I mean sure it's perfectly fine for a platform game where your character has to push a few boxes, you'd waste a bit of CPU power cuz the algorithm is shit but performance will still be fine. That's one of the dumbest shit I've ever heard. And then Unity took it, and made it not run on graphics cards, it's CPU only.
So you've got this physics engine that was designed to run on a compute card rather than the CPU, it was then changed to run on graphics cards, and then they basically duck taped on basic support to run on CPU, as slowly as possible. So they made PhysX able to run on the CPU only, except extremely slowly, where as other developers have shown much better CPU physics performance, like HavoX and CryEngine2's custom physics engine. Then Nvidia was trying to do the same GameWorks shit they did a while ago, by making it run slower on non-Nvidia hardware. As you'd imagine it never took off, so Nvidia bought it and made it run on any Nvidia graphics card instead, which was much less dumb since you can run it on your only graphics card and still run graphics on it. If you don't remember, PhysX started out as this dumb company trying to sell you a "physics card", yea it's like what we would today call a compute accelerator card, except it's not general purpose it can only do game physics acceleration using their own specific API. Unity uses PhysX, and it's one of the dumbest chain of events I've ever heard, listen me out. I did run it on iPad and it's a battery hog for what it's showing, it's just a flat scene with a few hundred triangles! The iPad shouldn't even get warm with this kind of simple 3D graphics! Hearthstone, now I've not ran this game on PC, I'm sure it'll get a few hundred FPS but the point is, it's just a card table it should be thousands of FPS not hundreds. Also, nothing speaks retro like trying to do day-night cycle in a non-HDR game. In comparison I could only get Cities: Skylines to run 60FPS with basically an empty map, any significant building drops it down to 30. But look at another modern sim game with a custom engine, Planet Coaster, it's fully HDR like any modern game (no shit, many Unity games don't even have HDR), it's got reflections, lens flares, more geometry, much much more light sources and it is actually capable of running 60FPS. In any respectable engine this game should be running over 1000 FPS, even Half-life 2 has more complex scenes than this.Ĭities:Skylines, it's got no effects other than shadows, it looks acceptable thanks to the consistent, slightly cartoonish art style.
#KERBAL SPACE PROGRAM 2 ENGINE PS3#
KSP, it's got like worse than PS3 graphics, almost zero effects, just plain geometry, yet I could not run that game at 4k 60FPS until I got a 2080ti, even then we have to assume small crafts. When was the last time you saw a game made in Unity run truly modern levels of graphical fidelity or effects? I haven't ever seen that, it's always either cartoon graphics, simple graphics, or very rarely, pretending to be modern through heavy use of pre-rendered textures. And quite often, a game is simple enough that modern hardware will be able to power through the shittiness that the game in the end still has acceptable performance, and people take this as proof that Unity isn't shit, but that's just low standards. You see the issue is that when I say Unity is shit, I am mainly talking about the performance of games it produces, specifically physics and rendering performance. Obviously, there are good games made with Unity, but that's actually a fallacy of equivocation. I've made this argument many times, that Unity is a horrible game engine and people bring up the same invalid arguments over and over again, it's the bad developers, not the engine.
0 kommentar(er)
