After using unreal for a couple of years after quitting unity for the lackluster features I return because of curiousity and the hope that the engine is more robust. I know decent C++ and currently learning c# and want to do some lightweight projects however, I was playing and comparing the lightbaking workflow and I still dont get why unity doesnt have the most “basic” features. I wanted to add a simple exponential height fog to my scene. After enabling fog, I noticed it only affects my meshes, making the sky and the meshes look extremely unnatural, as if there was a cut. I googled and found unity doesn’t have it by default? I just want to make pretty games, I don’t want to spend time on something that is certainly default on other engines. Why is this not a default thing to ship? Went to the marketplace and see that a decent one costs you up to 30 dollars and you cannot be certain if it breaks when unity decides to mess with the pipelines again.
I think the management of the engine still suffers from an incredible lack of vision and direction. I feel like the engine is geared towards making it barebone so you spend money on basic features on the asset store. I have seen much better lightmap solutions on the asset store. Why can’t unity do it? Surely they arent incapable, so I just wonder why nobody at unity is getting the idea to make some of our lives easier. Same with fog, if some individual managed to make a great looking unreal comparable fog, why doesn’t unity tech get the idea to ship something similar by default.
What render pipeline were you using? I’m not familiar with HDRP but if it’s as crucial for visual quality as you’re saying then you’re most likely to find it in HDRP.
Every company needs to focus on some things and deprioritize other areas. Would you want Unity to work on the best kinematic character controller, or rather have them buy that asset and give it away for free after it’s been proven for several years?
On the other hand, allow me a simple pun, but really … I mean, come on … why can’t Epic write a decent UI framework?
If you do any game that has more than main menu buttons and FPS stats on the screen, and you’re coming from Unity and switch over to Unreal, you’ll feel punched in the stomach by the things you have to do yourself (or possibly buy from the store) when it comes to implementing UI. It’s just hearsay from dev friends, so I have to and do trust their feedback that they tried every way to find the right angle but no, amazingly, Unreal just doesn’t provide the same ease of use when it comes to creating UI - and that is comparing against classic game object Unity UI, not the new UI Toolkit.
So, both engines have their pros and cons, both companies can’t do everything. If the highest possible visual quality is important to you and HDRP doesn’t (yet) cut it but an asset fixes it, then get that asset and move on. It’s really not different from Unreal, except that you’ll feel forced to buy different kinds of assets in order to get more of that workflow that you were used from Unity.
I have the opposite opinion here, would just like to point out.
OP: you can find third party height fog assets, for free even.
Unity’s own post process effects (with the exception of the ones for HDRP, maybe?) have always been slow pieces of dogshit, so you’re better served by 3rd party ones. Which is the Unity way. Sure it may have many UI systems and input managers and cinematic tools, but none are worth using, so get used to rolling your own, or find decent third parties to use as a base.
I personally prefer Unity over Unreal Engine. I installed and tested UE4 when it came out and then UE5 when it came out. There are some things that I really like about UE, but it is not perfect. Even if you choose UE5 for your project, you will likely still need to rely on some 3rd party assets to build your project.
Both Unity and UE have the challenge of trying to support every target platform. Windows, Mac, Linux, consoles, mobile, VR, etc. That is a very wide and far reaching goal. Even just looking at consoles, there are significantly different capabilities between them.
For example, Sony PS5 is a solid performer on par with a good mid range gaming PC. But Nintendo Switch is a far less powerful solution, more comparable to a low end PC or nice smartphone. Unity HDRP is supported on PS5, but not on Switch. Similarly, UE5 Nanite and Lumen are supported on PS5, but not on Switch. So when a developer is targeting Switch, they limit the graphic rendering options. Unity URP works on the Switch, but does not look as nice as HDRP. To be fair, both Unity and UE5 have tradeoffs that developers need to consider when selecting target platforms for their games.
In answer to the question “why doesn’t Unity include certain features out of the box”, it comes back to the wide support for various platforms. With some effects, they need to be tailored to the rendering pipeline and the overall art style for the project. Unity and Epic both need to think of all of the different platforms and all of the different types of games, and then honestly evaluate whether or not it makes sense to include a specific feature at the engine level.
…No? HDRP does support less platforms and Unity always had features that for example weren’t intended or working for mobile or features that were mobile first (like URP). So not being able to do a feature because of platform support makes no sense. Plus height fog is not really that advanced, at all.
Yea, I think you can still have those features and still make compatible versions. If something isnt compatible, just let us know so we can find alternatives. Its not really about making sure it works. I get it, there are 3 rendering pipelines, so why not provide 1 for each? I am sure unity has the brains behind the pipelines who can provide something at least equivalent to what the competition is offering. If its not working THEN one could perhaps go and make his / her own solution. However, why do you all think unreal engine has been the go to for artist every time? Its because no artists wants to learn to code and then read into how to make a simple fog for the scene just so they can add some basic atmosphere. Its not productive at all for someone who just wants to make a cool scene real quick. Yes, you could spend your weeks and days and make a extensive library of everything, pulling github projects and praying that they work still or you could just drag and drop unity’s robust solutions. But I get it, its much more lucrative if unity tech gets these asset store buys.
I will be working with the engine for my future projects and I still appreciate the engine, but man it lacks real direction and vision. It seems like departments just do whatever they feel like is cool without working together. Why hasn’t anyone from UT asked him/herself why the engine isn’t being used by artists and go from there? Just look at artstation and youtube, you will find almost all pretty scenes done by artists almost exclusively in unreal. Making a shader graph was the right (and very late!) decision. Also, they dont need to do any programming at all, they use flexible solutions from epic games(which are designed to be fairly flexible in most cases).
Coming up with the argument why unity shouldnt do this is beyond me. Doing that would boost unitys popularity way more and actually make artist use it and in turn teach other people how to who arent maybe artistically inclined.
Finally just want to say Unity would have an extremely huge pull if it actually had a artist friendly ecosystem like unreal. Unity already has C# and a fairly simple system to make games which unreal lacks, so if it had some more tools like a robust terrain system, mesh paint system and also quick landscape solutions like unreal then it would become way more popular. Almost every artist uses those tools to make their scene but unity makes these steps unneccessarily complicated which again I feel like is a lack of vision and product design from UT.
Again, you can find plenty of free or paid height fog effects, HDRP’s fog is height fog like, and I believe some of the older post effect packages had some variation of it (but I can’t easily confirm, so I won’t bother), so there are solutions around, you just need to do some research and evaluation and use something that works for you, as you would do with any Unity feature.
Unity supplying certain features out of the box is less important than you make it out to be anyway, because most of the time Unity out of the box features are terrible.
With that said, the community making up some shit for why you can’t possibly expect certain features from Unity because they are too hard to make or whatever, is some Stockholm syndrome bull crap.
yea, will look into it. I think I will just have to get used to the “new” workflow. I am excited for the challenge but I am not really someone who wants to bother with stuff like this as I really like to focus on gameplay more. I will however, give some of that a shot and see how it goes. Thanks!
PS: yea I agree, it may not be too important. Time will tell. Still no hate to the engine or so, just my 2 cents from someone who is switching.
