The below post is no longer relevant as the author has supplied a clear web demo which is a lot better than the original youtube video.
No it doesn’t. That video jerks repeatedly and you can barely make out what is going on. Why does that look awesome? A web player of the effects would really help this dude sell his project. I’m not going to tell him it looks good when it looks terrible. That is not helping him or doing him any favours. If he can sort out the video properly or do a demo then it will help him. Lying to people and telling them its good when money is involved isn’t helping. I might say “oh that looks ok” to someone who isn’t making money to encourage them, but encouraging someone to sell badly isn’t a good idea.
I have to agree with Hippocoder here. If this was free, that’d probably be ok, but $25… I don’t mean to be rude here, but you should really rework this jerky and poor quality video because I really fail to see how anything showcased in it qualifies as “advanced” or “awesome”. It’s hard to tell between what is coming from the unity standard asset packages and what was made by you.
As previously suggested, you should really include a webplayer demo, and give more details on what new assets you are offering in this package. Creating a dedicated web page for it might also be a good idea.
I would be VERY interrested if I could see anything.
Please make a demo with NO tree and Camera mvt, just plain particules on a background would be very nice.
Hope yo see that before buying.
yann.
I have edited my first post in a more positive note as you have posted a webplayer. While I don’t think they are advanced and its not fooling anyone, it still looks quite nice in places, and someone will find a use for that sort of thing. Good luck with it
From the initial demos, some of this is interesting, but we can do practically all of this with standard particles and smallish code; the butterflies in particular are problematic, because they’re just a quickie animation and then they fade, instead of fading with distance from the POV and then being removed from the sim. Really, for something like that, you should strongly consider a mesh instead of a billboard.
The birds are OK, but largely because they’re so far from the POV that we can’t see the fakery very easily.
The leaves need a lot of work; they don’t interact with scene lights, shadowmaps, etc., and look like something from 10 years ago.
The “mystic man” would be a nice transition effect for objects “teleporting” or other various special effects problems; perhaps a stronger demo for that would be to have a point light source that animates a bloom and illuminates a floor while rapidly lighting him up with particle points, then letting them fade out, then move him to a different position? I feel like that one is something that could be fairly useful, but the presentation isn’t great yet
Overall though, I’m not sure I’d buy this at any price yet. Anything I can almost immediately see how it got done and isn’t presented immaculately just doesn’t get my attention. I would like to see more stuff like this thing I wrote last year- big systems using FBO-driven mechanics to do complex dynamic systems for weather and ambiance- I feel like you’re definitely working on the right problem, but it’s not polished enough yet. Keep at it
I get the feeling these are all done with standard particle emitters and can be recreated with such. I’ll be honest, I don’t see anything compelling enough to make me want to buy it. Try coming up with a novel idea, or make high-quality particle textures.