Hi
Can anyone tell me what performance like compared to UDK?
Regards
Jason
Ummm…
It all depends. What part of the engine would you like to compare? I’m sure someone has done some benchmarks somewhere of the rendering pipelines and such.
One thing I know for certain, they both use Nvidia’s ‘Physx’ engine, so their physics simulation should be very similar.
The rest of it is very subjective. It relies heavily on what your making, how you make it, your art assets, how well optimized your code is, what parts of the engine your software demands the most of and many other things.
You can’t really do a straight comparison, but you could break down the different pipelines of both engines and do some benchmarks I guess.
Ok, the reason i asked is I’ve been using Quest3D since it came out 12 years ago, but I stopped upgrading at Version 3.6, due to the developer’s changes in their pricing strategy. I recently had a look at the version 5.0 evaluation copy and saw that much the classic original program is now being deprecated in favour of OO programming and it all looked a bit too cumbersome for my liking, and lacks a good editor.
So now I’m looking at alternative systems. I had some great fun recently making a Mod for Fallout 3 using GECK and the similarity between that and Unity 3D is what brought me here. Another thing that has interested me in Unity is the Triton ocean plug in.
However, many of my assets have been designed in 3D Studio max for Quest3D, which means they have high polycounts - for example I have one object that has 2 million faces and over 160 D3D surfaces. Quest3D was a good polygon cruncher in that respect. I afraid I’ve been spoiled…
I’m not sure UDK is the way I want to go. Right now I seem to be trying to weigh up the pros and cons of Quest3D v Unity 3D. I love the beast system in Unity by I’m afraid it might not work on larger models.
Quest3D targets a bit different demographic than Unity3D does.
From what I understand Quest3D is a 3D simulations and scenes. It doesn’t seem to be geared towards games, though it probably can be used for games (depending the kind of game… certainly for point and click adventures).
Unity3D though handles more game oriented stuff. Same goes for UDK. Their strengths are in different places from Quest3D.
So what it comes down to, what are your needs… as all 3 solve different problems (though unity and udk solve similar problems to each other). For all you know Unity and UDK don’t solve the problems you have adequately.
And if your ONLY issue with Quest3D is that they are starting to use a more modern paradigm for programming… well you may want to look at things from the other side. Coming to unity or udk isn’t going to circumvent this OOP requirement… they too use it.
Thanks for your replies.
It’s not that I object to OO, it’s just that there are better ways to work with OO than using Quest3D, which doesn’t have a nice editor. For example, UDK seems to be traditional OO orientated approach. It’s more the price of Quest that puts me off, at 3000 EUROs it is way too expensive. Also, the community at Quest3D is kind of quiet at the moment, and there is a lack of documentation and examples on the new system. I’m not sure where Quest is going but everytime a new version coems out radical changes ensue.
Actually looking for a simulator engine - but one where you don’t have to build everything from scratch. That can handle interiors, doors, character animations, lights, engine simulations etc. All doable with Unity, but I’m just worried about performance, and also lightmapping.
I appreciate your help!
I strongly disagree. I’ve been working in Unity for years and the majority of projects have been non-game related.
Unity is a 3D engine with many capabilities, it’s very open-ended and can be applied to a very wide spectrum of projects. That said, it’s less focused than other engines. But if you have the money for decent developers, that’s not a problem.
It didn’t say it couldn’t do other things.
I said it’s game oriented.
Just as I also said that Quest3D is simulation oriented, but you could probably make a game with it.
I mentioned NO words of exclusivity. You may want to brush up your reading comprehension.
Do you mean the cost of the various plug-ins like substance and triton? It soons adds up once you get into these…
no, developers, programmers, people who know how to write code and can learn Unity to wield it’s power correctly.
Ah. I was hoping to do that myself…that said, it sounds to me that Unity3D is pretty powerful and flexible. I’m impressed and itching to try it! It looks fun.
The free version offers up most of what you need to figure this all out.
Give it a try, ain’t gonna cost you nothing.
except time, I often forget about the amount of time i spend researching tech for unity and how i could use it.
Eugh… why are you getting defensive? I even started my post with “I strongly disagree” as in… it’s an opinion.
Neither did I, nor did I imply that you did. I implied that you mentioned it favours games, and that I disagreed. I didn’t even state it as fact.
Yes. And I disagreed.
Nor did I say, or imply that you did.
I wasn’t attacking you. I was sharing my opinion on a point you raised. Isn’t that what defines a conversation?
Spot on. The thing with the asset store, and buying plugins. Sometimes it’s just cheaper to buy a pre-made package, than pay your own developers to make similar functionality. It’s a great tool and probably one of the things that makes it stand out from other engines.
You disagreed, and I retorted to your statement. I wasn’t angry or anything.
Your statement didn’t change the facts of my statement, if you disagreed that it isn’t game-oriented and your only reason is that you’ve made things that aren’t games doesn’t disprove that it’s game-oriented. All it does is fit into my claim that it is capable of doing other things. Your disagreement, while also restating the same I said, with out actually contesting what you said you actually disagree with (in-post, following my retort), leads me to believe you didn’t understand it.
Anyways, not the time or place, not interested in a conversation about that. It’s off topic.