I don't like Unity (Split from "Blocker features in KSP2")

[ronson49]

[Moderator note:  This topic has been split from another thread here.]

The choice of using the Unity Engine means I can't play KSP2

 

KSP was one of the greatest games I have played in 2 decades, but Unity destroyed the game.   Performance just fell off a cliff edge with a few dozen parts on your Mun Base.    Even on the latest technology of the time.

KSP2 is going to run straight into those same issues and there is nothing that you can do about it.      Unity has make assumptions so that my grandmother can make a game this weekend too.     Trying to code a solar system in there based on physics of this scale.....    
 

I am happy to put how much I love the game on hold until the day where it is done properly so I may properly enjoy it.  KSP2 is just a long Pre Alpha until a later game (or competitor)  is made in a reasonable and performant engine.
 

[tseitsei89]

1 hour ago, ronson49 said:

 

The choice of using the Unity Engine means I can't play KSP2

 

KSP was one of the greatest games I have played in 2 decades, but Unity destroyed the game.   Performance just fell off a cliff edge with a few dozen parts on your Mun Base.    Even on the latest technology of the time.

KSP2 is going to run straight into those same issues and there is nothing that you can do about it.      Unity has make assumptions so that my grandmother can make a game this weekend too.     Trying to code a solar system in there based on physics of this scale.....    
 

I am happy to put how much I love the game on hold until the day where it is done properly so I may properly enjoy it.  KSP2 is just a long Pre Alpha until a later game (or competitor)  is made in a reasonable and performant engine.
 

Not sure what you are talking about... I'm playing on an old laptop and I can launch 100+ part ships just fine. ~200 parts starts to be a problem but you rarely need that many parts on a ship. Also they have already stated that KSP2 will be much more optimized than KSP1 so there is also that

Edited October 19, 2019 by tseitsei89

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ronson49 said:

KSP was one of the greatest games I have played in 2 decades, but Unity destroyed the game.   Performance just fell off a cliff edge with a few dozen parts on your Mun Base.    Even on the latest technology of the time.

That has nothing to do with Unity. 

2 hours ago, ronson49 said:

KSP2 is going to run straight into those same issues and there is nothing that you can do about it.      Unity has make assumptions so that my grandmother can make a game this weekend too.     Trying to code a solar system in there based on physics of this scale.....    

Again, this is complete nonsense. 

You've said similar things before, while also making it clear you actually have no experience as a game developer, in Unity or any other engine, and people who do understand what they're talking about have pointed out that you're mistaken about it. Why do you persist?

[ronson49]

@Brikoleur

 

53 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

That has nothing to do with Unity. 

Again, this is complete nonsense. 

You've said similar things before, while also making it clear you actually have no experience as a game developer, in Unity or any other engine, and people who do understand what they're talking about have pointed out that you're mistaken about it. Why do you persist?

No one has provided evidence.   I urge you AGAIN FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME to provide a single 3d Rendered,  Performant Unity game that can compete with 2010+  visuals.  

 

None of the Unity fan boys have. 

1 hour ago, tseitsei89 said:

Not sure what you are talking about... I'm playing on an old laptop and I can launch 100+ part ships just fine. ~200 parts starts to be a problem but you rarely need that many parts on a ship. Also they have already stated that KSP2 will be much more optimized than KSP1 so there is also that

 

Try playing it on a modern Ryzen or Intel PC and grab something like a RX5700 or 2060 Super.    You can throw high end gaming rigs at it, and it won't play any better than your old laptop. 

 

 

I need 10000 parts,  not 200 and it is that which kills KSP in Unity. 

 

 

 

For KSP2 not to run like a old dog,  You would need to believe that KSP2 will be the first Unity game that is 2-3 order of magnitudes more impressive than anything Unity has done before.     If you believe that,  that is fine.  I don't as there is zero evidence.  

Edited October 19, 2019 by ronson49

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, ronson49 said:

 

No one has provided evidence.   I urge you AGAIN FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME to provide a single 3d Rendered,  Performant Unity game that can compete with 2010+  visuals.  

None of the Unity fan boys have. 

 

45 minutes ago, ronson49 said:

I need 10000 parts,  not 200

 

I urge you to find me all of the dozens of games with 10k single parts crafts with physics calculation in a map as big as a solar system with orbital mechanics working flawlessly with the other engines, every voxel style or ship building game have performance problems, especially given the fact that they're often developed by inexperienced indie devs, Unity being the engine of choice of such devs is only proof of it's versatility.

It's dumb to compare a game like KSP to your usual physicless fancy narrative corridor AAA game, the only mainstream developers caring about physics in games are Valve with the Source engine and Bethesda with their Creation Engine.

 

Also, given that no engine has native support for solar system wide maps and hundreds of single parts craft every game having such features has to implement their own workarounds and systems, that means that most of the performance depends on such workarounds and not on the engine itself, building a case-specific better engine is outside the scope and the budget of a game like KSP.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ronson49 said:

No one has provided evidence.   I urge you AGAIN FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME to provide a single 3d Rendered,  Performant Unity game that can compete with 2010+  visuals. 

That would not be evidence, because the KSP performance bottleneck isn’t visuals, it’s rigid-body physics. 

(I just finished Disco Elysium. It is one of the most beautiful games I’ve played ever, it’s 3D, it’s Unity, it never dropped a single frame, and it is a completely pointless comparison.)

[mcwaffles2003]

 

2 hours ago, ronson49 said:

Try playing it on a modern Ryzen or Intel PC and grab something like a RX5700 or 2060 Super.    You can throw high end gaming rigs at it, and it won't play any better than your old laptop. 

 

 

I need 10000 parts,  not 200 and it is that which kills KSP in Unity. 

Just made a >1000 part ship, I have a 2700x and 1080Ti... it ran fine. 

 

2 hours ago, ronson49 said:

For KSP2 not to run like a old dog,  You would need to believe that KSP2 will be the first Unity game that is 2-3 order of magnitudes more impressive than anything Unity has done before.     If you believe that,  that is fine.  I don't as there is zero evidence.  

Have you ever played Universe Sandboox 2? It runs on unity... It runs thousands of particles in an N- body physics simulation that also incorporates heating/lighting effects based in albedo and many other things simultaneously.

You do realize KSP 1 was largely coded by a guy that never made a game before, right? And it was picked up by a team that was somewhat inexperienced in game development themselves.

2 hours ago, ronson49 said:

None of the Unity fan boys have.

I think you're mistaking "fanboys" for people that have implied to you previously that your criticisms and fears based on the unity engine are unfounded. Out of curiosity, which engine would you prefer the game be made in and why?

Edited October 19, 2019 by mcwaffles2003
your -> you're

[tseitsei89]

1 hour ago, ronson49 said:

 

 

I need 10000 parts,  not 200 and it is that which kills KSP in Unity. 

 

What do you need 10000 part crafts for? I can probably give you some tips how to reduce your part count to reasonable numbers...

[ronson49]

45 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I urge you to find me all of the dozens of games with 10k single parts crafts with physics calculation in a map as big as a solar system with orbital mechanics working flawlessly with the other engines, every voxel style or ship building game have performance problems, especially given the fact that they're often developed by inexperienced indie devs, Unity being the engine of choice of such devs is only proof of it's versatility.

It's dumb to compare a game like KSP to your usual physicless fancy narrative corridor AAA game, the only mainstream developers caring about physics in games are Valve with the Source engine and Bethesda with their Creation Engine.

 

Also, given that no engine has native support for solar system wide maps and hundreds of single parts craft every game having such features has to implement their own workarounds and systems, that means that most of the performance depends on such workarounds and not on the engine itself, building a case-specific better engine is outside the scope and the budget of a game like KSP.

So take two, arguably the biggest publisher in the world, a multi billion pound entity cannot afford any better tooling than what my grandmother can download for free and use today?  Do you think that is acceptable when we are talking a game as great in scope as KSP?

[Snark]

Moderator's note:  This discussion was split off from another topic, located here:

 

[ronson49]

45 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

That would not be evidence, because the KSP performance bottleneck isn’t visuals, it’s rigid-body physics. 

(I just finished Disco Elysium. It is one of the most beautiful games I’ve played ever, it’s 3D, it’s Unity, it never dropped a single frame, and it is a completely pointless comparison.)

 

Isometric  isn't 3D,  keep trying.  

 If Rigid Body physics is the problem, then KSP (under the pockets of one of the bigger publishers in the world) should be starting with an optimized physics body system, and building a game from there.    Not starting with the same underlying Unity Framework aimed at my Grandmother and her Indy game weekend jaunt. 
 

[MiscelanousItem]

43 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Out of curiosity, which engine would you prefer the game be made in and why?

I completely agree with this, @ronson49 could you pls answer?

Also you've been saying that Unity is for your gran since the start of this discussion...time to renew your humor a bit

[ronson49]

Can this thread be deleted please?

I simply said that I can't buy KSP2 as it is using Unity, and the usual fan boys have come out moaning about it with their usual lack of evidence.   This doesn't need to be a thread of its own. 

[Gydra54]

1 minute ago, ronson49 said:

Can this thread be deleted please?

I simply said that I can't buy KSP2 as it is using Unity, and the usual fan boys have come out moaning about it with their usual lack of evidence.   This doesn't need to be a thread of its own. 

No you didn't, don't be disingenuous. You made claims that Unity is a terrible game engine for KSP and that KSP2 will run into exactly the same performance issues, and you presented zero evidence for this other than the fact that your grandma can make a game using it (????). Obviously people are going to argue with you if you make bold claims with literally 0 evidence and a non-sequitur to back them up. If you don't want to start an argument, next time don't make confident assertions with no supporting evidence.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MiscelanousItem said:

I completely agree with this, @ronson49 could you pls answer?

Same here, which engine would do the job for you?

As I already told you (and you decided to ignore) the biggest performance problem in KSP (and any other veichle building/voxel game) is the workarounds needed for some features (big maps, planets, orbital mechanics, craft parts and joints) to work and their optimization and has nothing to do with the engine itself.

 

9 minutes ago, ronson49 said:

Can this thread be deleted please?

I simply said that I can't buy KSP2 as it is using Unity, and the usual fan boys have come out moaning about it with their usual lack of evidence.   This doesn't need to be a thread of its own. 

No, this is needed, a lot of people share your misconceptions about engines and it's good to have a dedicated thread. Also it would help a lot if you could actually reply to other people arguments instead of insulting and ignoring them.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Guest

[GoldForest]

12 minutes ago, ronson49 said:

Can this thread be deleted please?

I simply said that I can't buy KSP2 as it is using Unity, and the usual fan boys have come out moaning about it with their usual lack of evidence.   This doesn't need to be a thread of its own. 

There are no fanboys here. Only people telling you the truth. Unity isn't the problem. It's how you code in unity that is. KSP 1 was coded poorly, and slowly but surely they are trying to fix it. Look at KSP 1.8. It has better performance. 

Also, if you want a thread deleted, it's always a good idea to ping the mods directly so that they don't have to just go looking for threads that want to be deleted. 

@Snark @Vanamonde Are the main two I see poking around the KSP 2 section, so probably best to ping them. 

Edited October 19, 2019 by GoldForest

[ronson49]

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

There are no fanboys here. Only people telling you the truth. Unity isn't the problem. It's how you code in unity that is. KSP 1 was coded poorly, and slowly but surely they are trying to fix it. Look at KSP 1.8. It has better performance. 

Also, if you want a thread deleted, it's always a good idea to ping the mods directly so that they don't have to just go looking for threads that want to be deleted. 

@Snark @Vanamonde

I remember you from my previous unity bashing thread, and you went quiet when I asked to provide a reasonable quality, reasonable performance 3D Rendered Unity Game.    I haven't forgotten,  

[GoldForest]

5 minutes ago, ronson49 said:

I remember you from my previous unity bashing thread, and you went quiet when I asked to provide a reasonable quality, reasonable performance 3D Rendered Unity Game.    I haven't forgotten,  

I gave you a list if I recall. So did others. I did not go quiet, you never responded to me. 

[ronson49]

5 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Same here, which engine would do the job for you?

As I already told you (and you decided to ignore) the biggest performance problem in KSP (and any other veichle building/voxel game) is the workarounds needed for some features (big maps, planets, orbital mechanics, craft parts and joints) to work and their optimization and has nothing to do with the engine itself.

 

No, this is needed, a lot of people share your misconceptions about engines and it's good to have a dedicated thread. Also it would help a lot if you could actually reply to other people arguments instead of insulting and ignoring them.

 

 

 

 

Yes it does,  Unity is literally designed for my Grandmother to use, and those assumptions are baked into the Unity Engine architecture.   Havok for example simply won't be anywhere near the performance of its Unreal counterpart for that reason. 

 

All of this is why Unity in 2019, is openly mocked in the wider games industry.    It is cheap, it is cheerful,  and it shows.    



I guess for me personally, i'd take any other engine other than Unity.   Ugh, I would even take Unreal.   At least it has a fragment of performance and requires a little more knowledge than my grandmother to correctly use it.  

15 minutes ago, Gydra54 said:

No you didn't, don't be disingenuous. You made claims that Unity is a terrible game engine for KSP and that KSP2 will run into exactly the same performance issues, and you presented zero evidence for this other than the fact that your grandma can make a game using it (????). Obviously people are going to argue with you if you make bold claims with literally 0 evidence and a non-sequitur to back them up. If you don't want to start an argument, next time don't make confident assertions with no supporting evidence.

 

I am waiting for that good looking 3d rendered unity game with reasonable performance.  Let me know when you find it. 

 

As for my side, go and find ANY 3d rendered Unity Game anywhere on any platform.  It will look muddy about 2007 and it will be sluggish.  You don't even need to start playing the game, just go to the Menus to see the sluggishness.  That is my evidence. 


Surely you can provide one?

 

Since it is unlikely you can, perhaps you could explain why the games industry isn't dominated by Unity Engine games?   Why is Take Two happy for Rockstar to roll its own engine,  but relieies on an amatuer tool for this IP? 

 

Money grab?   Maybe that is what I am missing,  maybe KSP2 is just the same as KSP1.   Don't spent any money on it, just pump it out reskinned? 



Perhaps I am expecting too much and that is the problem, not unity. 

[GoldForest]

7 minutes ago, ronson49 said:

 

 

Yes it does,  Unity is literally designed for my Grandmother to use, and those assumptions are baked into the Unity Engine architecture.   Havok for example simply won't be anywhere near the performance of its Unreal counterpart for that reason. 

 

All of this is why Unity in 2019, is openly mocked in the wider games industry.    It is cheap, it is cheerful,  and it shows.    



I guess for me personally, i'd take any other engine other than Unity.   Ugh, I would even take Unreal.   At least it has a fragment of performance and requires a little more knowledge than my grandmother to correctly use it.  

You claim it's laughed at and yet more and more companies use it. 

Btw, here a list of every game made in unity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unity_games

Some notable titles from that list:
My Friend Pedro - I have it, runs great, no performance issues.
Human: Fall Flat - Don't have it, watched it on youtube, have not seen nor heard of any performance issues.
The Stanley Parable - Don't have it, haven't heard of poor performance.
Cuphead - Saw no performance issues with it. 

All these games have little to no performance issues from what I've seen. 

Unity is not the problem, developers are. If you want to complain about a games bad performance, blame the devs, not the game engine. 

Unity is not "For your grandmother to use." Unity is like Java, you have to know how to use it AND know how to use it well. Some companies just cut corners, and it shows with poor performance. 

Edited October 19, 2019 by GoldForest

[ronson49]

13 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

You claim it's laughed at and yet more and more companies use it. 

Btw, here a list of every game made in unity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unity_games

Some notable titles from that list:
My Friend Pedro - I have it, runs great, no performance issues.
Human: Fall Flat - Don't have it, watched it on youtube, have seen nor heard of any performance issues.
The Stanley Parable - Don't have it, haven't heard of poor performance.
Cuphead - Saw no performance issues with it. 

All these games have little to no performance issues from what I've seen. 

Unity is not the problem, developers are. If you want to complain about a games bad performance, blame the devs, not the game engine. 

Unity is not "For your grandmother to use." Unity is like Java, you have to know how to use it AND know how to use it well. Some companies just cut corners, and it shows with poor performance. 

 

I am not doing 2d/Isometrics. 

I will go and buy Human Fall Flat right now.     The Stanley Parable looks fresh out of 2008.  Slightly better than 2004 Half Life 2.  I aint interested in playing it. 


Also Both Unity and Java are the same only in that they are managed languages and will simply never be as performant at their non managed counterparts.    When I keep saying my grandmother,  I mean it is a laughable example of managed code is what I am getting at.   I expect more from a publisher worth several billion dollars and I feel I should be getting support from the community on that

Edited October 19, 2019 by ronson49

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, ronson49 said:

Yes it does,  Unity is literally designed for my Grandmother to use^{[citation needed]}, and those assumptions are baked into the Unity Engine architecture^{[citation needed]}.   Havok for example simply won't be anywhere near the performance of its Unreal counterpart for that reason^{[citation needed]}. 

 

All of this is why Unity in 2019, is openly mocked in the wider games industry^{[citation needed]}.    It is cheap^{[citation needed]}, it is cheerful^{[citation needed]},  and it shows^{[citation needed]}.    

Fixed, please provide sources for your assumptions and try to actually reply to my arguments if you quote them.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Guest

[GoldForest]

31 minutes ago, ronson49 said:

Also Both Unity and Java are the same only in that they are managed languages and will simply never be as performant at their non managed counterparts.    When I keep saying my grandmother,  I mean it is a laughable example of managed code is what I am getting at.   I expect more from a publisher worth several billion dollars and I feel I should be getting support from the community on that

Because you are in a very small minority. "Unity sucks because it sucks." Is what you've been saying. You've shown no evidence to support your claims. 

Everyone and their dog is telling you that Unity doesn't suck, that it's the developers fault for poor performance. And when we ask you for sources, you ignore the request. Honor the request, show tangiable evidence that Unity is the problem, and not the game devs, and we'll start supporting your opinion more as fact. But until then, you will get little support from the community. 

Also, My Friend Pedro is not 2D. It's a 3D side scroller. 

Edited October 19, 2019 by GoldForest

[dave1904]

sometimes I wonder why you all waste your energy with topics like this. I know its not right for threads to be simply deleted but a thread that has no constructive criticism about why Unity is bad for KSP should be just deleted or ignored. I don't know if its the right engine or not. I just read the posts from modders here on the forums and if they think unity is fine I choose to believe someone that knows what they are talking about over someone with no idea. I can tell you have no idea because someone with knowledge about the subject will tell me why something is a bad or not. 

[ronson49]

23 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

sometimes I wonder why you all waste your energy with topics like this. I know its not right for threads to be simply deleted but a thread that has no constructive criticism about why Unity is bad for KSP should be just deleted or ignored. I don't know if its the right engine or not. I just read the posts from modders here on the forums and if they think unity is fine I choose to believe someone that knows what they are talking about over someone with no idea. I can tell you have no idea because someone with knowledge about the subject will tell me why something is a bad or not. 

I have asked this to be deleted and it hasn't happened.


I didn't start this thread,  the Mods started it for me.    I simply said that Unity destroyed KSP.   I loved the vast and epic reach the game had, but the technology choice let it down.

I certainly won't be buying KSP2 because of Unity.   So maybe KSP3 will use a bit more of a grown up toolset.