UDK or UNITY?

Samuraigun7

I know newbies like me have said this alot of times but on a artist side of things that really has no proper programing knowleadge and trainning behind him. What would you think would be better in terms of me i want to be a enviroment artist (long way to go but i can dream)., Which game engine is better but i also want to slowly produce a game just as a side project to do when i not busy. Cause i feel getting into the game industry is a hard road ahead of me any tips on that.

Thanks for you time and any suggestions or tips please do tell i really want to learn.

sprunghunt

try them and see? They are both relatively easy to use. And they're free. And have lots of documentation that you can read.

MikeF

i'l vouch for unity if you dont have much experience, but UDK in the long run if you intend to really delve deep into the features each engine has to offer.

then again, unity is quickly catching up on a lot of things UDK has

PolyHertz

If you want to make an actual game Unity is the way to go, but UDK will show off your work better. Commander_keen said it best:

"UDK isnt really a game engine. Its UT3's modding tools without ut3 and a changed license. Unreal Engine was never designed for public use and has minimal access for modding, so using UDK for anything other than an FPS with common game mechanics is very difficult or impossible.

Unity (as well as almost all other engines targeted for public use) was designed to allow anyone to access and change any part of the engine and extend the engine and tools as needed"

MrOneTwo

I always thought that its pointless to use Unity if you can use UDK. Now when I tried Unity I have to agree with what Commander_keen said. Its so much easier to create games in Unity. From programming side its way better. Especially if you aren't too experienced with coding. Its hard to make Unity game look as good as UDK one but for a first game definately Unity. For example if you wanted to create a proper TPP camera in UDK you have to really dig into programming or copy code from UDN site (and if you are starting you won't understand this code). In Unity you have to place camera and drag&drop it in hierarchy panel on your pawn. UDK can present eviroments really good though. Try both ;]

walreu

If you want to be an environment artist and do a game as a side project, i would recommend this:

- Make 3d environments and illustrate them using UDK. You will get beautiful results quite easily.
- Make the side project game using Unity. Much easier to learn.

SpeCter

Does Unity support Render2Texture in the free version now?

warby

no shadows still require pro

to the original poster if you care more about pics for your portfolio --> udk if you care abotut making an interactive product --> unity

walreu

SpeCter wrote: »

Does Unity support Render2Texture in the free version now?

I think not.

Entity

I'd go with Cryengine 3 if you're going to pimp your artwork, shit just looks better and it's nice lighting things in realtime.

gilesruscoe

For pimping anything other then entire environments roll with Marmoset toolbag, its just so flexible and gives really nice results, and its only 30 quid! If your making a full game and you're new to game development Unity has a really nice easy learning curve to it and gives exellent results too.

Ace-Angel

Bleh, you can make your own shaders in UDK if you want to pimp. Much better then anything else since you can also fake SSS on the cheap.

Slum

Ace-Angel wrote: »

Bleh, you can make your own shaders in UDK if you want to pimp. Much better then anything else since you can also fake SSS on the cheap.

You can write custom shaders in Unity as well.

timwiese

I would go with Unity.

I did, I have used UDK quite a bit and understand the pipeline and shaders and a little bit of Kismet but diving in deeper and creating an actual game besides a FPS with UDK seemed like a monumental task for someone like me with very limited programming knowledge.

I recently started developing projects with Unity and within 2 weeks I already had 3 working game prototypes (one of which I decided to take to finish and continue to work on). Also I am using uScript a plugin for Unity that you can buy from the assets store, it is really the only way I was able to create game prototypes so quickly without much actual programming knowledge. Although using uScript still requires you to think like a programmer you don't have to understand syntax which removes a huge hurdle for learning. uScript is not a proven method to create fully finished games and I could see it being quite slow if your game is overlay code heavy, but simple game concepts should be able to be created no problem with it.

Also I agree with what everyone else is saying stick to other engines if you just plan to show off your work, Unity is great if you actually want to make a game.

thats my 2 cents.

walreu

timwiese wrote: »

Also I am using uScript a plugin for Unity that you can buy from the assets store, it is really the only way I was able to create game prototypes so quickly without much actual programming knowledge. .

I've been thinkin about getting uScript for my future mobile game projects. Quite small games. sidescrollers etc..
Would you recommend it for small mobile games? Will it slow down fps/performance?

timwiese

walreu wrote: »

I've been thinkin about getting uScript for my future mobile game projects. Quite small games. sidescrollers etc..
Would you recommend it for small mobile games? Will it slow down fps/performance?

I would recommend trying it out, the PLE version on their site is free. I haven't yet dove into mobile stuff although I do plan to test out my project on iPad in coming weeks (although that's a bit more powerful then standard mobile.)

But as for it slowing down performance, comparing the scripts that uScript generates to something a coder would write you notice a large difference in size (Although the uScript Devs are very actively working on making them smaller and more performance friendly). I think using it to make a game will always create larger scripts (slowing down performance) but I suppose if your game is small enough that slowdown won't be noticeable.

walreu

timwiese wrote: »

I would recommend trying it out, the PLE version on their site is free. I haven't yet dove into mobile stuff although I do plan to test out my project on iPad in coming weeks (although that's a bit more powerful then standard mobile.)

But as for it slowing down performance, comparing the scripts that uScript generates to something a coder would write you notice a large difference in size (Although the uScript Devs are very actively working on making them smaller and more performance friendly). I think using it to make a game will always create larger scripts (slowing down performance) but I suppose if your game is small enough that slowdown won't be noticeable.

They have PLE edition?! Nice, im definetly going to try that out.
I can use that to do a test game and if everything works alright, i will buy it.
Thanks for the info.