![]() ![]() Using Unity free only, I've been playing around a lot with buying different shaders, of course using normals and specular maps, and playing around with Unity free's lighting options - and I gotta say, it doesn't look "crisp" or yummy at all. But even with Unity Pro, how do you make your Unity game look like standard UDK? "Insert technical name here" diffuse shaderĭoes anyone really know? I always see generalizations, but someone throw us some real specifics on getting our games to look like UDK's lol Unfortunately, I am using Unity free and don't have access to HDR and other Pro features. What addons/packages/roll-your-own solutions would one need to get the UDK out-of-the-box effect? Can anyone give a laundry list of things UDK is using out-of-the-box.Ĥ. But what post-processing effects specifically? Does anyone really know what UDK does specifically to make it's models look great? What lighting? Is it simply a lack of global illumination, or perhaps volumetric lighting, maybe linear lighting? Sure you can say it's a lack of post-processing effects in Unity. But I have never seen anyone mention exactly what about those three things makes game objects look as good as they do in UDK or Cryengine's SDK. Everyone says it's due to Unity's bland and basic default shaders, lighting, and post-processing effects. This is what frustrates me right now though - and it's ever increasing frustration as I get closer to completing my game, and my focus shifts more to graphics and eye-candy. In essence, Unity will always look different and I do get what people mean by the Unity look, but with enough time and dedication Unity can look nothing like Unity (If you get my drift). All that being said it'll never look like CryEngine for many factors including the engine itself and secondly how I implement technology. At the moment I'm experimenting with GI, types of RLR and irradiance volume to give Unity more of a CryEngine look, I like the look of CryEngine but dislike the workflow. If we are talking graphical eye candy, I think leaving Unity free out the equation is a good idea. You can't change the shaders in CryEngine SDK, you either like it or move on to another engine.Īll engine's have a look to them, It doesn't mean Unity can't look good though. By default all post processing is switched on in CryEngine and lighting systems are done in real time, bar small amounts of tweaking in area's what you see in CryEngine's sandbox editor is what your going to get as opposed to Unity where by default where you implement it all from scratch and for the most part it's tweakable. IMO It's a massive collection of small touches which add up to a massive graphical edge and how the respective designers implementation of such technology is achieved, even Unity Pro and a slew of post processing effects and deferred rendering path looks completely different to Unity free, UDK and CryEngine. I guess the most recent example would have been Cricket Ashes 2013, which I had a feeling was made with Unity before discovering that it was.Ĭlick to expand.Edited because I need to learn to read the whole sentence: I'm not sure what the other tell-tale signs are, some of it may be at a unconscious level and not even directly related to the visuals but other systems, but yeah I still think its possible to see a game sometimes and think it was made in Unity. Not only can you get shaders that use newer graphic techniques, but you can also change the lighting equations, which can make dramatic changes to the appearance of Unity projects.Īt this point it starts to get harder to determine what engine a game was built with, but not impossible. ![]() Indeed one of Unities greatest strengths is that you can do this quite easily, either yourself or by purchasing them. Now once you start moving away from the Unity default shaders, by appending or replacing them with newer varieties then things start to look different and less like Unity. ![]() I wonder how many people bother tweaking that? Then there are simple things like a scenes ambient value. ![]() This also doesn't address the issue that you only have two lighting models (lambert and BlinnPhong) implemented in the shaders and of course everyone ends up with the same shadow mapping technique. I mean its odd that in the Unity manual is code for an example rim lighting surface shader, yet no rim lighting shader in the editor. Click to expand.I don't think anyone is saying that diffuse shaders equate to Unity, but that as many games tend to use the default shaders as shipped by Unity, then they are going to end up with the same basic looks because there is quite a limited selection and none have been keeping up to date with advance in graphics in the last 3-5 years. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |