3 ms·

I can think of a few others, though I did move from Unity to Godot and never looked back so clearly they're not deal breakers (for me): - Doesn't handle 3D as

I can think of a few others, though I did move from Unity to Godot and never looked back so clearly they're not deal breakers (for me): - Doesn't handle 3D as well. Mostly optimisation stuff, though also things like procedural sky/sun is weaker I find with Godot than Unity. Though almost all of that are looking to change with Godot 4. - As you mention asset store, but also just the size of the community. Can't really blame Godot for this though, their documentation is certainly very good which is about as much as they can do. - GDScript is a great language, but I'm not a big fan of using engine-specific languages, rather than a generic one like C#. Of course it has its advantages, but it means you also miss out on whatever package manager comes with the language. Bindings remedy this, but they're not a simple out-the-box experience. - Similar to above, GDScript and a lot of areas of the engine feel more strongly orientated towards fast and easy dev time rather than game performance. Its a personal choice so I can't complain much, and again bindings can help, but out the box GDScript of course isnt as fast as C# with ECS. Thats about all I can think of, and as I say I use, and overall love, Godot so despite my complaints theres still more going for it than against it (for me)

giancarlostoro 4y ago
> but it means you also miss out on whatever package manager comes with the language. I didn't even consider that! Good call out! > Similar to above, GDScript and a lot of areas of the engine feel more strongly orientated towards fast and easy dev time rather than game performance. Correct me if I'm wrong or way off, but isn't GDNative (or whatever it might be called now) basically for those moments where you need a little more beef, but don't want to rebuild the entire engine, so you bring in Rust or D or any other language you know and love and bridge it in through GDNative?
- bodge5000 4y ago
  Yeh so the bindings with GDNative do absolutely help performance, and I imagine Rust with Godot would be even faster than Unity with C# (You can also use GDNative to add ECS as well I believe), but out the box, and therefore likely the direction Godot is heading in, seems to favour workflow above performance. That being said, it could be a "grass is greener" issue. There are plenty of engines that offer better performance but a worse workflow, Unity for one, that I'm not using and instead using Godot, and I guess bindings are as close as reasonably feasible to getting the best of both worlds, so I cant complain much.

giancarlostoro 4y ago

> but it means you also miss out on whatever package manager comes with the language. I didn't even consider that! Good call out! > Similar to above, GDScript and a lot of areas of the engine feel more strongly orientated towards fast and easy dev time rather than game performance. Correct me if I'm wrong or way off, but isn't GDNative (or whatever it might be called now) basically for those moments where you need a little more beef, but don't want to rebuild the entire engine, so you bring in Rust or D or any other language you know and love and bridge it in through GDNative?

bodge5000 4y ago
Yeh so the bindings with GDNative do absolutely help performance, and I imagine Rust with Godot would be even faster than Unity with C# (You can also use GDNative to add ECS as well I believe), but out the box, and therefore likely the direction Godot is heading in, seems to favour workflow above performance. That being said, it could be a "grass is greener" issue. There are plenty of engines that offer better performance but a worse workflow, Unity for one, that I'm not using and instead using Godot, and I guess bindings are as close as reasonably feasible to getting the best of both worlds, so I cant complain much.