Comments on: Unity3D 1.6 – Incompletely Amazing

By: Kaye

Kaye — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:41:40 +0000

This article should really need revisions!

By: scott

scott — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:51:53 +0000

“a sketchy third-party plugin,”? Wow, we wrote that here at my work and shipped it in a cross platform product for a customer. not only has it worked well, but Unity 2.0 removed the need for it, which we were aware of since we are on their advanced Beta test program, that’s why we didn’t round out the documentation to make it useable by any old “scripter”.

This article is in serious need of an update since the 2.5 release has been out since March. I’d say many if not all of your issues have been overcome with 2.0 and improved in 2.5. You should link the updated article in a follow up post here so that folks can find it.

By: Tonio Loewald

Tonio Loewald — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:16:49 +0000

It took about a year between my writing this article and it being “published”. I’ve since stopped contributing new articles to MacApper because — for some reason — the editorial process is broken (at least for me).

I agree that a new review of Unity is in order, and that Unity 2.0 addresses many of the limitations I pointed out, but I won’t be writing it for MacApper.

By: Dakta

Dakta — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:01:55 +0000

You should really redo this article. With the coming of 2.0, Many of your Cons are answered. While you still need to go Pro for Video, it is built In. The Undo is better, but if you remove something from the Hierarchy, its gone for good. The 2d still needs a Drag ‘n Drop interface builder, but has become 40 bazillion times easier. And, the documentation has been filled in better, but is still lacking. You give Unity a Bad name with this article, obviously written with a copy of 1.0.

By: developer power tool window

developer power tool window — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:10:01 +0000

developer power tool window

we\’re thinking about ways to improve the conversation while limiting the noise. Gawker\’s invite-only comments policy. Gothamist\’s graying out of anonymous commenters. ApartmentTherapy\’s idea to literally make the font size smaller for untru…

By: Miles Evans

Miles Evans — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:10:11 +0000

I didn’t stipulate in the article that the review was written well before the Unity3D 2.0 release happened. Wish I had fact checked this article but I didn’t. I just added a quick blurb at the beginning of the review showing this. I should have done this at publish tme but just missed it until now. Apologies to Tonio and those commenting.

By: e64

e64 — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:39:33 +0000

If you like the physics capabilities of this system you should take a look at the Physics Abstraction Layer: http://pal.sourceforge.net/
Although you need to know some C++ to use it.

By: Tonio Loewald

Tonio Loewald — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:54:21 +0000

“Why would you release a review of an out dated product?”
I’ve already explained this. For various reasons, there was a long delay between the writing of the article and its publication. This is unfortunate, but saying this over and over won’t change it.

“there is no UnityScript to document – itâ€™s just .js. Every technology that Iâ€™ve used based on .js for a scripting lang has itâ€™s own .js flavor.”
UnityScript is not “just .js” — that’s the problem. There are significant differences and they aren’t documented. E.g. the core types — string, array, and object, each do not work the way the equivalents in JavaScript work. This is a BIG issue. I don’t care if Unity’s lack of documentation is no worse than some other product I’m not reviewing, I’d make the same criticism of those products if I were reviewing them.

“I have no comment on such speculations…”
This is like the fifteen minute hagiography after beginning “and now for someone who needs no introduction”

By: TomLong74

TomLong74 — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:16:38 +0000

*This is not a review of Unity 2.0
Why would you release a review of an out dated product?
This does no one any good. Certainly doesn’t help the consumer nor the product.

* Undependable Undo in IDE — Sadly, still true in 2.0.
Agreed – sadly Unity’s dirty little secret

* Clumsy 2D Capabilities — Definitely improved in 2.0.
Clumsy because it’s a 3d editor window? Or how so? What would you do to improve it? Make it FLASH like?

* No real video support — Definitely improved in 2.0, but ogg is a mixed blessing.
Unity 2.0 will bring almost any video file format in to the project – it just uses ogg on the inside

* Gaps in the documentation send you to Google or the Forums
Still true in 2.0 (e.g. no documentation of UnityScript vs. JavaScript or the Mono libraries)
wow – I’ve reviewed a lot of game engines and 3D software – I’d say the documentation is better than any other game engine I’ve reviewed. Every product has to keep scope on what they document – there is no UnityScript to document – it’s just .js. Every technology that I’ve used based on .js for a scripting lang has it’s own .js flavor. The community is there for those few quirks, and that’s part of the product in my book.

* Possibly a little â€œtoo visualâ€ to work well for very large projects — Remains to be seen. Unity Asset Server is a whole new product on its own.
I have no comment on such speculations – However, CuttleCandy is a 26 level game with 4 different game areas, an interactive level map and 2 completely different game play mechanics. A proper asset folder structure was essential in managing the project.

Cheers,

By: Tonio Loewald

Tonio Loewald — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:54:30 +0000

This is not a review of Unity 2.0, but I do want to point out that the cons listed in the review were:

* Undependable Undo in ID
Sadly, still true in 2.0.

* Clumsy 2D Capabilities
Definitely improved in 2.0.

* No real video support
Definitely improved in 2.0, but support of ogg video formats is a mixed blessing.

* Gaps in the documentation send you to Google or the Forums
Still true in 2.0 (e.g. no documentation of UnityScript vs. JavaScript or the Mono libraries)

* Possibly a little â€œtoo visualâ€ to work well for very large projects
Remains to be seen. Unity Asset Server is a whole new product on its own.

By: hosthg » Blog Archive » Unity3D - Incompletely Amazing

hosthg » Blog Archive » Unity3D - Incompletely Amazing — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:40:41 +0000

[...] You can read more here [...]

By: 82spots » Blog Archive » Unity3D - Incompletely Amazing

82spots » Blog Archive » Unity3D - Incompletely Amazing — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:48:31 +0000

[...] from Jonti Davies [...]

By: TomLong74

TomLong74 — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:21:02 +0000

As Keli mentioned Unity 2.0 addresses many of the cons in this very detailed review. My game is basically a Unity 1.6 game that was upgraded to Unity 2.0.

In 1.6 2D was very do-able but you needed quite a bit of z-depth – Now in Unity 2.0 Z-depth is extremely accurate only in an extreme corner case did I have to tweak it.

I completely dodge 1.6x’s built-in GUI in favor of a much cleaner approach (at the time) and use a secondary camera to render my ‘flat 3D GUI’ on top of the scene.

And if your going to build your business on someone else’s business there is no better company and community duo.

Cheers,

By: TomLong74

TomLong74 — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:15:39 +0000

I'm currently developing a 2D game via Unity called CuttleCandy

By: Tonio Loewald

Tonio Loewald — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:08:08 +0000

In no way is this review intended to be negative. Unity is, and I think I make this clear, a very impressive product. It has gaps in its functionality which need to be made clear.

I realise Unity 2.0 was released a short time ago. The review has been in the pipeline for about six months, so it’s just one of those things. Unity 2.0 does address several of the issues mentioned to some extent, but not as well as your quoting of the press release would indicate. I hope to follow up this review with very in-depth discussion of Unity 2.0 when I feel qualified to do so.

By: Keli Hlodversson

Keli Hlodversson — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:55:57 +0000

I noticed that this article seems to be a review of Unity 1.6. Unity 2.0 was released whole 10 days before the publish date of this article, and it already addresses most if not all cons listed: Unity 2.0 now supports video files, has built in networking support, totally new 2D GUI system, more documentation, realtime shadows and around 100 more features and improvements.

By: Eirikur Hrafnsson

Eirikur Hrafnsson — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:41:37 +0000

A very nice review although my overall fealing of it seemed to me that there are a LOT more pros than cons and that the developers of the application deserve a better headline than the rather negative “Unity3D – Incompletely Amazing” : )

I’ve been following the apps development for some time now and I’m acquainted with one of their founders and I have to say this is the best IDE for game development I have ever tried and definitely going to produce some awesome stuff in the future. Not to mention the coolness of the fact that this is a Mac product first and foremost.

By: Daniel Greg

Daniel Greg — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:40:15 +0000

Dude I cant believe you got a unity license. Very jealous – good work mate, nice review.

By: My Personal “Keep Me Up To Date On The Top News” blog » Unity3D - Incompletely Amazing

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:37:58 +0000

[...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerpt1: this is my game running. 2: this is the 3d world editor; my character is currently selected (but I can change the selection while the game runs â€” the entire interface is live and modeless). 3: this is my characterâ€™s transform, … [...]

By: Modeling » Unity3D - Incompletely Amazing

Modeling » Unity3D - Incompletely Amazing — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:00:06 +0000

[...] waroksby wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIn many respects it is the model of a bleeding edge 21st century software company, the kind of guys who ship a new version of their program while waiting for Dilbertâ€™s pointy-headed boss to shut up in a meeting. Flies in the 2D Ointment … [...]