Ureal Engine 3 -UDK- is now FREE! What do API guys think of this?

[sal-itter]

Unreal Engine 3 is being given away for virtually free. I feel the same way about this as when Maya 1.0 was released.

This opens up so many possiblities.

What dow you guys think?

[joojaa]

Theres lots fo free engines around. Some are at par with the unreal engine. Getting the engine is about 15% of the hastle. Rest 85 is making it work the way you need it to work.

[sal-itter]

Hey Jooja, name three that are on par and that are virtually free?

[rob-bateman]

http://unity3d.com/
http://www.ogre3d.org/
http://www.crystalspace3d.org

and many others.

[sal-itter]

Hi Rob,
I've used Unity3D, It is a good program. Makes creating simple games very easy. But it is not on par with Unreal. It is not nearly as fast and does not have as robust a renderer as Unreal. More importantly, it does not have all the in game features implemented. Not even close. And up until about a week ago, it was priced at $1,000 bucks. Now it is free. It is a toy for the novice but a good toy non-the-less.

As far as the other engines, well, let me put it this way, I chose Unity3D over those 2. Crystalspace is a crude little thing.

The release of Unreal UDK is monumental.

[sal-itter]

Don't be surprised if Crytec follows suit.

[denny-lindberg]

None of Unity, Ogre or CrystalSpace has the same tools as UnrealEngine3, hands down. No matter how each of them performs, none of them will beat the speed at which you develop content for the engine.

[rob-bateman]

I've used Unity3D, It is a good program. Makes creating simple games
very easy. But it is not on par with Unreal. It is not nearly as fast
and does not have as robust a renderer as Unreal. More importantly, it
does not have all the in game features implemented. Not even close. And
up until about a week ago, it was priced at $1,000 bucks. Now it is
free. It is a toy for the novice but a good toy non-the-less.

Donning my middleware developer hat for a moment, I respectfully disagree with everything you've just said. The fact that it doesn't implement games features should be considered a good thing. It is a game engine, not a game.....  and FYI, it's one of the most successful middleware products out there..... 

[korchkidu]

You could argue on each feature unreal and unity may (or may not) implement, you cannot compare Unity3D to unreal:

1) Unity3D is not free. The Indie version is but then, features are far behind unreal of course;
2) Unity3D is best for web-based games for casual gamers. Real standalone games are better done with a dedicated engine.

K.

[sal-itter]

[b]The fact that it doesn't implement games features should be considered
a good thing. It is a game engine, not a game.....  and FYI, it's one
of the most successful middleware products out there.....

[/b]Not implementing game features is not such a good thing.  It forces the developer to re-invent the wheel for tried and true features found in all kinds of games.  That does not mean that you have to use them.  You can create any game you like.  This is where Unreal shines.  It has the equivalent of a hypergraph for visual scripting or if you prefer plain ol' scripting for creating entirely unique game features. 

Compare the tool sets.  Unreal boasts a complete suite of tools that have been developed for over a decade.

I agree, it is a successful product.  I've used it and like it.  It does not mean it is on par with Unreal.  Not even close. 

If  Strata3d, Electric Image Animation System and Autodesk Maya where being given away for free, which would you choose?

[joojaa]

Not implementing game features is not such a good thing.  It forces the developer to re-invent the wheel for tried and true  features found in all kinds of games.

And why do all games in general suck in the same kind of way. Trust me its a bad thing. I mane there's TONS of games that suck more than many games 5 to 10 years older. Exactly because of this. Its about the game being good and well designed this does not include being like all the rest. Yes it makes good medicore experiences, if thats what your inclined to aim for.

But yes thats what the other midleware wendors are for. Hell even just ask somebodey else to do the game for you.

Im all against not reinventing the wheel but seriously lots of games have the wheel they dont need. Its better to decide what you need, and discard the rest, than to have something just because you get it for free.

[sal-itter]

Im all against not reinventing the wheel but seriously lots
of games have the wheel they dont need. Its better to decide what you
need, and discard the rest, than to have something just because you get
it for free.

I agree.  Form follows function.

"game features" is a very broad term.  We could be referring to qualities unique to some games, for example Assasin' Creed's ability to scale walls with amazingly fluid animations.  This is something in which they put alot of effort.  I don't think anything matches it imho.  That solution was not out of the box.

Other "game features" go mostly unnoticed and/or are expected by the sophisticated user for example: reflections, ambient occlusion and now GI(Unreal).  Unity3D does not have these built in or are too computationally costly for that one particular engine.

And yet, other "game features" could be a reference to the tools used to create games.  These type of tools are not subject to interpretive/qualitative value.  They either work by saving you time and effort(bottom line) or they don't.  For example, look at Cry Engine's tools used to populate vegetation.  Can you imagine trying that with Unity3D?  You'd have to start from the ground up( pun intended:P).

It is better to have the tools at your disposal and concentrate on making game experiences than developing the tools from scratch.  It is better to have them and not need them than to not have them and need them.

I think part of the reason there are bad games out there is because there is a democratization of tools today in games as there was 12 years ago with the release of Maya.   Maya was the first 3d program to handle scripting, come with and api SDK, and be node based.  This freed technical artists to develop new solutions to old problems which inevitably had innovative visual manifestations.  What was widely available to cg artists before Maya?  Max, Electric Image AS and strata3d.  these tools at the time where little more than geometry importers with a time line and a renderer that may or may not be able to rayTrace.  Electric Image couldn't even recognize individual xyz channels.  If you wanted to animate something, it had to be along a curve.  Your only control was where and how fast. And I could go on...

So what happened when Maya was finally released after four years of delay?  Due to the complexity of the tool and a steep learning curve in a time when learning materials where scarce, this compounded with the fact that many of today's production techniques that are considered standard where yet to be developed, we saw stale mechanical animations that lacked aesthetic flare.  And we saw alot of that.  But that changed.

My point is, you want a robust suit of tools that have been forged in productions that will enable.  What you do with them is entirely up to the technical artist.

[breno-azevedo]

UDK is a superior tool from a technical standpoint (it's got way more ready-made stuff out of the box) yet it's got some serious quirks right now:

• Bad documentation, almost inexistent sample code. Compared to all the awesomeness you'll get from the Unity community, quite a joke. Sure, it'll get better and better along time, but it can't compare right now.
• Limited deploy options. Want to deploy for the web to show the in-progress demo to a client? Bad luck. Want to deploy for the iPhone? Look elsewhere. Mac? Nopz. Wii? Forget it. Unity3D has all of these deploy options, with differentiated costs in the Wii and iPhone cases so you'll just pay for what you're gonna use.

It takes some time for you to build up a decent library of functions in Unity3D to be as productive as you can be in UDK, yet right now if you're going for the blossoming mobile market, UDK is simply not an option. I'll definitely keep an eye on it for the near future, if you're starting a project right now I wouldn't recommend it though.

[sal-itter]

"- Bad documentation, almost inexistent sample code. Compared to all the awesomeness you'll get from the Unity community, quite a joke. ..."

UDK has a huge, experienced user base. These guys have been in the trenches on grade A games.

"- Limited deploy options."

I couldn't agree more. When it comes to the mobile market, it is as if UDK is too robust. Unity3D has a scaled down version that is geared towards the iPhone. For the independent developer that is benefiting from the release of these great new tools like the UDK and Unnity3d, mobile market is where it is at. There is simply no way to compete with big game companies. It is as if Joe shmoe out of film school tries to make a movie like Avatar. He may have the talent and know-how but simply does not have the resources.

BUT, like you said: - Limited deploy options.

This is bound to change though.

[onemoretime]

Well unity is hardly free or even cheap for someone with no financing, and it seems to be highly overrated. There's really no free option out there that seems to be that great. Maybe sauerbraten would be good but with everything else I've seen it doesn't take much poking to see serious problems of omissions of some kind.

U3 is not going to get more deploy options, though, this is basically them saying they are semiretiring it to move on to the next thing. I'd like to see more about it, but it seems like while it offers all the possibility to do whatever you want that it doesn't really ease your workload a heck of a lot and I doubt anyone would make a game that is more than an U3 mod without a ton of extra effort.

[sal-itter]

GUYS, check this out. Unreal working on an iPhone at the release party of the iPad. It will soon be out on the iPad!!!!!!!!!!!!

Analysis: Apple Bunts on iPad Gaming

[rob-bateman]

Maya was the first 3d program to
handle scripting, come with and api SDK, and be node based.

No it wasn't. CGAL (by Peter Comninos) had a far more powerful scripting engine and SDK than Maya. Then we have Houdini, Power Animator, Softimage 3D and 3ds max. All support scripting. All had an SDK. And all are node based (Although 3ds max hides their node system from you - but it's there if you are prepared to dig through that god awful SDK).

This freed
technical artists to develop new solutions to old problems which
inevitably had innovative visual manifestations. What was widely
available to cg artists before Maya?  Max, Electric Image AS and
strata3d.  these tools at the time where little more than geometry
importers with a time line and a renderer that may or may not be able
to rayTrace.

Utter tosh. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. You seem to have erased all animation products available prior to 1998 in your version of history....

So
what happened when Maya was finally released after four years of
delay?

What 4 year delay? I know it took 4 years to develop, but are you seriously saying that Alias had planned to develop maya in zero years?

Due to the complexity of the tool and a steep learning curve in
a time when learning materials where scarce

Utter tosh. When I first purchased Maya 1.0, I got an entire bookshelf of manuals with it (and I still have them!). Those manuals included a full reference, numerous tutorials and tonnes of examples. Learning materials were only scarce if you had a pirated copy. The learning curve wasn't steep at all if you were familiar with power animator.... 

this compounded with the
fact that many of today's production techniques that are considered
standard where yet to be developed, we saw stale mechanical animations
that lacked aesthetic flare.

First. Which production techniques were yet to be developed exactly?

Skinning? (Utah hand, 1972, Catmull)
Blend Shapes? (Ed Catmull, 1976)
FFDs? (Sederberg and Parry, 1986)
Particle Systems? (William T. Reeves, 1983)
NURBS? (1960's)

Secondly, the stale mechanical animations were due to bad animators. Most studios realised that getting techhies to animate was a pretty pointless thing to do, so started actively hiring traditional animators, and trained them up in 3d tools. That's all....

[rob-bateman]

If  Strata3d, Electric Image Animation System and Autodesk Maya where being given away for free, which would you choose?

Morpheme, Endorphin and Euphoria. The products you've listed do not fulfill my requirements.

And yet, other "game features" could be a reference to
the tools used to create games.  These type of tools are not subject to
interpretive/qualitative value.  They either work by saving you time
and effort(bottom line) or they don't.  For example, look at Cry
Engine's tools used to populate vegetation.  Can you imagine trying
that with Unity3D?  You'd have to start from the ground up( pun
intended:P).

WUT? I have 3 words for you. Middleware, Middleware and Middleware.  http://www.speedtree.com/

It is better to have the tools at your disposal and
concentrate on making game experiences than developing the tools from
scratch.

Or do what the industry tends to do, and buy those tools in. U3D is not the holy grail you seem to think it is. Far from it. It's a jack of all trades, but a master of none. For every single component within U3D, there is a better middleware component available. Morpheme for animation. Enlighten for GI. SpeedTree for foliage. AI Implant etc etc etc.

My point is, you want a robust suit of tools that
have been forged in productions that will enable.  What you do with
them is entirely up to the technical artist.

No it's up to agreements between the producer, the designers, and the programming team (and on some occasions, they are entirely overruled by market research - i.e. Boys like girls with big boobs, guns and formula one cars. Your game must combine those 3 elements). It's the technical artists job to help the non technical artists meet the agreed designs of the final game.

[sal-itter]

For some reason this buggy forum software has decided to let me edit your post to destruction. I appologise for that... rob.

[sal-itter]

If  Strata3d, Electric Image Animation System and Autodesk Maya where being given away for free, which would you choose?

Morpheme, Endorphin and Euphoria. The products you've listed do not fulfill my requirements.

CROSS EXAMINATION:  Mr. Bateman, (I saunter over towards the plaintif), travel back in time to a cool spring day of the year of our Lord, 1998.  Where Morphene, Endorphin and Euphoria in existence at the onset of the Maya revolution?  Lets pretend they do not exhist today as they didn't in 1998.  In reference to the original question; which would you choose?  ANSWER THE QUESTION, MR. BATEMAN!!! ANSWER THE QUESTION!!! Your honor, I'd like to declare a hostile witness.  The plaintif's needs today should not be factored into the relative quality of the software listed circa 1998.

WUT? I have 3 words for you. Middleware, Middleware and Middleware.  http://www.speedtree.com/

ARGUMENTATIVE.  More stuff to learn and patch together.  Not bad if you have the time and resources.  But then again, who does?  

U3D is not the holy grail you seem to think it is. Far from it. It's a jack of all trades, but a master of none

(The defense is held in contempt of court for swinging at the prosecution. The witness for the defense has been tazered.)

No it's up to agreements between the producer, the designers, and the programming team (and on some occasions, they are entirely overruled by market research - i.e. Boys like girls with big boobs, guns and formula one cars. Your game must combine those 3 elements). It's the technical artists job to help the non technical artists meet the agreed designs of the final game.

WILLFULLY ARGUMENTATIVE.  THE DEFENSE IS HANDCUFFED ON THE GROUND DRAGGED AWAY TO THE HOLDING CEL FACE DOWN.  THE TAZER BURNS ON HIS BELLY WILL STING IN THE MORNING.