Software installed from your package manager is almost certainly provided as a binary already. You could package a .exe file and that should work everywhere WINE is installed.
> with a 1999 style property window on the side like Visual Studio was ever cool.
I don't think this is fair. I'd say Unity's inspector window is one of the good parts of Unity because it not just a property window. It's an immediate mode UI that things can hook into to do a lot more than just property editing.
Thankfully there are tons of assets you can buy or download from github that will extend the functionality of the inspector windows, which IMO need a LOT of love. The last update I saw was where you can do math inside e.g. transform properties e.g. scale is 1, you can type in 1+2 and it will show in game/scene views immediately your changes, and if you press ENTER it will commit those changes. It's not really well-known (I discovered it by accident reading some changelogs at some point a couple years ago).
Not thankfully. The whole point of this thread is that Unity is barebones without community support. What you’re describing is that community support. Glad you like it. I find these kind of lack of attention to your product a huge turn off. Unity Community is naive in the fact that they allow this company to walk all over them because they lack the willpower to steamroll them. There are plenty of Unity community members that are capable of making a better Unity. Unity itself relies on their community otherwise who would pay for an engine? So by saying “just use this plugin” is basically just reinforcing my perspective.
On the other hand, the lack of "love" from Unity's side (at least regarding Inspector) allows a thriving ecosystem for devs to build their own version of what an ideal Inspector drawer should look like, as well as potentially make a living from it. And to boot, who is to say what the ideal Inspector should look like? Do you trust Unity to make an Inspector that fits everyone's wants/needs? I definitely don't - so I'm glad they have a "bare-bones" version that allows us to customize it to our heart's content. Do you want them to be like Apple and "steamroll" everyone and make bad decisions for arbitrary reasons? I definitely don't and I personally HATE a ton of Apple's constant changes and lack of ability to change simple things, such as the inability to disable a lot of animations, which murders my VNC sessions, but I digress.
Regarding non-Inspector things: you already replied to my other rant about unfinished features, so yeah, also in agreement.
> Modern .Net is fast, of course, but it's not burst compiled HPC# fast.
Sure, but the fact that it is competitive with Burst makes it disappointing. If I'm going to go through the trouble of writing code in a different (and not portable!) way then it better be significantly faster. Especially when most code cannot be written as Burst jobs unless you use their (new) ECS.
The article doesn't cover it but the GC being used by Unity also performs very poorly vs. .NET, and even vs. standalone Mono, because it is using the Boehm GC. Last I heard Unity has no plans to switch IL2CPP to a better GC [1].
It'll be interesting to see how the CoreCLR editor performs. With that big of a speed difference the it might be possible for games to run better in the editor than a standalone Mono/IL2CPP build.
On the one hand, better GC is better but on the other, it doesn't matter all that much.
You tend to want zero per frame allocation as it is and that would probably not change.
As long as your less frequent garbage doesn't overtake the incremental GC, that's not really an issue either. If it's working incrementally as intended stutter shouldn't be an issue.
In a game there's no endless benefit from raw GC throughput like you might see on a server instance that could always push more requests per second.
The entire point of the incremental GC is to preserve frame latency budget at the expense of raw throughput. If you can guarantee <16ms frames, I'll work with whatever you can give me.
If your game is allocating so quickly that the incremental GC can't keep up, I would argue that solving this with a "faster" GC is just taking you further into hell.
> On the one hand, better GC is better but on the other, it doesn't matter all that much.
It shouldn't but it does. Boehm is a conservative GC so when it triggers it needs to scan a lot more memory for pointers than .NET's GC because it has to assume anything in memory could be a pointer.
Re. the editor speedup, it should outright eliminate the "domain reload" thingy that happens because all of the C# needs to be unloaded and reloaded in response to a change.
Pretty sure that will still be there? It'll be different because CoreCLR doesn't really have AppDomains but it will still need to unload old assemblies and reload them all again. That's the only reliable way to reset everything into a clean state.
Yes, SGen should be a lot better, but Unity cannot use it because they hold and pass raw pointers around everywhere. That's fine for Boehm but not possible with SGen. They're working on fixing this already but not sure why they aren't planning a move to a better GC.
Yes, but it also puts them in an awkward situation! They recommend (or even require, for some platforms) using IL2CPP for release builds which will still use Boehm GC and not run as quick as CoreCLR.
In theory yes, IL2CPP doesn't need to exist with modern .NET AOT support. In practice, per quotes in the article Unity may have a bit of a sunk cost issue and has no plans to support .NET AOT, only IL2CPP.
Some of that sunk cost may be the above mentioned pointer issue and not enough current plans for a smarter FFI interface between C++ and C#.
Unfortunately they do still need IL2CPP because Unity took a different direction than .NET: most reflection still works with IL2CPP but does not with .NET AOT. Switching would be a huge breaking change for everyone, including Unity.
Platform support is also still better with IL2CPP but .NET is catching up.
Windows 7 doesn't have compressed memory (ZRAM). Doesn't support TRIM for NVMe SSDs. Doesn't have WSL. Doesn't have ISO mounting built in. Doesn't have HDR, variable refresh rate, etc...
The better statement is 'Win 10 improved nothing directly user-facing over Win 7'. Sure, there are several technical improvements under the hood, but those are completely detached from what the user actually sees and experiences, and there's no real reason we couldn't have the Windows 10 technical improvements with a Windows 7 UI, other than Microsoft being the abusive parent that it is.
I'd still disagree but UI changes are far more subjective with approval. The start menu in 10 is a lot more customizable vs. Windows 7 which I think is a good thing. Task View (virtual desktops) were added in 10. Task Manager is so much better, that one is probably objective.
> The start menu in 10 is a lot more customizable vs. Windows 7 which I think is a good thing.
I installed Open-Shell day 1 when I got Windows 8, and continued with that on 10, since the new start menu did not convince me, so I can't really vouch for that. I don't see a need in having tiles and such in my start menu.
> Task View (virtual desktops) were added in 10.
Never used it in Windows. On my Mac I use it to put individual apps in full-screen, so they're easy to switch to with 3-finger swipe. Then again, I have three screens, so the demand for more desktop space is close to zero on what would be my Windows machine.
> Task Manager is so much better, that one is probably objective.
Technically a Windows 8 addition, but I'll give you that one. I'll have the old task manager back if I could get the old photo viewer back though. I can manage with the old task manager. I couldn't manager with the Win10 Photo app, and had to install Irfanview to get a usable picture viewer (at least before I went to Linux).
> I don't see a need in having tiles and such in my start menu.
Tiles are gone in Windows 11.
But this is exactly my point. Some people were so happy with how Windows XP worked but things are so much better now. It's repeating again where Windows 7 is the new XP.
Things are better, but it's a case of two steps forward, one step back. We got a new task manager that was actually good, and lost the photo viewer that was good. We got good taskbar search, right in the start menu, and then lost it again. We got DX12, but also got more telemetry than ever. We got an actually decent Windows update (it even grabs drivers for you and is pretty good at getting it right!), and we lose the ability to disable them (without really getting in there). We apparently lost tiles again, even though some people might still want them, and we also lost the ability to left-align our start menu, until the noise got so loud that even Microsoft couldn't ignore it.
Things may be better, but saying that Windows has gotten better, without a comma and a but, or an asterisk, is disingenuous. Much better is a matter of opinion, and one I don't share. Where things have gotten much better is Linux.
This person has said that 1gb/s ethernet is as high as networking will go because of power constraints (yes obviously 2.5gb is common and a 10gb networking card is $25).
They have said that DDR3 RAM causes mouse stuttering and that a 2011 atom is the best CPU that will ever be made. Unfortunately I think they are serious.
Nothing locks you into a specific phone. I have both a primary Android and iOS phone that I use.
>are so many other games out there to choose from.
But how many can you make a business on top of that can pay competitively? It's like how there are a ton of operating systems to choose from, yet only a few that are viable to build upon.
Games are there to be played. Not being able to build a business on top of a game does not make it irrelevant.
f you want to start a business making games then you really should consider using a game engine rather than something like Roblox because Roblox takes a massive cut (way more than 30%) when looking at what users pay vs. what you cash out. I don't
This whole conversation is about how there is very few options for games where it is financially viable to build content for them as a third party. I am not claiming that other games are not fun, you just can't make a successful business on top of them.
Yes, it's possible to make your own game, but it's also possible to make your own app store. There is value in being able to build on top of successful platforms. These existing app stores can demand a bigger cut than doing things yourself because they bring a lot of value and paying customers to the table.
> This whole conversation is about how there is very few options for games where it is financially viable to build content for them as a third party.
Because games are not platforms. Roblox is a platform - games ("experiences") are all UGC. Fortnite is a game that Epic is turning into a platform. Not sure what Minecraft is doing but it doesn't seem anywhere near as financially viable for creators pas Roblox.
It's an interesting thing to think about because Roblox does not exactly follow the App Store review guidelines. Code and assets are downloaded onto your device to run the games. If you could add them to your home screen then it wouldn't be so far off from a game-specific app store.
Stardew Valley. Runs on everything, not just "viable" OSs, made by a single person, and easily competes with an entire genre of gaming to pay the author.
The upper bound of building a business on top of Stardew Valley appears to be https://www.patreon.com/pathoschild which makes under $400 per month after Patreon's cut. That's not enough to work as a single person full time let alone hiring a team.
A $400/mo Patreon does not exactly outweigh somewhere between 18-35 million sales on a single one of the platforms it supports. I would not call that the "upper bound".
That 18-35 million goes to the game's developer and probably not even a single penny goes to those building a business off of designing content on top of the game. That figure is irrelevant.
Taking Fortnite as an example the relevant figure would be that creators on Fortnite can make over $10 million per year. Bringing up that Epic made a few billion dollars is irrelevant to what this conversation is about, which is games where it is financially viable to build content for them.
> which is games where it is financially viable to build content for them.
If that was your interpretation, then it would have been better to have mentioned it anywhere upthread. What we have, so far, is people talking about the gaming industry, and you calling it a monopoly. Nowhere before do we have a mention of third-party developers.
I got tripped up because the parent comment used the term "Fortnite store" when I think they meant "Epic Games Store", so I didn't mention the monopolization that I was talking about was in game monetization upon an existing game.
Best is a bit of an overstatement. It's middle of the pack (performing akin to a 7700, but significantly worse than AMD Zen 5 and the Intel 13th/14th gen). I think the main thing is that it is still plenty capable in 2025 if you're running at a reasonable setting for most games.
Certainly there are situations where it is still among kings like MSFS, but definitely not a leader in most games.
reply