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

Godot 3.3

godotengine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 138 posts

Re: Godot 3.3

#91

Post by publicola1990 »

krapp wrote: post #31
hn8788 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a little of both, but it's not really a valid complaint any more. When Godot first open sourced, it didn't have features like culling meshes that the player couldn't see, and the lighting implementation was pretty basic. The default language in the engine is basically python, so it could cause a performance bottleneck. Now it has a lot of the 3D performance features it was missing, and it has first-class C# su…

GDScript isn't basically Python. It uses significant whitespace, but that's about as far as the similarities go.

But why did they chose to invent GDScript and not chose to use/embed python itself? Using a newly invented special purpose language is something that often discourages me from considering a tool/framework.

Re: Godot 3.3

#92

Post by onion2k »

keyle wrote: post #35
stolen_biscuit wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had a similar experience. Godot is a fantastic 2D engine, and a capable 3D engine. If your goal is shipping a fully featured 3D game I'd still recommend Unity or Unreal over Godot, unless you're comfortable with it not being an industry leader. For 2D however, I'd recommend Godot above anything. Godot 4.0 still has a long way to go before it's ready for everyday use fortunately, not even in alpha state yet so I…

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

#93

Post by M5x7wI3CmbEem10 »

keyle wrote: post #13

I'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…

what about 2.5D? side scroller games that allow limited movement on the z-axis. think Paper Mario

Re: Godot 3.3

#94

Post by falsaberN1 »

I have been using Godot extensively for the last couple years and it's an absolute joy to use. Documentation had some holes at the time I started, but it was not very difficult to figure everything out by looking at the demo repository. After that, doing stuff like procedural textures or sound effects was almost too easy. The UI widget support is excellent. It's so easy to put together and add logic to any display or interface element I could think of, even when making them adaptive to screen resolution. Whenever I have to do something with GTK or QT or other widget libraries I kinda wish I had as much as a fun time as putting interfaces together with Godot.

The animation support is also excellent, allowing to key every node property and even adding code calls perfectly adjustable in the timeline. I never used Flash to create things myself, but I hear people comparing Godot to it in terms of being able to do stuff. And from my own experience I believe it.

For 2D games I can't quite think of anything better. My own stuff has plenty of 2D visual effects (think of a discount version of the Super Robot Wars series in terms of looks), shaders, a zillion explosions and even my former computer (already a toaster circa 2014) barely registered CPU activity. 3D wasn't as good, although I was able to do little things that looked fine and performed okay in my former computer, it was noticeably more intensive, and the 3D demos by other people with full effects and high poly counts went at like 5FPS (they run smooth in my new machine, but gotta think of the weakest link). Godot 4.0 promises interesting upgrades on that field, though.

Since my game is going to need 3D for dungeon navigation I think I'll try to wait until 4.0 is released to finish that part, even if I have to port my code to accommodate for breaking changes. I did it with an earlier game in the transition from 2.x to 3.x and was a bit tedious but not really difficult. I'm not in a hurry and I can improve plot and features while at it, I'm just going to release it as FOSS when done, so I can wait and see if the improvements are worth it.

Re: Godot 3.3

#95

Post by eggy »

I picked up Godot years ago, and played with it on and off, because I am only a hobbyist. I have been spending time in Godot and in Stride[0], an opensource Unity-like 3D GE, but with a lot less clutter and fantastic C# and VS/VS Code support. Stride also has a lot of great documentation and examples, and you can utilize C# scripts from Unity with some tweaking. The visual effects program vvvv, has a new product gamma based on Stride[1]. When and if Godot gets stronger on 3D, I may switch completely to it, although I wish it had a Lisp/Scheme for the scripting language...maybe Janet[2] could be used! Like I said my wish list. I am so happy there are so many choices available. I started programming in 1978, so things have come a long way for sure!

[0] https://stride3d.net/ [1] https://vvvv.org/ [2] https://janet-lang.org/

Re: Godot 3.3

#96

Post by extraduder_ire »

blensor wrote: post #53
stolen_biscuit wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had a similar experience. Godot is a fantastic 2D engine, and a capable 3D engine. If your goal is shipping a fully featured 3D game I'd still recommend Unity or Unreal over Godot, unless you're comfortable with it not being an industry leader. For 2D however, I'd recommend Godot above anything. Godot 4.0 still has a long way to go before it's ready for everyday use fortunately, not even in alpha state yet so I…

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

#97

Post by pansa2 »

publicola1990 wrote: post #91
krapp wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDScript isn't basically Python. It uses significant whitespace, but that's about as far as the similarities go.

But why did they chose to invent GDScript and not chose to use/embed python itself? Using a newly invented special purpose language is something that often discourages me from considering a tool/framework.

See “What were the motivations behind creating GDScript?”:

https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/about/faq.html#what-w...

Re: Godot 3.3

#98

Post by MH15 »

eggy wrote: post #95

I picked up Godot years ago, and played with it on and off, because I am only a hobbyist. I have been spending time in Godot and in Stride[0], an opensource Unity-like 3D GE, but with a lot less clutter and fantastic C# and VS/VS Code support. Stride also has a lot of great documentation and examples, and you can utilize C# scripts from Unity with some tweaking. The visual effects program vvvv, has a new product gamm…

Stride seems cool I'll have to check it out. There are a lot of "C# Unity like engines" but this seems more polished than most.

Re: Godot 3.3

#99

Post by adkadskhj »

keyle wrote: post #63
follower wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> console development. Curious if you had a direct experience with the console side of things with your game? Also, can I provide you an opportunity to promote your game by asking you to tell us more about the game you shipped? :) (The rest of this isn't directed at you but more trying to clarify the Godot console situation for anyone else interested.) I've noticed there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding (particu…

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 there something preventing opensource lowbudget projects from shipping to console? Are you forced to go UE4/etc if you want to ship consoles?

Re: Godot 3.3

#100

Post by georgeecollins »

I get worried when people tell me an upcoming release (4.0) will be compatibility breaking. I really like Godot, it is so conceptually clear and easy to work with.

This is an open source project, so they can do what they want.

Post reply on HN