Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / MY FPSCx10 - UNITY 3D 2.5 RANT

Author
Message
John Phoenix
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Feb 2009
Location:
Posted: 22nd May 2009 11:30
I'm posting this here because I fear posting it anyplace up there may be off topic and offend someone. I don't expect anyone to reply to this. This is just my personal feelings about a few issues.


How many of you have bought a game that only runs on Direct X 10 and showcases all or most of the DX10 features. I'll bet not many of you because there are not many of those games out there yet.

I feel the reason why TGC decided to do the migration is they realized they jumped the gun on FPSCX10. They know XP is still the gaming platform of choice for most users. They know it will be years before there are enough Direct X 10 games and enough people using higher end more expensive video cards to make FSPCx10 more attractive for Indie gamers and game developers.

I am sure TGC is kicking themselves for not making a better FPSC that is full cross platform between XP and Vista first. You may wonder if this is even possible because XP uses DX9 and Vista uses DX10 . Yes it is possible. Unity 3D 2.5 for windows, is doing it and their stuff looks Great, leaps beyond anything I have seen FPSCx10 do up to this point. I am sure to make this cross platform work Unity doesn't have any special DirectX-10 features that would prevent this. But of course you get what you pay for.. their Indie version is 199.00 and their Pro version is 1,499.00. The demos I compared to FPSCx10 demos are made with the Indie version.

If the engine is good enough you won't need any of the Direct X10 special features anyway. Everyone knows that Crysys looks awesome in Direct X 9. Of course its a very expensive engine but for the money they spent developing the engine do you think they are just gonna abandon it just because DX10 comes along? I bet not. I am sure we haven't seen the end of the crytek2 engine. Unity doesn't make games exactly like the crytek engine but comes a lot closer than does FPSCx10 . My point is if TGC focused more on the improvements of FPSC First and marketed that as FSPC2 perhaps instead of going hog wild with the direct x 10 functions there would be a lot more happy people in this forum and a lot less people who feel they may have gotten cheated purchasing a product that don't deliver what they thought they were getting. ( yeah I have read a lot of your posts about that subject)

I'm not saying FPSCX10 is garbage either. FPSC has some features I like that Unity does not have like the prefab drag n drop snap to grid features for buildings building parts objects etc.. In Unity you have a higher learning curve and cannot just throw together a level as easily.

On the other hand, as well as being cross platform Unity does not have a size limitation for their grid area or a cap on the amount of levels you can have in a game.

It is fair to say that you still get a good deal with FPSCx10 for what you pay for it. Good game engines can run into the thousands to tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you would still most times have to use external tools to create your content. For a one man show FPSCx10 takes care of all of that. My personal dream FPS creation tool for beginning Indie game developers would be a system with the drag n drop, snap to grid level design of FPSC coupled with the power and flexibility of Unity. I know that will never happen just food for thought.

John Phoenix
Toasty Fresh
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: In my office, making poly-eating models.
Posted: 22nd May 2009 14:36
Obviously. The X9 FPSC is alright though.

But this should have been posted in the FPSC boards.

"You are not smart! You are very un-smart!"
sprite
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location:
Posted: 22nd May 2009 21:41 Edited at: 22nd May 2009 21:47
FPSCx10 was designed and in developed way before vista's problems where known. TGC don't have an old woman with crystal ball. At the time Microsoft promised the moon with dx10.

Most games take 1 to 2+ years to make so the pros would finish there current game in DX9 then moved DX10. Vista was shown to be lacking in sells so they stayed with DX9 but TGC had invested in FPSCx10 and released the product.

Personally it’s aimed at a target market of the amateurs that don't want much programming but want to make something. However it has limits but does the job very well.

Unity is aimed at the indie market it has more programming and costs more. However the indie version has some major limits added to it and the full version has a higher price. You can get FPSCx10 21.5 times for one of unity’s full version but with a higher price comes better stuff.

Just like the unreal engine costs many times that of unity and has much better stuff again. The better the engine the higher the price. Comparing the two is becomes a bad argument.

A much better way of working is to ask three questions.
1. What I need to do X game.
2. What level I'm at?
3. What’s my price range?

A beginner with a low budget and little programming knowledge would be better served by FPSCx10. Someone with a more knowledge and some money would be better off with unity.

Quote: "and a lot less people who feel they may have gotten cheated purchasing a product that don't deliver what they thought they were getting"


TGC have not cheated in any way. It makes a first person shooter game it’s the person’s fault for expecting that it would be as good as or better than unreal engine. Let’s see $750000 vs $70 that’s 10714 copies of FPSCx10 to one unreal. That like expecting kid walking is as good as or better than a F1 car in a race. It’s deluded to think the kid would win.

I'll add something later on.
John Phoenix
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Feb 2009
Location:
Posted: 22nd May 2009 23:03
Er.. Hey about that quote of mine above.. it's not FPSCx10 Vs Unreal or any other engine I was talking about...... its a lot of folks feel they didn't get the functionality they were promised when they purchased FPSCx10. .. a lot of features unfinished, not implemented fully, or just right out missing from the tool.

Read it in that context to understand what i'm saying. There are numerous post on this.. I read a lot.

I don't think TGC did this deliberately but a lot of folks feel slighted just the same. TGC is working on getting these folks appeased and the tool up to par as far as promised features are concerned.

John Phoenix
sprite
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location:
Posted: 23rd May 2009 00:20 Edited at: 23rd May 2009 00:48
Quote: "If the engine is good enough you won't need any of the Direct X10 special features anyway. Everyone knows that Crysys looks awesome in Direct X 9. Of course its a very expensive engine but for the money they spent developing the engine do you think they are just gonna abandon it just because DX10 comes along? I bet not. I am sure we haven't seen the end of the crytek2 engine. Unity doesn't make games exactly like the crytek engine but comes a lot closer than does FPSCx10 . My point is if TGC focused more on the improvements of FPSC First and marketed that as FSPC2 perhaps instead of going hog wild with the direct x 10 functions there would be a lot more happy people in this forum and a lot less people who feel they may have gotten cheated purchasing a product that don't deliver what they thought they were getting. ( yeah I have read a lot of your posts about that subject)"


Sorry John Phoenix but I see nothing about missing functionality here. Just unity is closer to the crytek engine why isn't FPSCx10.

As for the context try harder to say what you mean. If functionality is your problem then please rant about that not something else and expect us to know what you mean. Most people on the forum are not telepaths.

The functions missing may still be added they are usally not for a reason like there not finished or the TGC where not happy with them. I did note this little thread called betas which functions are being added and tested. You may have missed it so a link for you. http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=143118&b=33. So the product is being improved some what. Like most other software inculding unreal, crytek, unity, any other active software its being updated and patched.

Its going to take time some things may take a week to fix but other could take months. Take a look at zbrush for bad patch times we are still almost 1.5 years on waiting for that fabled patch. That patch is so late they made zbrush version 4.

I'll add something later on.
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 23rd May 2009 01:06
The title is 'My FPSCx10 - UNITY 3D 2.5 RANT', you essentially compared the two and held CryEngine 2 as your ideal...of course being very expensive, yet far superior.


Unfortunately it is not an ideal world and comparing FPSCX10 and Unity3D isn't great either because Unity3D I am sure has a much better budget and they probably have a larger team than TGC and probably had better investments to start with, particularly as they originally developed for MacOS users giving them a less competitive market anyway. And Unity3D is aimed at a different kind of audience as said. Unity3D over the years has developed to be an awesome engine.

And I think TGC have done remarkably well in trying to get some decent products out there - perhaps not as refined as Unity3D but what do you expect for 'affordable, yet achievable'. When you think of companies with much larger budgets and larger teams who don't meet their promises or their deadlines that I'm sure they can be given a break here - they tried to get FPSCX10 out and because they did people are able to make some good looking games, as for the features that were promised, at least they're on the way. It beats companies like EA and BioWare; I think in the run up people were promised more from Spore, but they released a dumbed down version instead, Bioware promised PC gamers that Mass Effect would be patched so that the many people who couldn't actually play it could play it, their first patch perhaps added more problems than solved and PC gamers are still waiting for that working patch and the best info we've got is on their forums is, "The next patch will be availible soon".

I can understand the frustration with a product when it doesn't work (is that a problem with FPSCX10?), but when it comes to features for price, I think FPSXX10 is good value for money - though perhaps TGC's pre-emptive descision to develop for Vista before Vista was released was perhaps hastey but lets be honest the market will appear for DX10 games, companies aren't developing for Windows 98 and DirectX 8 anymore and XP will become old and the industry would have moved on into Windows Vista and Windows 7.

bond1
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2005
Location:
Posted: 23rd May 2009 08:51 Edited at: 23rd May 2009 08:53
Quote: "At the time Microsoft promised the moon with dx10."


Ain't that the truth.

I made a thread a while ago speculating that dx10 was a failure for Microsoft, and I got somewhat lambasted for it, with people saying "it just takes time". Well here it is three years later after Vista's launch, still virtually no dx10 games that show any advantage over dx9, visually or performance wise.

Even Autodesk it seems is dissing dx10, 3ds Max still uses dx9. So they will probably eventually go straight to dx11 when Windows 7 hits the streets.

----------------------------------------
"bond1 - You see this name, you think dirty."
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 23rd May 2009 09:30
What's promised with DX11? I imagine the DX10 failed because people were still using XP, thus game companies use DX9, so no big companies focusing all of their time onto a complete DX10 engine, I kind of expected DX10 to pick up after XP becomes a thing of the past. I think making it Vista only was a foolish move of course - I wonder if it would be different if DX10 was XP compatible?

bond1
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2005
Location:
Posted: 23rd May 2009 09:43
Quote: "What's promised with DX11?"


No big marquee features from what I've read, just some optimizations with multi-threading and stuff like that. And will be backwards compatible with dx10.

----------------------------------------
"bond1 - You see this name, you think dirty."
Roxas
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Nov 2005
Location: http://forum.thegamecreators.com
Posted: 23rd May 2009 15:39
DX10 just has Geometry shaders, nothing else. And they are slow still because GPU shader processor isn't yet so snappy fast. So overall DX9 can do same as DX10 and yet faster.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 23rd May 2009 20:44
I've watched DX9/DX10 comparison videos and have only seen tests only differ by about 1fps and I find myself playing more games with DX10 as DX10 does make a slight difference, though small it is no slower than DX9 for me.

Todd Riggins
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2004
Location: Texas, USA
Posted: 23rd May 2009 21:39 Edited at: 23rd May 2009 22:45
Quote: "DX10 just has Geometry shaders, nothing else"

??

----------------------------------------------
DX10 has:
* The ability to process entire primitives in the new geometry-shader stage.
The ability to output pipeline-generated vertex data to memory using the stream-output stage.
Organization of pipeline state into 5 immutable state objects, enabling fast configuration of the pipeline.
Organization of shader constants into constant buffers, minimizing bandwidth overhead for supplying shader-constant data.
The ability to perform per-primitive material swapping and setup using a geometry shader.
New resource types (including texture arrays that can be indexed from shaders) and resource formats.
Increased generalization of resource access using a view.
Legacy hardware capability bits (caps) have been removed in favor of a rich set of guaranteed functionality, which targets Direct3D 10-class hardware (minimum).
Layered Runtime - The Direct3D 10 API is constructed with layers, starting with the basic functionality at the core and building optional and developer-assist functionality (debug, etc.) in outer layers.
Full HLSL integration - All Direct3D 10 shaders are written in HLSL and implemented with the common-shader core.
An increase in the number of render targets, textures, and samplers. There is also no shader length limit.
Integer and bitwise shader operations.
Readback of a depth/stencil surface or a multisampled resource, once it is no longer bound as a render target.
Multisampled alpha-to-coverage support.
---------------------------------------------

The removing of the legacy hardware caps alone is a blessing in itself. Also like the idea of dropping the fixed function vertex pipeline for full on HLSL integration. I would luv to see what would happen by letting Green Gandalf loose on this stuff!

Quote: "I wonder if it would be different if DX10 was XP compatible?"


Ofcoarse, obviously DirectX programming would have had an easier transition to DX10 programming from DX9 programming as it was for DX8 -> DX9 and DX7 -> DX8, etc... ie: people still like XP over Vista and will use it for years to come. So, there isnt any logical sense, IMHO, to not have DX10 supported on XP. Heck, the first version of DX10 was proven to be able to work on XP... Microsoft made sure that wouldn't happen again. I agree, making DX10 to work on Vista OS's and up was foolish. I hate that very fact about it. But, with the inclusion of geometry shader tech itself, I am still very interested in programming for it( hadn't yet ).

DX11, well, I would like to have the opportunity to catch up and see what possibilities I can do with DX10 on both vista and windows 7 before I even think about DX11( ofcoarse, that is just what I say for now... )...

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

March 2009 Win7/DX11 Tech Preview:


-----------------------------------------
November 2008 DX11 Tech Preview:


-----

Edit: Put that info in the code blocks to shorten the post... format is harder to read... ah well...

Use Dark GDK with the latest DirectX SDK!
C2Q2.66ghz, 8gb RAM, Geforce 9800 GX2, Vista 64-bit

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2025-06-02 09:54:20
Your offset time is: 2025-06-02 09:54:20