Boot Camp is a beautiful demo piece for the engine - no doubt about it. The folks at Unity did a fantastic job.
Plays nice in the editor - however- on the same Mac that I am testing it on when I go to build it out in extreme settings it can hardly play at all.
I am talking 3 frames per second. :shock: I guess you could call it a Unity moment.
Is that the reason why the build settings for the boot camp demo default at good and not Fantastic?
The engine is not optimized enough for the final executable?
We had grand plans on developing on Unity for a major release but that idea has quickly eroded. We don’t have the time to wait for “updates” or to hand of millions of dollars for unlimited tech support
Sure unity has something to do with it though. I don’t care that much, as to do thorough analysis of unity’s performance, but some things are quite obvious. Say on my laptop (nvidia quadro card - pretty weak), the bootcamp demo and the car racing tutorial both are virtually unplayable event with moderate settings.
On the other hand games like COD4, GRID, L4D, Portal run at solid 30 to 60 fps (at lower-moderate settings, high resolution) and look better than unity’s demos.
If unity wants to compete with UDK and probably Cryengine (when it becomes free) on this front they will simply have to do better.
Otherwise graphics/performance concious customers will quite rigtfully go for the alternatives.
Maybe the game doesn’t run on “fantastic” in the editor…this would seem to make sense to me as you can do optimizations for the build, whereas the editor has to provide a dynamic update and would therefore use lower opengl specs. Really you need to compare the BUILD to MACHINE SPECS, not editor performance to build performance.
Whatever, I’d just say have fun with UDK…if you don’t have brains enough to do a reasonable test with real numbers, you aren’t going to get very far in either engine, or you’re just poking in to troll or advertise for UDK.
Unity is a lot easier. Plus the people playing around with unreal pull out all the tricks: geometry is all batched and optimised, plus the art path compensates for a lot of what you see. But most of all, unreal has far tighter optimised shaders. Unity can do it, but you’ll need to be writing the shaders from the ground up and optimise everything you see. I think this person would probably slow unreal down to a crawl too.
We have a wide array of machines here- I have invested a decent amount of money into Unity and poured alot of time into it as well. We are doing work on Unity for clients in regards to web and ios so we are not just DUMPING the program- it has its uses.
But for AAA projects between the time it takes to “deconstruct” all of the examples and the poor performance I experienced on the MAC I am inclined to go the UDK route.
We also ran fantastic quality on a PC as well- not top of the line mind you- bout 2 years old and it also ran just as poorly. Mind you that the machine we tested it on also ran 3D applications without any trouble so it can definitely do some heavy lifting.
I am not looking to offend anyone - just stating the facts and wondering why fantastic runs piss poor (as in not optimized) when we run our own projects on a full build.
You have to admit that when someone can run COD on their lap top and they cant run the demo on the same machine there are some serious problems afoot.
Not trying to stir up trouble- just want to get what I paid for and they advertise the engine as being able to produce pc xbox and ps3 games I want to know how I can produce a full blown adventure game (DOF, shader glows, vingetting, edge blur etc with soft shadows) rather than a ios quality game with blob shadows- plain diffuse or simple shaders.
Yet again, nothing specific. This is all meaningless to Unity, me, other people, and even YOU.
It’s all just, “I pushed button on machine of two years old and unnamed specs and didn’t get the result I wanted”.
If we get five people with machines (that they don’t name machine specs for) where bootcamp runs at 60fps on fantastic, and five people (that also don’t name machine specs) that it runs at 5 fps on fantastic, what’s the resolution? Can we even analyze that? Who do we blame, Unity, the design team in brazil, the operating system, you, the driver manufacturer(s), the machine manufacturer? What does this tell us?
I’ll answer, it tells us diddly, squat, and nada.
The point is, it is ALL in the details, so posting this is a waste of your time.
Here are your best choices:
Make a thoughtful analysis and send it directly to Unity including system specs and actual numbers, if you don’t get the reply you want, move on.
Make a thoughtful analysis and post it requesting feedback from other users in a polite manner, if you don’t get the reply you want, move on.
Give up and go to UDK and don’t bother posting.
Seriously, how many posts are you going to put up throwing out generalizations?
Do you expect some result from this?
Wait… DaveG, are you really judging a game engine’s performance by comparing 2 different games ?
Did you took the 2 games internal code optimizations into account ? Their development budget ? Try to determine if CoD used more baked textures and less real time effects ?
Did you compare the real polycounts ? The rendering modes ?
Are you really professional in your analysis ?
Redbeer - you have ultimately lowered the bar on this thread with profanity- bravo.
I am stepping away from the thread- if anyone else has constructive comments that relate to building out the bootcamp and having consistent performance on machines that can also play games like L4D COD with the same visual quality please feel free to PM me.