Unity 5 [Is now available]

[NoMrBond]

So after Polygon jumped the gun and got reigned back in earlier, VentureBeat had a chat with David Helgason the CEO of Unity Technologies regarding Unity 5 which is opening for pre-order soon

Sounds promising

TL;DR

64-bit processing

Lighting system from Geomerics [ARM Holdings].

Nvidia PhysX 3.3

Overhauled audio system with a new audio mixer

Physically-based shaders

Real-time lightmap previews using Imagination Technologies’ PowerVR Ray Tracing technology

Unified shader architecture

[Edit] Joystiq article (kinda sparse)

[Edit2] Announcement of 5 officially up on the Unity site

in addition to list above;

Easier and incremental building of Asset Bundles

Loading optimizations

Mecanim StateMachine Behaviours

NavMesh improvements

New 2D physics effectors

New multithreaded job scheduler

SpeedTree Integration

[Edit3] Unity 5 Feature Preview

-------------------------------------------------

Unity 5 is now out/available

Edited March 3, 2015 by NoMrBond

[John FX]

Interesting. 64Bit would be nice.

[DrDam]

Nothing about a multi-threaded physics calculations ?

[vexx32]

Shouldn't be any need, really. It's using PhysX 3.3, which should offload physics calculations largely to the graphics card where possible. It'll speed things up immensely... but... it won't do a thing for AMD users like myself, who don't have a PhysX-capable graphics card. It's a shame.

[NoMrBond]

Nothing about a multi-threaded physics calculations ?

PhysX 3.3 supports multiple threads (I'm not sure if that suggests overall thread-safing though)

This seems like a significant step up from the PhysX 2.8.x branch used in the Unity 4.x series

Shouldn't be any need, really. It's using PhysX 3.3, which should offload physics calculations largely to the graphics card where possible. It'll speed things up immensely... but... it won't do a thing for AMD users like myself, who don't have a PhysX-capable graphics card. It's a shame.

The CPU branch of PhysX 3.3 is significantly faster than the CPU branch of PhysX 2.8.x some acceleration is available via DirectCompute which should be vendor agnostic (If Unity even uses anything except the CPU branch)

Edited March 18, 2014 by NoMrBond

[kiwiak]

So, thanks to new PhysX we will possibly get massive performance boost?

[DonLorenzo]

This is an engine that's up for pre-order. Even if squad makes the decision now to adopt, it will be a while before it materializes into a finished product I'd imagine

[p331083]

Shouldn't be any need, really. It's using PhysX 3.3, which should offload physics calculations largely to the graphics card where possible. It'll speed things up immensely... but... it won't do a thing for AMD users like myself, who don't have a PhysX-capable graphics card. It's a shame.

Uhh 64bit is VERY much needed for KSP to deal with the memory problem.

[*Aqua*]

When will Unity 5 come out?

[kiwiak]

Shouldn't be any need, really. It's using PhysX 3.3, which should offload physics calculations largely to the graphics card where possible. It'll speed things up immensely... but... it won't do a thing for AMD users like myself, who don't have a PhysX-capable graphics card. It's a shame.

So you are saying that because you wont benefit rom such update, no one shoudl?

[NoMrBond]

Uhh 64bit is VERY much needed for KSP to deal with the memory problem.

64-bit and PhysX 3.3 are not really related in that way, either could be implemented completely independent of the other

Each should help alleviate their respective limitations though, namely addressable memory and physics throughput

When will Unity 5 come out?

The interview says 'a couple of months' for release timeframe

Edited March 18, 2014 by NoMrBond

[Kasuha]

Current Unity has 64-bit support too, the only little problem is that it is unstable on Windows. And I am not entirely convinced it will be rewritten from scratch in Unity 5.

[vexx32]

Uhh 64bit is VERY much needed for KSP to deal with the memory problem.

Not really. It'll alleviate the problem somewhat, give those of us who have a 64-bit OS a bit of extra headroom where RAM usage is concerned. There are more complete solutions which could perhaps be implemented, but that's probably something that may be difficult to make without having to re-code it six times along the long development process of KSP. That aside, I wasn't even referring to 64-bit whatsoever. I was talking to the fellow who mentioned something about PhysX not being multithreaded... we'd need to check up on PhysX 3.3's own documentation to ascertain whether that is or is not the case, though.

So you are saying that because you wont benefit rom such update, no one shoudl?

Putting words in someone else's mouth is a bit silly. No, I never said that. I said it's a shame because there are perfectly workable cross-platform and non-vendor-specific alternatives to PhysX that could be used in Unity instead. Sure, it helps some of us in the meantime, but I always favour the improvements which make things better for everyone, instead of just a portion of users.

(also, thread has been moved. Many thanks, Kasper!)

Edited March 18, 2014 by vexx32

[superm18]

Hi all,

I'm no coder or gamedev. but check this out: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/03/18/unity-5-features/

What could this do to KSP? 64 bit on other than Linux?

Any idea's?

Thanks in advance

[marach]

Hi all,

I'm no coder or gamedev. but check this out: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/03/18/unity-5-features/

What could this do to KSP? 64 bit on other than Linux?

Any idea's?

Thanks in advance

oh god PhysX still? *head desk*

Other than that looks like they've fixed a fair amount of dev complaints and requests...

[DMagic]

There's a big difference between PhysX 3 and the horrendously old, custom version of PhysX 2 they've been using before. Who knows if it will make a difference for KSP or if it will require a major overhaul, but it's still a promising feature.

[henryrasia]

64 bit! YES!

Anyway, marach, what is the issue with physX? I have no idea about what id does or how it works but what are better alternatives?

[Guest]

Well, when it is out, Squad should definitely make a move to this. Also, a more realistic lighting system would be very welcome in KSP. The community seems to favor high-detail, realistic-looking parts, which can't quite be seen in their full glory with the current cartoonish lighting. KSP itself seems to be moving toward a more realistic aesthetic (though still lacks consistency somewhat), so that would probably go well with the new parts.

[Rowsdower]

Keep in mind that the status of 64 bit KSP remains the same. No plans until further notice. However, this announcement is wonderful news!

[condraj2]

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes!

[Raven.]

Doesn't necessarily mean we will see this any time soon with KSP. Engine upgrades are big headaches for developers, and KSP will be no different. I do not expect a Unity 5 based KSP until at least Unity 5 has been released for a year.

[6.forty]

oh god PhysX still? *head desk*

At least it's not Havok.

[Linear]

Please keep in mind physx can and does run on a CPU, too. "Advanced Physx" is the type only available to nVidia users.

So, it is safe to assume (as KSP does use physx) that a newer physx version will mean, hopefully, that it is more efficient, therefore lowering the CPU headroom required.

[marach]

64 bit! YES!

Anyway, marach, what is the issue with physX? I have no idea about what id does or how it works but what are better alternatives?

I just prefer my physics engines open and you know able to work on any GPU for acceleration.

[michaelphoenix22]

I read on Arstechnica that one of the big features will be a beta to allow more games to play in browsers.... Imagine KSP in a browser window...