any idea why Godot does not do consoles? Console SDK seems to be not compatible with open source https://docs.godotengine.org/en/3.0/tutorials/platform/conso...
Re: Godot 3.3
#108I'd love to create a game but the sheer amount of time and effort to build something is insane. And then you have to hope you are really good at marketing or you hit the social media lottery.
Re: Godot 3.3
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience Godot is a significantly more coherent 2d engine. In Unity a 2d game is running in its 3d engine, and useful functions will often be limited to operating on different pairs of dimensions ((x,y) (x,z) (y,z)).
Sure, but as someone working on a moderately sized 2d game in Unity - I’ve never really found that to be anything more than a minor annoyance. At most it’s just an extra cast here or there. Are there other examples of it being better for 2d?
It has parallax scrolling features built in. Small thing, but there are lots of little features like that scattered in the default tools that just don't exist in Unity without writing your own, or paying for an asset. In Godot you just drop the node in and you're away. Godot has an asset store too - where everything is free and open source, and linked to their git repositories. For example, you can add a minecraft-like voxel engine, dialog editors, a Redux-like store, shaders, new GUI elements, and so on in Godot for free, in a click, without an account, or a single webview or browser page in sight. Granted, this means that older assets may no longer work or be maintained, but the same can be said of Unity (and my experience with the Unity asset store is that half the time, nothing works out of the box anyway even when you've paid a chunk for it, and rarely does a tool just do the simple thing that it says it does, and therefore takes a bunch of work just to get the thing to play nice with your code).
The recent 3.3 release added a bunch of 2D renderer improvements such as BVH partitioning/batching for rendering and physics, vertex pixel snap on the GPU,
The only thing that Unity has over Godot in terms of 2D imo is the Box2D physics engine (Godot uses its own 2D physics implementation that, while adequate for a lot of games, isn't quite as flexible as Unity). That said, there are at least 2 Godot plugin modules that add (partial) Box2D support just from a brief Github search.
Moving away from 2D specifically - the animation player/controller in Godot is amazing - you create an animation player node, and you can then key in literally any property of any object from the editor to be animated, and draw out animations with bezier curves and so on, animating multiple properties at once, which you can then play back with a simple call to `AnimationPlayer.play("name");`. You can use a single animation to animate vectors, enums, bools, simultaneously by just drawing them into the animation editor. Last I checked Unity didn't have anything like that. You've got a complicated mesh structure with layers of materials and shaders, and you want to interpolate various properties on various materials of those mesh structures, it's as simple as creating the animation, going to the materials, and hitting the key button on the properties you want to alter.
From a general design perspective, Godot's scene tree works kind of like Unity's nested prefabs - a feature they implemented long after Godot had nailed this kind of structure, and it still does it in a much simpler and less hacky way than Unity. Everything in a Godot game is already essentially a nested prefab, without the clunk of having to distinguish between regular prefabs holding nested prefabs, or ensuring your modified prefabs are in sync, and so on. You can create simple components composed of complicated structures of nodes, save them into a new scene file with a click, and drop that anywhere else in your scene tree wherever you like, as a native and expected behaviour. It's a bit like React components in that you can very easily combine and produce new combinations of your existing work, even at runtime. You can then easily share these nodes between godot projects, or even write a simple plugin to add them to Godot's list of built-in nodes.
Oh, and all of those scene, node and resource files are just plain text files, easily editable in a text editor, and extremely friendly to VCS.
Besides all of this, if you write a game in Godot you own 100% of the source code, both your game code and the engine supporting it. No licensing, no pricing plans, no salespeople. No official support, yet the community and contributors are extremely helpful. Engine doesn't do something you want? You can patch it and recompile, and add new third party C++ modules (eg, you can add full Javascript/Typescript/Rust/D/Python/Nim scripting support this way, as well as new engine features with native speed) by dropping them in the modules folder of the engine source. There's a legendary talk at GDC by Jeff Vogel, who's been writing obscure, ugly RPGs as Spiderweb Software since the mid-90s. One of his points is that if you want to make a living writing indie games as a solo developer, owning the source code is one of the best things you can do, since 20 years down the line you can still update and compile it, remaster, and sell more copies of work you finished long ago (which Jeff has done many times, and is still now writing those obscure games and supporting his family from it). Good luck getting Unity 2020 to work, build your game, and have the license to use it commercially in 2040 ;)
Re: Godot 3.3
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience Godot is a significantly more coherent 2d engine. In Unity a 2d game is running in its 3d engine, and useful functions will often be limited to operating on different pairs of dimensions ((x,y) (x,z) (y,z)).
But that's how 2D games actually work. They're really just 3D games with an orthographic camera. It doesn't really make sense to have separate 2D and 3D engines.
Plus, you can support a much larger range of hardware with a true 2D renderer that targets specific 2D graphics APIs, than with a cutting-edge 3D engine hacked to look 2D.