3 ms·

Looks really cool! Unfortunately it looks like there is only a Windows version available to play around with. If this could run on Linux and have support for

by ktm5j 7y ago

Looks really cool! Unfortunately it looks like there is only a Windows version available to play around with. If this could run on Linux and have support for running arbitrary x11 apps then it would be very interesting! I don't have a lot of personal knowledge about Unity3d, but I do hope the creator puts this up on github or something. I'd love to take a closer look.

Pulcinella 7y ago
As someone who has never used Unity, knowing it can be used for cross platform development, I would like to know how difficult it is to target as many platforms as possible. Let’s say I made a pretty standard 2D indie platformer. Not particularly graphically intensive. Is it possible to just check the box for each platform you would like and it works pretty well, or is there a lot of conversion work?
- _bxg1 7y ago
  It is roughly that simple. You'll have to do OS-specific stuff for things like metadata, icons, any alternate control methods (mouse/keyboard vs touch), etc, but in my limited trials I've never had to do any platform-specific stuff that wasn't 100% justified. This is one of Unity's most important and valuable features, IMO.
cycloptic 7y ago
I am not sure if there is prior art for X11 proper, but there is at least one Wayland compositor built on top of the Godot engine that can run X programs through XWayland: https://github.com/SimulaVR/Simula https://github.com/SimulaVR/Simula And yes, with a bit of hacking you can do silly things like put physics on the windows and shoot holes in them. It won't get you close to what is in that Unity demo though. That would require re-designing all the apps. In my experience it's a massive pain in the ass to get eye-candy like that working correctly for arbitrary UIs and it's not worth the effort for most apps.
jayd16 7y ago
It's probably not hard to get it running on Linux but it's not a shell. It's just a toy with built in 'apps.'. Running arbitrary apps rendered to a texture in this app and forwarding user input back to apps is probably out of scope.
- ktm5j 7y ago
  > but it's not a shell. It's just a toy with built in 'apps.' Yes that's what I figured. For sure not what it's designed to do as of yet, but if that gap could be bridged in a practical way then this seems like a good head start.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by ktm5j 7y ago

Pulcinella 7y ago

As someone who has never used Unity, knowing it can be used for cross platform development, I would like to know how difficult it is to target as many platforms as possible. Let’s say I made a pretty standard 2D indie platformer. Not particularly graphically intensive. Is it possible to just check the box for each platform you would like and it works pretty well, or is there a lot of conversion work?

_bxg1 7y ago
It is roughly that simple. You'll have to do OS-specific stuff for things like metadata, icons, any alternate control methods (mouse/keyboard vs touch), etc, but in my limited trials I've never had to do any platform-specific stuff that wasn't 100% justified. This is one of Unity's most important and valuable features, IMO.

cycloptic 7y ago

I am not sure if there is prior art for X11 proper, but there is at least one Wayland compositor built on top of the Godot engine that can run X programs through XWayland: https://github.com/SimulaVR/Simula https://github.com/SimulaVR/Simula And yes, with a bit of hacking you can do silly things like put physics on the windows and shoot holes in them. It won't get you close to what is in that Unity demo though. That would require re-designing all the apps. In my experience it's a massive pain in the ass to get eye-candy like that working correctly for arbitrary UIs and it's not worth the effort for most apps.

jayd16 7y ago

It's probably not hard to get it running on Linux but it's not a shell. It's just a toy with built in 'apps.'. Running arbitrary apps rendered to a texture in this app and forwarding user input back to apps is probably out of scope.

ktm5j 7y ago
> but it's not a shell. It's just a toy with built in 'apps.' Yes that's what I figured. For sure not what it's designed to do as of yet, but if that gap could be bridged in a practical way then this seems like a good head start.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]