4 ms·
I mean it's a relatively young open source project. It took Blender 25 years to get where it is now and it still has some major flaws compared to the paid compe
by throw_m239339 4y ago
I mean it's a relatively young open source project. It took Blender 25 years to get where it is now and it still has some major flaws compared to the paid competition, and will need extensive rewrites if it wants to move forward because right now the C part is a horrible mess.
Godot isn't going to compete against Unity or Unreal anytime soon. Godot's team doesn't have billions at their disposal like Epic or Unity.
edit: Blender also had major advantage aside from begin free, it could do physics and volumetrics for free when the commercial competition required yet another paid plugin just for that stuff, so why pay when the free solution does more than the competition? and let's not even go into requiring separate paid rendering engines for the renders to look decent...
- fckgnad 4y agoI think though that there's an apex all game engines reach where technological progression just slows down even when you have millions of developer dollars to throw at it. It's the reason why something like blender can catch up with state of the art commercial offerings and I think Godot could go through the same thing.
- fbdab103 4y agoIsn't that true of all software? At some point, things should be able to be fully feature complete. Maybe update the UI toolkit every five years to appear fashionable. In practice, the industry loves to replace fully working projects rather than tweak existing, so we will never get to such a state of nirvana.
- fckgnad 4y agoCan't prove if it's true of all software. But examples of categories of this type seem to exist. Linux and blender are two examples. The software never gets to total nirvana. What happens is it gets to a state of nearly nirvana such that changes are tiny.