Are there powerful, good or useful features Unity are not providing?

OK, Unity pulls together and energizes a group of technologies into a game engine!

Thank you Unity, you have put years of work into making it easier for us to make games!

But are there good, useful or even powerful features within these technologies (e.g. PhysX, DirectX) that Unity has not unlocked access to yet?

e.g. PhysX has a box geometry it can use for casts and sweeps, this feature is not available in Unity.

So do you know of any features within the middleware or even on the platforms that Unity allows us to develop for that are not accessible within Unity yet?

So I raise a thread on 3D boxes and this happens → Why doesn't Unity add the Physx Box cast to the API? - Unity Engine - Unity Discussions

Unity are you fixing all the things I like to complain about. You do realise that I’ll have to find something else to do or move to another game engine that has bugs and missing features that I can complain about!

A node-based material editor.

5 Likes

The fabled “Make MMO” button.

2 Likes

How about a visual programming tool that builds to code and generates visual programming graphs from existing code!

1 Like

Cocos2D have recently launched their SDKBOX for easily integrating a whole range of external plugins (IAP, ratings, analytics, ads, social media, attribution, age checking, more on the way), some of those with multiple options, for their game engine.

Unity doesn’t make that easy, except for their own systems in some of those areas. A wider ranging external SDK solution would make life easier for developers.

Absolutely this, how we haven’t got a built in solution already is beyond me. A timeline editor tool for scripted events is also very welcome, but that is on the roadmap for next spring if i recall correctly. In general i would just like Unity to focus on making their base functionality work better rather than having half baked ports of the engine to all damn platforms under the sun.

Unity is in my opinion not really comparable to things like Unreal Engine 4 without spending a few hundred dollars on the asset store.

Why would you need a node based material editor? What’s so hard with using the Standard shader the way it is?
I can’t stand visual editor things, I find them harder than coding the entire thing from scratch.
I mean I guess it can be good for speedy process. But then what happens if it doesn’t have a feature you want?
Then you are stuck trying to figure out how to code or getting someone else to do it for you.

So I think and will always think Coding is the proper way to make anything.
Heck I purchased Substance Designer and used it once for 2 minutes and haven’t touched it sense because I don’t grasp the whole Visual Design crap.

1 Like

The standard shader does not cover every contingency.

I’m a programmer yet I’ve found myself gravitating towards WYSIWYG editors more and more. A live preview is a very powerful tool when you’re building a shader.

3 Likes

That is true. But it covers most things I find adequate enough for almost all cases, aside from toon shading and stuff.
At first I didn’t really understand the Standard Shader, but once I realized if you know how to use probes, etc it makes things look 10 fold better than just using the Shader.

I can use Substance Painter, but not Designer. Painter is straight foward, paint, adjust numbers, etc.
But using Designer, pft I can’t even figure out how to do a single thing lol.

An !dea store