6 ms·

Seems like a cool project. I don't understand why they're calling out the FPS of an empty scene as a useful number compared to Unity though. Ignoring that this

Seems like a cool project. I don't understand why they're calling out the FPS of an empty scene as a useful number compared to Unity though. Ignoring that this engine will have a fraction of the features of Unity (the likely reason for the FPS number in the first place), it's just a useless benchmark because it's an empty scene. `while (true) {}` will get you the same thing. I'd wish they'd highlight how the engine helps you make a game rather than arbitrary performance numbers on microbenchmarks that don't generalize to a real game project. You can absolutely be faster than Unity, but "9 times faster than Unity out of the box" is not a number people should take seriously without the context of where the number comes from. I wish them well though. I'm always interested to see more work in implementing engines in GC languages. I'm personally quite interested to see what can be done in modern GC languages like Go or (modern) C# which provide lots of tools to limit GC pressure. Being able to write C-like code where needed in an otherwise managed runtime is a really powerful tool that can provide a best-of-both-worlds environment.

james2doyle 10mo ago
Still not "9 times faster", and still seems disingenuous, but here is one comparison that is at least given with some more context: https://x.com/ShieldCrush/status/1943516032674537958 https://x.com/ShieldCrush/status/1943516032674537958
- ahZOTERESET 10mo ago
  Ppth(//news.ycombinator.com/-+).us
johnnyanmac 10mo ago
I see it as overhead for the base engine. Though yes, even unity has some post processing built in that would affect performance. But, I will always correct the cardinal sin of "using FPS to measure performance". Especially for an empty scene, this is pretty much snake oil. 200 fps is 5 milliseconds 1800 fps is a little pver half a millisecond. Giving back 4.5 milliseconds doesn't means much if any sense of real work will add it back.
eek2121 10mo ago
Agreed. Unity has a ton of features that even Godot lacks. (Unreal also has a ton of features they all lack). I know a lot of different languages and frameworks, from C/C++ up, so I say this: The language is never the issue. Language is just syntax. ease of use is everything. I've been wanting to make a game for a long time. I toyed with OpenGL/DirectX at multiple points since the 90s, even going so far as to creating a really cool tech demo/engine that scales with CPU core count. However, those days are in the past. I really want to focus on not writing a ton of graphics and sound code. I really want to focus on the game logic and the game itself. The above is one of the reasons I'm finding it hard to get into Godot, even though I *really* like the project (and wish I could fund it, alas, I'm unemployed, permanently). Unity just happens to be robust enough that I might be able to scrap together a prototype. It has built in things like a terrain editor, tons of educational material, an asset store to get some placeholder assets, etc. I saw a comment mentioning how Warcraft 2 was so awesome because it had a great editor. I saw that and also Starcraft had an amazing editor. Neverwinter Nights also had an amazing editor. We need something like that with a good license to build games. Every engine that even somewhat approaches that area blows up in complexity, has a super restrictive license, or doesn't allow you to build your own executables. RPGMaker actually is pretty decent for 2D games, however the fixed resolution and constant dramatic shifts between versions, previous licensing issues (I haven't looked at their current license), and more make it a no go for a serious commercial game...and it doesn't do 3D. Sorry for the rant. Don't even get me started on how much more complicated the transitions from DX8-DX12 or OpenGL 1.x/2.x -> Anything else have been. ;)
- crq-yml 10mo ago
  There's a cruel truth to electing to use any dependency for a game, in that all of it may or may not be a placeholder for the final design. If the code that's there aligns with the design you have, maybe you speed along to shipping something, but all the large productions end up doing things custom somewhere, somehow, whether that's in the binary or through scripts. But none of the code is necessary to do game design either, because that just reflects the symbolic complexity you're trying to put into it. You can run a simpler scene, with less graphics, and it will still be a game. That's why we have "10-line BASIC" game jams and they produce interesting and playable results. The aspect of making it commercial quality is more tied to getting the necessary kinds and quantities of feedback to find the audience and meet them at their expectations, and sometimes that means using a big-boy engine to get a pile of oft-requested features, but I've also seen it be completely unimportant. It just depends a lot on what you're making.

james2doyle 10mo ago

Still not "9 times faster", and still seems disingenuous, but here is one comparison that is at least given with some more context: https://x.com/ShieldCrush/status/1943516032674537958 https://x.com/ShieldCrush/status/1943516032674537958

ahZOTERESET 10mo ago
Ppth(//news.ycombinator.com/-+).us

johnnyanmac 10mo ago

I see it as overhead for the base engine. Though yes, even unity has some post processing built in that would affect performance. But, I will always correct the cardinal sin of "using FPS to measure performance". Especially for an empty scene, this is pretty much snake oil. 200 fps is 5 milliseconds 1800 fps is a little pver half a millisecond. Giving back 4.5 milliseconds doesn't means much if any sense of real work will add it back.

eek2121 10mo ago

Agreed. Unity has a ton of features that even Godot lacks. (Unreal also has a ton of features they all lack). I know a lot of different languages and frameworks, from C/C++ up, so I say this: The language is never the issue. Language is just syntax. ease of use is everything. I've been wanting to make a game for a long time. I toyed with OpenGL/DirectX at multiple points since the 90s, even going so far as to creating a really cool tech demo/engine that scales with CPU core count. However, those days are in the past. I really want to focus on not writing a ton of graphics and sound code. I really want to focus on the game logic and the game itself. The above is one of the reasons I'm finding it hard to get into Godot, even though I *really* like the project (and wish I could fund it, alas, I'm unemployed, permanently). Unity just happens to be robust enough that I might be able to scrap together a prototype. It has built in things like a terrain editor, tons of educational material, an asset store to get some placeholder assets, etc. I saw a comment mentioning how Warcraft 2 was so awesome because it had a great editor. I saw that and also Starcraft had an amazing editor. Neverwinter Nights also had an amazing editor. We need something like that with a good license to build games. Every engine that even somewhat approaches that area blows up in complexity, has a super restrictive license, or doesn't allow you to build your own executables. RPGMaker actually is pretty decent for 2D games, however the fixed resolution and constant dramatic shifts between versions, previous licensing issues (I haven't looked at their current license), and more make it a no go for a serious commercial game...and it doesn't do 3D. Sorry for the rant. Don't even get me started on how much more complicated the transitions from DX8-DX12 or OpenGL 1.x/2.x -> Anything else have been. ;)

crq-yml 10mo ago
There's a cruel truth to electing to use any dependency for a game, in that all of it may or may not be a placeholder for the final design. If the code that's there aligns with the design you have, maybe you speed along to shipping something, but all the large productions end up doing things custom somewhere, somehow, whether that's in the binary or through scripts. But none of the code is necessary to do game design either, because that just reflects the symbolic complexity you're trying to put into it. You can run a simpler scene, with less graphics, and it will still be a game. That's why we have "10-line BASIC" game jams and they produce interesting and playable results. The aspect of making it commercial quality is more tied to getting the necessary kinds and quantities of feedback to find the audience and meet them at their expectations, and sometimes that means using a big-boy engine to get a pile of oft-requested features, but I've also seen it be completely unimportant. It just depends a lot on what you're making.