5 ms·

People who develop on Unity: How does Unity compare to Unreal performance-wise? The only experience I have with Unity is playing Kerbal Space Program which is o

People who develop on Unity: How does Unity compare to Unreal performance-wise? The only experience I have with Unity is playing Kerbal Space Program which is often a performance nightmare and I'm wondering if it's Unity or the game developers.

lelandbatey 12y ago
I suspect it's a bit of both. My money's on Unreal as the highest performing in terms of fancy graphics. However, the "game programming" can vary hugely from game to game, even in the same engine. It's probably hard to compare the efficiency of game logic outside of game-to-game cases.
felipesoc 12y ago
I don't know compared to Unreal but Unity has several hidden performance issues. I am currently working on Bullet Boy [1] and we had several obscure problems that you have to fix with a lot of trial and error. Specific combinations of components and attributes can cause frame rate to drop because of the internal organization of the engine (moving colliders without rigidbodies comes to mind). That being said, it is really easy to use. The asset pipeline is great and artists learn to use it very fast. It works really well for small teams. My recommendation is that you should consider it if you are not planning to make a very performance intensive game. [1] http://bulletboygame.com http://bulletboygame.com
- conover 12y ago
  Off Topic: For some reason on Chrome 40.0.2214.111 I can't click the play button on the YouTube video of your bulletboygame.com site. Edit: The cloud-right div covers the top three quarters of the video player.
- keyle 12y ago
  Great game! Good luck finishing it!
- unoti 12y ago
  Bullet Boy looks amazing. Regarding Unity vs. Unreal, it looks to me like Unity is better for targeting mobile devices, at least if you're planning to deploy this year. Last time I played Tappy Chicken, it devastates my batter and makes my phone hot enough to cook on. Unreal has amazing advantages for the desktop, but it doesn't look to me to be a good way to make mobile games. If I'm wrong about this, someone please tell me, because I'd rather use Unreal, but I need to deploy mobile, so I'm using Unity.
pragmar 12y ago
I think developers looking for Unreal performance from Unity 3d will be disappointed. What Unity has over Unreal is C#, great interactive tools (a live stage within a running game), and the ability to publish to just about anything.
- scott_karana 12y ago
  > live stage within a running game Isn't that also a big selling feature of Unreal 4?... > and the ability to publish to just about anything Likewise with Unreal 4, except that they have a flat-rate for platforms, instead of expensive add-ons to support more platforms. (and no browser plugins required!)
  - greggman 12y ago
    Um, no AFAICT? Unless things have changed Unreal is no where near as interactive as Unity. Unity is an app (a game editor) designed to make games. Unreal is a game engine with an editor tacked on to make it editable. That difference in approach makes a huge difference in the experience of using each to make a game. I'm sure you unity devs will laugh at this but in general Unity is designed to not crash. It's an app. Its document is a game. Unreal on the other hand is a game that assumes you have no bugs. By that I mean being a game it assumes the end goal is shipping code. It's not designed to be an editor so it not designed around being stable. It's designed around game code not editor code. If you want to edit code live requires you to use XCode or Visual Studio. If you make a mistake the game crashes taking down the editor (since that's running in the game) and everything with it.
    - greggman 12y ago
      This the kind of stuff that gets me to leave HN. Random people downvoting what are basically facts, at least they were as of last June I have licenses to both Unity and Unreal and have personally shipped 17 commercial games and written their engines from C64 all the way through 360/PS3. It's not like I have no clue And yes you can downvote this shit too but gees. Nothing I said above is false. Post some counter facts if you disagree.
sparaker 12y ago
I have had faster development using unity.
teamonkey 12y ago
Two different engines optimized for different purposes but in general Unity will run much better on low-end hardware than Unreal. Unreal has a renderer that is (out of the box) definitely aimed at high-end hardware. KSP's performance is probably bound by a physics system that is abnormally complex for games. Unity's version of PhysX is based on an older, slower version. Unity 5 brings that up to date so if Squad decide to continue development on 5 there should be some improvements straight away. Unreal uses the same physics middleware out of the box.

lelandbatey 12y ago

I suspect it's a bit of both. My money's on Unreal as the highest performing in terms of fancy graphics. However, the "game programming" can vary hugely from game to game, even in the same engine. It's probably hard to compare the efficiency of game logic outside of game-to-game cases.

felipesoc 12y ago

I don't know compared to Unreal but Unity has several hidden performance issues. I am currently working on Bullet Boy [1] and we had several obscure problems that you have to fix with a lot of trial and error. Specific combinations of components and attributes can cause frame rate to drop because of the internal organization of the engine (moving colliders without rigidbodies comes to mind). That being said, it is really easy to use. The asset pipeline is great and artists learn to use it very fast. It works really well for small teams. My recommendation is that you should consider it if you are not planning to make a very performance intensive game. [1] http://bulletboygame.com http://bulletboygame.com

conover 12y ago
Off Topic: For some reason on Chrome 40.0.2214.111 I can't click the play button on the YouTube video of your bulletboygame.com site. Edit: The cloud-right div covers the top three quarters of the video player.
keyle 12y ago
Great game! Good luck finishing it!
unoti 12y ago
Bullet Boy looks amazing. Regarding Unity vs. Unreal, it looks to me like Unity is better for targeting mobile devices, at least if you're planning to deploy this year. Last time I played Tappy Chicken, it devastates my batter and makes my phone hot enough to cook on. Unreal has amazing advantages for the desktop, but it doesn't look to me to be a good way to make mobile games. If I'm wrong about this, someone please tell me, because I'd rather use Unreal, but I need to deploy mobile, so I'm using Unity.

pragmar 12y ago

I think developers looking for Unreal performance from Unity 3d will be disappointed. What Unity has over Unreal is C#, great interactive tools (a live stage within a running game), and the ability to publish to just about anything.

scott_karana 12y ago
> live stage within a running game Isn't that also a big selling feature of Unreal 4?... > and the ability to publish to just about anything Likewise with Unreal 4, except that they have a flat-rate for platforms, instead of expensive add-ons to support more platforms. (and no browser plugins required!)
- greggman 12y ago
  Um, no AFAICT? Unless things have changed Unreal is no where near as interactive as Unity. Unity is an app (a game editor) designed to make games. Unreal is a game engine with an editor tacked on to make it editable. That difference in approach makes a huge difference in the experience of using each to make a game. I'm sure you unity devs will laugh at this but in general Unity is designed to not crash. It's an app. Its document is a game. Unreal on the other hand is a game that assumes you have no bugs. By that I mean being a game it assumes the end goal is shipping code. It's not designed to be an editor so it not designed around being stable. It's designed around game code not editor code. If you want to edit code live requires you to use XCode or Visual Studio. If you make a mistake the game crashes taking down the editor (since that's running in the game) and everything with it.
  - greggman 12y ago
    This the kind of stuff that gets me to leave HN. Random people downvoting what are basically facts, at least they were as of last June I have licenses to both Unity and Unreal and have personally shipped 17 commercial games and written their engines from C64 all the way through 360/PS3. It's not like I have no clue And yes you can downvote this shit too but gees. Nothing I said above is false. Post some counter facts if you disagree.

sparaker 12y ago

I have had faster development using unity.

teamonkey 12y ago

Two different engines optimized for different purposes but in general Unity will run much better on low-end hardware than Unreal. Unreal has a renderer that is (out of the box) definitely aimed at high-end hardware. KSP's performance is probably bound by a physics system that is abnormally complex for games. Unity's version of PhysX is based on an older, slower version. Unity 5 brings that up to date so if Squad decide to continue development on 5 there should be some improvements straight away. Unreal uses the same physics middleware out of the box.