I know what i can and can’t do with Unity, but doing all these tasks by yourself… that’s not the goal is it. This was about Unity vs CryEngine tools and quality. How does this volumentric clouds “dynamic sky” compare to this http://docs.cryengine.com/display/SDKDOC2/Setting+Up+Time+Of+Day ?
-
Honestly this hasn’t really been an issue for me. With some extensions and passable scripting knowledge I’ve been able to get what I’ve wanted unless I had absolutely no clue how to implement it (I.E: SSS would be nice but I have no effing idea how I’d do that…) For those latter cases, I agree that the engine should support me. In general I haven’t had to deal with large scale projects up until now, but for larger scale projects (like the one I’m doing now), there should be at least one programmer / tech guy who can solve the performance issues and create new systems. I can’t speak for these people and how difficult / annoying their job is in Unity versus other engines.
-
This is true. For me I really want these features, but am unwilling to switch from Unity due to how much I like it on other fronts. I’d rather wait for Unity to catch up, especially since these features are confirmed, it’s just a matter of playing the waiting game.
-
I think I worded this one a little badly. I’m saying, for one, that there is some debate about whether or not the current gen consoles are going to handle real time global illumination without sacrifices in other categories. It’s definitely possible to do, as engines like Cryengine prove, but it’s viability is harder to determine. For example, Crysis 3 on PC has global illumination but absolutely did not on the console releases (which were last gen). It’s still early this current gen, so we’ll see if any console games have global illumination, but as far as I know none have it so far (I could be mistaken. Does Ryse have GI on the consoles?).
As for your other points, I basically agree with you. I think we’re basically on the same page.
@ Imre keep your socks on 
, I’m working on a TOD and weather / water system as we speak. Point being like you said it’s a pain in the ass, I’m having to do a lot of work for what comes in CE and UE4 already. But my point is, it’s possible even if it is a PITA. Would I like this included? Hell yeah, if little old me can do it than Unity guys defo can.!
@ Chaos, if I’m coming off a little harsh I apologise. But I too get tired of the evangelical engine thing, truth be told all engines have flaws and they all have what the other one needs. As things moving on they are all merging into the same thing, Unity will be a AAA worthy engine in it’s next incarnation (As long as they don’t mess it up).
If Unreal was back in 2010 before they did there upgrades we could say the exact same thing about them too. I think Crysis 3 on PS3 and Xbox was just a shed load of lights to imitate GI. PC had bounces… But BF3 did use enlighten, because it’s damn good!
There will never be the one perfect engine. Only engines that fits your needs, or don’t.
But what do I know. I’m just a defeatist :mrgreen:
Well it wasn’t me that said that …
I know Shadow.
Was not aimed at you 
These types of threads are kind of pointless, but weighing in:
-If you had the choice to make a game in CryEngine that had “10/10” visuals, or a game in Unity that had “9/10” visuals (eg. The Forest), you should use Unity to make that game. End of story. To make the same game in CryEngine you’ll probably spend twice as long (if not, longer).
CryEngine is a tech demo engine, and not much more. Maybe, if your whole team had only ever worked in CryEngine before and never worked in Unity, then you would choose it, but apart from that, there really is not much point.
If anything, CryEngine’s visual fidelity scares people away from buying games - take a look at recent stats from Unity that show amount of CPU cores/RAM/etc for standalone player PCs - you’ll see why being able to use 8 cores is not so important.
But now you’re talking about something else here!! Using it, not capabilities. It looks pretty, but there is not a chance in hell I’d use it to make an actual game with.
This thread was done with this in mind:
Basically, it would be a waste not to use Unity when it is much faster to achieve things than CryEngine and I am already a bit more familiarized with its scripting. I was wondering if it was better to leave this engine as my 2D tool while learning another for 3D so I came to ask for the general consensus.
I had seen that Manufactura K4 asset video, but for some reason his videos are lacking some “feeling of depth” present in many of CryEngine textures… which made me also wonder if even the way different kinds of mappings are hard coded into the engine affect their perception. [Different algorithms make a difference in this? Can someone clarify this? I also compared it to RTP, they don’t give me the same perception]
But seeing I am just starting with 3D [or rather, the texturing 3D part which is the one that gives me trouble] if Unity gets there in 3 years, I won’t complain. Though that makes me an egoist because some already want [and have wanted for a long time] that level of quality, and some even go as far as saying “boy, my assets become AAA when I move them to that engine!”. I was propelled to make this thread after seeing one of the best Unity screenshots in one of ShadowK’s thread, and then reading the engine had trouble keeping up.
And “not enough staff to produce art content” is never an argument. You don’t know if I am willing to take 3 years to make a nice and polished 512m^2 city 
Yeah maybe not. Especially if you make that just out of pure enjoyment/hobby.
Indeed you can make a triple A looking game as single dude, if you’re dedicated and skilled enough. It just will take a very long time, which is, from a commercial standpoint, not desirable in most cases.
And Unity5 + some add-ons will be almost as much capable, as UE4 and CryEngine3.
I think that it can but the developers do not care to attempt it (with over 200 employee’s I’m sure they can do it). Unity’s “bread and butter” is low graphic/ low resource games (mostly mobile). I personally don’t know of any Unity game that has “eye candy” that rivals CryEngine or even is visually stunning. I’m not being a troll or ignorant but I honestly don’t know of any. But I can find a million (figure of speech), mobile games powered by Unity 3D.
They don’t have a reason to copy CryEngine, because eye candy is what CryEngine specializes in and Unreal Engine specializes in being the “go to” engine for AAA game companies. I’ve also noticed that (I come from UDK prior to using Unity), Unity doesn’t come with much “out the box”. If it wasn’t for the Asset store, Unity would be an incomplete engine. It really irritates me at times when I see people creating assets for Unity that should have come with it (Visual scripting, AI behavior tree and visual shading).
High performance and Unity are not words that can be used in the same sentence…
ever.
I’m really hoping Unity5 can handle a lot of transparent vegetation
Could 64bit, multi-threading, billboard transition lod’s from the Advanced foliage shader solve all our problems?
It would be a dream…
I’m planning to subscribe to cryengine as a service as well as Unity5
(currently on unreal4 but their lionhead lpv dynamic g.i. work in progress is a bad unusable mess at the moment,
although I hear Enlighten has its own issues)
And I don’t understand why people are sayings things like “Do you really have the resources to make AAA assets like this”? They are just trees FFS, lets get forest environments working with good performance before worrying about anything else
Just watch a low poly tree modeling tutorial for 3dsmax on youtube, practice for a few days, gather tons of leaf textures and paint over them in photoshop. You can make amazing trees, plants, flowers, grass eventually populated beautiful forests in no time