4 ms·

Nope. Not a joke. We’re faster too: https://youtu.be/UuY7CWdvyWM https://youtu.be/UuY7CWdvyWM

TylerE 5y ago
Press F to doubt. On some tiny synthetic benchmark maybe. Come back when your engine can handle something even 1% as complex, as say, Dyson Sphere Program.
- phaedryx 5y ago
  I suspect that DragonRuby is faster as a 2D game engine and doesn't make sense for a complex 3D game.
  - TylerE 5y ago
    I don't believe that either. Unity works just fine for Cuphead, which is a pretty graphically intense game. Plenty of other graphical complicated 2d games too.
    - phaedryx 5y ago
      I think you're moving the goalposts. Of course Unity can work "just fine" for things like Cuphead. However, DragonRuby is an mRuby wrapper around SDL by the guy who wrote SDL vs. a 3D engine that was reworked into a 2D engine? Surely Unity has more overhead and DragonRuby can make more optimizations.
      - TylerE 5y ago
        GP made a blanket "We're faster" claim. I'm the one moving the goalposts?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
minitech 5y ago
Looks like the Ruby code in https://gist.github.com/amirrajan/e26fc9de3c20e7c395f6809a9946d1b9 https://gist.github.com/amirrajan/e26fc9de3c20e7c395f6809a99... does a fixed update, so maybe FixedUpdate with Unity would be a better comparison?
- tomlin 5y ago
  Agree. The comparison only works if you don't dig, or not ask questions.
MrLeap 5y ago
Ehh, I could put together a thing that could display several million dots at 60 fps in unity in a few minutes. (a recent example of some dots I moved) https://twitter.com/LeapJosh/status/1378056437105049603 https://twitter.com/LeapJosh/status/1378056437105049603 Not saying DragonRuby isn't the bees knees, I've never used it but appreciate alternatives existing. Despite that, sprites are the wrong facility for drawing that many dots in unity.
- amirrajan 5y ago
  Can you associate a PhysicsBody2D with each one of these?
  - MrLeap 5y ago
    AFAIK there's GPU analogs for everything physicsBody2d's can do, but not directly. Per particle gravity and forces are batteries included. If you want GPU particles that can collide with other particles there's Fluvio, it's free. Here's 65k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwzfr9ppvj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwzfr9ppvj4
    - amirrajan 5y ago
      From an apples to apples standpoint. What you're seeing in the video is DragonRuby Entities vs Unity GameObjects (with full functionality). They look like particles yes, but the intent was to show the creation of fully featured constructs (not a demonstration of "fire and forget" particles).
jbluepolarbear 5y ago
Your logic isn’t equivalent: in your Ruby example you precalulate the speed for each axis and only add the value to x and y each frame. In the Unity example you do the inefficient “Speed * new Vector3(1,1,0) * Time.DeltaTime” every frame. If you moved that calculation to the start and then add in fixed update they would be equivalent logic”. That is probably the difference you notice.
highowl 5y ago
Sorry, but if an engine developer says that Unity is just a bad engine and your engine is faster, you are just harming yourself and your work, since this is silly. Unity employed Mike Acton a few years ago, who is now lading their transformation to a data oriented backend. They are switching everything out for a pretty well thought out Entity-Component-System (not the old Component stuff you had in unity, but a way of saving your game data in arrays of the same type for performance, instead of as objects with data that should not be together in memory). I have not kept up in the last year, but already a year ago this was showing many promising results, being able to simulate enormous amounts of agents in games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9_7QYaeNjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9_7QYaeNjc Unreal and Godot have their good sides (Unreal being great for non-coders and/or if you want to an FPS, Godot being able to bind to many languages in the backend and being open source). But none of them is doing the same huge transformations in the backend as unity.
tomlin 5y ago
So this YT video of 3:47 is going to prove that Ruby is faster and better than Unity? This is like comparing BASIC and C, but making sure BASIC is on a quad-core, and C on a 386 to make the point work.

Press F to doubt. On some tiny synthetic benchmark maybe. Come back when your engine can handle something even 1% as complex, as say, Dyson Sphere Program.

phaedryx 5y ago
I suspect that DragonRuby is faster as a 2D game engine and doesn't make sense for a complex 3D game.
- TylerE 5y ago
  I don't believe that either. Unity works just fine for Cuphead, which is a pretty graphically intense game. Plenty of other graphical complicated 2d games too.
  - phaedryx 5y ago
    I think you're moving the goalposts. Of course Unity can work "just fine" for things like Cuphead. However, DragonRuby is an mRuby wrapper around SDL by the guy who wrote SDL vs. a 3D engine that was reworked into a 2D engine? Surely Unity has more overhead and DragonRuby can make more optimizations.
    - TylerE 5y ago
      GP made a blanket "We're faster" claim. I'm the one moving the goalposts?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

minitech 5y ago

Looks like the Ruby code in https://gist.github.com/amirrajan/e26fc9de3c20e7c395f6809a9946d1b9 https://gist.github.com/amirrajan/e26fc9de3c20e7c395f6809a99... does a fixed update, so maybe FixedUpdate with Unity would be a better comparison?

tomlin 5y ago
Agree. The comparison only works if you don't dig, or not ask questions.

MrLeap 5y ago

Ehh, I could put together a thing that could display several million dots at 60 fps in unity in a few minutes. (a recent example of some dots I moved) https://twitter.com/LeapJosh/status/1378056437105049603 https://twitter.com/LeapJosh/status/1378056437105049603 Not saying DragonRuby isn't the bees knees, I've never used it but appreciate alternatives existing. Despite that, sprites are the wrong facility for drawing that many dots in unity.

amirrajan 5y ago
Can you associate a PhysicsBody2D with each one of these?
- MrLeap 5y ago
  AFAIK there's GPU analogs for everything physicsBody2d's can do, but not directly. Per particle gravity and forces are batteries included. If you want GPU particles that can collide with other particles there's Fluvio, it's free. Here's 65k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwzfr9ppvj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwzfr9ppvj4
  - amirrajan 5y ago
    From an apples to apples standpoint. What you're seeing in the video is DragonRuby Entities vs Unity GameObjects (with full functionality). They look like particles yes, but the intent was to show the creation of fully featured constructs (not a demonstration of "fire and forget" particles).

jbluepolarbear 5y ago

Your logic isn’t equivalent: in your Ruby example you precalulate the speed for each axis and only add the value to x and y each frame. In the Unity example you do the inefficient “Speed * new Vector3(1,1,0) * Time.DeltaTime” every frame. If you moved that calculation to the start and then add in fixed update they would be equivalent logic”. That is probably the difference you notice.

highowl 5y ago

Sorry, but if an engine developer says that Unity is just a bad engine and your engine is faster, you are just harming yourself and your work, since this is silly. Unity employed Mike Acton a few years ago, who is now lading their transformation to a data oriented backend. They are switching everything out for a pretty well thought out Entity-Component-System (not the old Component stuff you had in unity, but a way of saving your game data in arrays of the same type for performance, instead of as objects with data that should not be together in memory). I have not kept up in the last year, but already a year ago this was showing many promising results, being able to simulate enormous amounts of agents in games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9_7QYaeNjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9_7QYaeNjc Unreal and Godot have their good sides (Unreal being great for non-coders and/or if you want to an FPS, Godot being able to bind to many languages in the backend and being open source). But none of them is doing the same huge transformations in the backend as unity.

tomlin 5y ago

So this YT video of 3:47 is going to prove that Ruby is faster and better than Unity? This is like comparing BASIC and C, but making sure BASIC is on a quad-core, and C on a 386 to make the point work.