If you ask me, I'd prefer coding. I just don't understand visual scripts because they are hard to read. Of course, it depends on what you've learnt first (or neither of them).
Andrii Derhach I see that boltz has a really slow search function for looking for functions. Even when you know what function you want. meanwhile in text scripting you just write your code. you dont need to wait for intellisense. even intellisense is faster than boltz search though.
yes and you totally should keep learning C#, visual scripting is mostly for those who don't need to learn how to code like 3D artists. Everyone else should learn to code as it's a transferable skill to other programs and something you can use to get a Job outside of Unity.
"It seems 100x more complicated than just writing code." Unless you aren't experienced with code. Then it's heaps easier. Being accessible to beginners has always been a strong suit of Unity's and I see this addition as another step in that direction. Doesn't mean everyone should switch to visual scripting, but it's a great feature to have to bring newer developers up to speed. - Developer since 14 years who once started learning on a pinball editor with (you guessed it) visual scripting.
That's a matter of perspective. I assume you are not a visual person and already have more knowledge than can be learned in a year. Do you know how many people started scripting with Scratch? This is scratch but advanced, if this is how Unity gets 10% more people interested in game programming in Unity because they lowered the bar of entry it is well worth the resources they dumped into this.
I'm in that awkward middle ground where I'm not a true "programmer" but I've also coded so much in GM that I hate anything that isn't just typing it out and being done with it.
As someone coming from blender with its node-based shading, node-scripting is a godsend, as I can barely wrap my head around scripting. It's possible, thanks to brackey's videos, but it's not easy.
I have tutorials on my channel called Game Designer Online. However, I have discontinued it as I didn't get enough views or demands. Still should give you an idea of how it works.
when I started learning unity somewhere in 2022, I thought that it only supports normal scripting. but I was wrong, this is ...................... AMAZING😃
I finally figured it out. So I realized that I'm typically thinking very procedurally and in the order that I'd be typing my code which is top down, left to right. For me, I declare and set variables before I call any function because I'm thinking ahead. I've noticed bolt users, start with the end in mind and usually work backwards. I need to just change my thinking on my approach.
The killer feature is the runtime coding feature. That's a one up over any other coding editor. If you could figure out an elegant way to keep other parts from disappearing that'd be great (it looks bad in the tute when you have to recreate the variable. Imagine how confusing that is to beginners)
I use to play with playmaker back in the day... And now I use blueprint In ue... It's about time unity has its own visual scripting tools... Can't wait to try it...
The issue with Bolt is it's using the same terms and concepts as c#, it takes many steps to write the equivalent of a couple of lines of code. To make it truly useful, there needs to be a level of abstraction where instead of variables and other coding constructs it needs to translate plain english to scripts, perhaps ask questions to clarify intent of the user, you want jump or go forward, how fast etc. etc
I program all my stuff, but I can see using this in gamejams or other fast prototyping scenarios. This will also spawn libraries in the community that (should) be immune to unity changes that would normally deprecate or break C# code.
@machine Like Shader Graph is not EXACTLY 1:1 map to shader magic, I expect null checks, caching, and switching from deprecated calls to uptodate calls by the library owners. Bolt is nothing but advantages.
@machine The built-in renderer isn't going away anytime soon. DOTS is amazing in terms of performance, and ECS in general is a much more flexible, performant and powerful architecture. But, Unity isn't going to leave decades of legacy code out in the cold.
making a game without programming just feels you didn't make anything , the bad feeling of struggling with coding turns good after you see good results, anyways good job for making Unity easy for everyone to use !
Visual Programming is jus the same as any other high level programming, its jus another (beneficial) layer of abstraction, those who get that, are thos non-elitist, non-stubborn deveopers who are actually releasing games, good example: The First Tree. If writing endless lines of code is your thing, fine, but dont spread disrespect to those who do it visually, its not much easier programming the same logic visually. Coding is jus remembering synthax and more typework. If you are satisfied with typing code, cool.
This is nice for challenges and game jams which has a short amount of time... but I have been learning c# and I think the code gives more control... it's like the difference between tile based and Sprite based workflow (in 2D, if you make 2D games you know the difference).
i would like to see a tutorial on animation curves specifically how to add key frame arrays and making game object change key points in curve. also if u could point in right direction to find out more info on specific units.
Tbh, maybe now I'll dive full force into Unity. It's always the question right? Unreal vs Unity. I was gonna pick Unreal because visual scripting is good to get your feet wet in designing AND I've heard you can get some nice things with the visual scripting. But Unreal will make my computer run HOT with just a cube on the screen... Unity I never had that issue, but learning code is always so deep and daunting. I always get past the basic basics, but as I go even deeper, I get more and more lost since I'm doing it mainly as a hobby. Visual scripting, although maybe not as flexible as ACTUAL coding, will help teach people and get them into it more gradually. Definitely looking forward to seeing more about it soon!
UE4's Blueprint system is quite in-depth (which is a good thing, lots of control), but you can also write the code in C++ (after all, that's what your blueprints get compiled as, behind the scenes). Unity has C# and... get ready to cringe... JavaScript. Now it seems they have a (very janky looking) node-based system too. I personally don't like Unity's node editors, the shader graph was a good example of how not to do node graph systems, and this one looks - from the video - almost as poor quality. I'm sure it was rushed. As a long-time (and entirely self-taught) programmer, I would say writing code is always much better, but of course I have bias. Do whatever feels right for you. What I will say though is that although node-based scripting looks nice on the surface, you can often find that it's missing features or abilities that you can do with code, and can take just as much time, if not more, to achieve the same results (however this is situational). And I am not adverse to node graphs, they can be really good (take Blender or UE4, for example). Also I doubt Unreal would make your computer run hot. I have one of the poorest CPUs in existence, by rating too (an AMD FX-4300, feel sorry for me! It's like plugging a literal potato into your motherboard), and this ancient relic from 3 thousand years ago can run Unreal perfectly, no problem, smooth 60fps throughout, and no heat. Node graphs - Pro: They can look very nice nice - Con: - not in Unity's case though - Pro: Some people find visual scripting easier to understand, or more intuitive - Pro: Can recreate a lot of things you could do in code - Con: - not everything though - Pro: They can help protect you from errors - Con: - I don't trust Unity with that though because their own code and editor is often what's throwing most of (if not all of) the errors and this rushed-lookin-ass node graph will be no different, no doubt buggy for a long time coming - Pro: Some can show you the flow-of-execution (UE4 does), which helps you understand the chronological order of your script as it runs - Con: They can get really messy real quick, and are not fantastic when doing anything involving larger sets of data, or more complex data - Con: You're going to struggle to create things like classes/structures, for example an Item class and an Inventory system, just wouldn't be as good or as easy to create with a node-based system (not impossible, just... tricky) Code: - Pro: You can do anything, anything, ANYTHING! - Pro: Code is an art form in and of itself and it is very satisfying to learn new techniques or ways of doing things - Pro: You have total control over your code (great for APIs), whereas with node graphs you don't, because the code is generated behind the scenes (unless they give you access to the generated code) - Pro: Code can be applied to other projects externally, whereas node systems cannot generally. Meaning, if you program in C#, you can use that code in other (non-Unity) projects or translate that code to other languages with relative ease, but a node graph can't be transferred, you'd have to recreate it from scratch (if your other project even has node graph capability in the first place) - Con: It's harder to learn for some people - Con: JavaScript. Just... just steer clear if you have -and would like to hold on to- some sanity! C# all the way, C# is love, C# is life! I hope this helps at least somewhat. Be safe and happy developing :)
@@Akyomi777 They might have, I never use it and haven't used Unity properly for a while now. But last I remember the option was at least still in the context menu
I hope unity stays relatively lightweight with all these new features. UE4 took forever when starting the editor and compiling scripts, which is why i switched to unity.
@@atlasveldine6314 True. That's their new way of doing things. But still: Unity 2019.4.14f1= 7.85 Gb Godot 3.2.3 x64 = 61.9 Mb (yes < 100 Mb!) + ALL export plugins = 700 Mb. So it's under 1 GB with all the features. Even with mini-IDE for writing your game logic and offline help.
@@igorthelight I wasn't replying to your comment, only the initial post. My statement had nothing to do with what you said. Lightweight refers to many variables, not just the size of the files. To illustrate how the size of a particular piece of software is pretty much entirely irrelevant, consider that an uncompressed movie could easily be in the 100s of GBs, and the compressed movie (a t a level of compression that is unnoticeable to the human eye) could be under 1GB. If you watch both side by side, and can't see any difference, you'd argue that the 1GB one is more lightweight, yet it's actually taking more of your processing power in lieu of hard drive space in order to uncompress the file and play it back. So, is it more lightweight, now? This is just one example to illustrate the point, it's not a perfect analogy, and I'm aware of that. Rather, it's intended to demonstrate that the term "lightweight" isn't really talking about just one element, but rather all elements. It is in effect saying, "this software uses few overall resources: runs fast on lower end hardware, uses a reasonable amount of hard drive space, uses a reasonable amount of CPU/GPU/RAM/etc., and importantly, the UI is not clunky as a result of additional features." This still doesn't properly explain the term, because it's largely contextual. If you look over at the original posters comment, he's not talking about hard drive space, he's talking about launch time and compilation speed, and if we consider the context of the video, he's talking specifically about "features" like Bolt. Hence my reply, Bolt is an optional component, not built-in, and as such will have zero impact on his experience using the software. However. Ideologically I personally disagree entirely with both your standpoint, and his. I don't care how much space the engine takes up on my PC, and as long as the space it takes up on my players PCs is reasonable, I don't care about that, either. We live in the era of 1TB SSDs costing $60-100. Space isn't an issue. I am far more concerned with this question: will it run on most machines people use to play games comparable to mine with? That's it. That's all that matters. Sure, compilation speed helps lessen my annoyance, but it doesn't impact me that greatly. Sure, the IDE not taking forever to load is nice, but it's also a small fraction of the time I spend working - and most of the time, it's already up and running on my development system, anyway. At the end of the day, we are designing games and as such, we should be concerned mostly with how our users experience will be. As long as we are able to use the software in front of us, the rest should be focused on how our players needs are met, not our own. And really, the last thing I care about is hard drive space. I'm well aware Godot is tiny... When you remove everything from it. It's also open source, not all that well supported, fairly slow in comparison, apparently terrible with 3d, I mean... In general, it plays out like using an early build of an open source software. Because it is. Don't get me wrong, I use plenty of open source things and I generally much prefer to. Godot is a cool project and it's fun to tinker around in. But for building a real title? I'm not risking it with open source, I'll stick with the very heavily funded projects where I know things work well and the team behind them will have actually put a lot of time, energy, and money behind figuring out the best, most optimal way to do things so that I can focus on my product, and not on the bugs and quirks involved in using very early open source software. But... Yeah. Got a bit off track. Long and short of it, lightweight typically refers to the overall functioning of a software, not the size. Size is an element of it, but probably the least important one. Its definitely entirely contextual, though, as well as subjective.
@@xnadave Didn't mean it in terms of performance, at the end of the day that thing is turned into assembly code and should be somewhat optimized. I'm talking at the huge mess that will be at the end :D if it's maintainable at all.
This really is a game changer. Im a programmer and wont substitute my core programming, but i've been chasing like crazy for a propper way to have visually-editable state-machines, which are incredibly usefull for fast behaviour-prototiping and even final product. I've iterated various times around the development of designer-friendly tools to hook up chains of pre-defined behaviours or ad-hoc-per-instance behaviours associated with being on different states, but programming a FSM and hooking its state and modularity to a propper and potent editor is a big task. This would just simplifys it 1000% if nodes and graphs are extendable, and their editors. Does anyone know if this would be the case? *Will official-Bolt be extendable*?
Can you *NOT* make Bolt an extension and more of a prefab that comes with the next Unity update (Like you don't have to download Bolt on the Unity Asset Store or the Unity website, but rather it comes with the next Unity update)?
Because the engine has become a fragemented, bloated mess, and they themselves dont know how to tie all those different packages together anymore without braking things. Its jus a matter of time until Unity will fall apart. Its leaking on every end already.
Looking forward to the custom scripts even as a programmer. Might be better to offload the editor portion of my behaviour tree to Bolt instead of doing it all myself.
Looks good. However, this doesn't show how to work with the scripts created by Bolt, or how translation from scripts to Bolt and back again works. I doubt it can represent much of the complexity possible in C# - so does it just display a black box for some functions / classes?
I have been using clickteam fusion 2.5 to create my 2D projects and i will still use it for 2D projects because it's super easy and powerful enough to create every 2D game I think of but now seeing unity having a visual programming way i will stick with it for creating 3D stuff because latest unity updates made unity easier to understand and a lot powerful than what it already was... great job unity team!
@@ugochanneltv5600 Ok man it's you opinion after all but for me and for a lot of other people it's totally worth it and also remember the pro version of Unity is 1800$ a year not like even a onetime purchase that's more than the cost of my whole PC setup lol
Can you do that check when other referenced object collides thing in code? 15:55 This seems like a great thing to have! otherwise bolt seems really messy and complicated.
out of genuine curiosity, why do we have to use our browser to install packages in 2020 when in 2018/19 it was all accessible from within the editor? that seems like an obvious downgrade to me
But i dont get it and please im a newby ...thats fine if you connect scripts like that but by downloading Bolt we get prewritten scripts for everything? As in c# many things have to be written from the groundup to fit your game, there is no button trigger mechanics, there is no shooting mechanics.
Am I right that visual scripting works ok for procedural coding but kind of rubbish for Object-orientated projects? I’m firmly in the “what’s the point? Just use readable code” side at the moment. Like if I want to add x and y, “z= x+y” is so much simpler than trying to wire two variables into a adder operation and the Outputting the flow back into a new variable box at least to me.
Question, why call them super units when they're just functions? Isn't this just making it harder for beginners to transition to c#? Also 'embed' might be better to be 'instance' to teach real terms.
@@NightOwlDev I get that, but that's purely for ease of use for beginners. The term 'super unit' is just as weird as 'function' and a whole lot less useful in the long run.
@@Octamed Calling them "functions" would also be incorrect from a learning perspective (even though they are functions) because in C# you don't refer to them as "functions", you refer to them as "Void". Void Start(), Void Update() etc
is bolt ok just to start with unity cause programming is a bit confusing for me. and my question is: is it gonna help me with real scripting in the future
@@joshuachan6317 stick with Unreal. I still think it's a better high-end engine if you have the knowledge to use it. Unity is better choice for starters but most people that use Unity for years move to UE later anyway.
If it is as complete as blueprint, I may consider whether to use unit it unreal.. Me now if unreal can get great graphic out of the box like unreal then...
Hopefully the Unity-produced version is better than the 3rd party one. I use this in a VR project and it is not good at all, with terribly slow UI and no concept of trapping errors in event handlers (ie, error at bottom of an event chain bubbles to top of event chain). It may be ok for quick proof-of-concept games but I absolutely recommend NOT using Bolt in any form of professional production.
This is so complex. If the goal was to empower non programmers to be able to create game mechanics, I don't think bolt accomplishes its goal. I hope it's gets easier and simples with future iterations.
@@rkwdev6442 bolt actually has developed a system that translates flow graphs into c# in realtime, though I'm not sure how well it works, I haven't used bolt in a while
To anyone who doesn't know that Unity's dark theme is now free too.
For real?
@@im_silenthysteria yes
ooo yes, but Only 2019.4.8 and up.
That is more game-changer than everything yet...
Just follow the hex editor video if you want dark mode
3:25 Programmers are no humans 😯
It's nice to see Bolt as part of the Unity Family now. :D
so there are two genders...
@@saylasgrivz programmer and designer?
If you ask me, I'd prefer coding. I just don't understand visual scripts because they are hard to read. Of course, it depends on what you've learnt first (or neither of them).
Somewhere between "Hello World" and writing a module that works the first time F5 is pressed, we just _transcend._
Andrii Derhach I see that boltz has a really slow search function for looking for functions. Even when you know what function you want. meanwhile in text scripting you just write your code. you dont need to wait for intellisense. even intellisense is faster than boltz search though.
really took em this long to realize that keeping a dark theme behind a paywall was the stupidest idea ever made
haaaa there was a movie about it called retardotron
the stupidest idea ever made was to keep light baking behind a pay wall :)
Phew, guess I dodged a bullet by choosing Unreal
@@awesom4ik is it stil behind a pay wall ?
@@Nomore859 no it is not now, but it made me drop this engine long time ago
Bolt shipped with Unity as standard, absolutely incredible, this is a game changer, thank you...
Game changer.. ha ha XD
@@MichaelKire Bruh lol
Yes playmaker is best
"Included in all plans without cost" is really awkward phrasing. Why not just say "Bolt is now free on the Asset Store"?
Because when you call it free it angers those who bought it.
@@jojobee228 But everyone who bought it got a refund.
Wth it's free? I mean I don't have to pay anything for it? My english is kinda weak so sorry for asking such an obvious thing bud
@@AppyTheApe yes, it's a free download from the Asset Store
@@masonwheeler6536 Wow thanks for letting me know buddy.
quite impressive that you can edit the graphs in playmode... NOICE. i can see myself using this inbetwix my normal scripts
When your spaghetti code actually looks like spaghetti
I love spaghetti
lol
Looks cool but I know I'm gonna keep learning C# as usual.
Yeah. In my opinion, nodes are more confusing than code.
yes and you totally should keep learning C#, visual scripting is mostly for those who don't need to learn how to code like 3D artists. Everyone else should learn to code as it's a transferable skill to other programs and something you can use to get a Job outside of Unity.
Scripting is basically used by designers to test game mechanics
Yeah keep learning c# because it gives you more control
@@abhishekchhetri8576 your comment makes no sense
I paid full price for Bolt when it first came out and it was worth every penny. I can code just fine but this makes everything so much faster.
Same it's really useful for prototypes
Maybe it's just me, but I never got visual scripting. It seems 100x more complicated than just writing code.
Learning the graph system is another thing to learn on top of C# language. Load times are longer on weaker PCs also.
Visual is fine for shaders, but for scripting C# is already easy enough. Unless Bolt implements DOTS it's not really easier.
"It seems 100x more complicated than just writing code." Unless you aren't experienced with code. Then it's heaps easier.
Being accessible to beginners has always been a strong suit of Unity's and I see this addition as another step in that direction. Doesn't mean everyone should switch to visual scripting, but it's a great feature to have to bring newer developers up to speed.
- Developer since 14 years who once started learning on a pinball editor with (you guessed it) visual scripting.
Yeah man... Visual Scripting always looks much complicated
That's a matter of perspective. I assume you are not a visual person and already have more knowledge than can be learned in a year. Do you know how many people started scripting with Scratch? This is scratch but advanced, if this is how Unity gets 10% more people interested in game programming in Unity because they lowered the bar of entry it is well worth the resources they dumped into this.
I can’t believe it. I’ve always wanted to work on a video game but scripting always hold me back. This is incredible!
Unreal already had one of the best visual scripting a while ago bruh
@@ghouldrago360 what's it called buddy?
@@AppyTheApeits called visual scripting 😏 was that the question?
@@pferdschur702 Sorry to say but no buddy I was asking about the programme's name in unreal engine that's allows us to do visual scripting
@@AppyTheApe It is contained in the unreal editor, in the blueprint window. it comes preinstalled, not as a package
I'm in that awkward middle ground where I'm not a true "programmer" but I've also coded so much in GM that I hate anything that isn't just typing it out and being done with it.
Yeah thats how I transferred from GMS to Unity in January, I enjoy coding traditionally
GM => Garry's mod?
@@thattrollagen They're probably referring to GameMaker
@@thattrollagen Referring to Gamemaker.
As someone coming from blender with its node-based shading, node-scripting is a godsend, as I can barely wrap my head around scripting. It's possible, thanks to brackey's videos, but it's not easy.
really nice video. I like how the logic is visually represented with bolt. this may open up unity game dev for way more people. I'm a fan
me: Wow now i can make some very high end URP games
my laptop: nononon you don't think about it
Cries in potato w vga port
*Laughs in intel hd 3000
Cries in 8x13 inch display
why do you use a laptop for it?
@@mishalw210 dumb question
We need full video guides for Bolt. Let us encourage Brackeys and Sykoo
I have tutorials on my channel called Game Designer Online. However, I have discontinued it as I didn't get enough views or demands. Still should give you an idea of how it works.
@@theplaymakerno1 Thanks man, will check out now.
I'm making some new once on my channel, have 20+ of them already check them out.
Brackeys is no longer posting new videos on the channel
i guess noone told you RIP brackeys
This has so much potential, amazing! Thank you for your work unity team!
when I started learning unity somewhere in 2022, I thought that it only supports normal scripting. but I was wrong, this is ...................... AMAZING😃
I've always wanted to make a game on unity and i think this visual scripting tool is worth a try for every game dev like me that uses ue4 blueprints.
its 17th today and yt decided finally to send me a notification, congratulations yt XD
I got it today and I'm a sub of this channel
@@Dragoncro0wn xd
Thanks for adding this. It will help a lot with prototyping.
Showcasing Bolt with a character named Penny....... Nice
Good catch
*W a i t. . .*
I finally figured it out. So I realized that I'm typically thinking very procedurally and in the order that I'd be typing my code which is top down, left to right. For me, I declare and set variables before I call any function because I'm thinking ahead. I've noticed bolt users, start with the end in mind and usually work backwards. I need to just change my thinking on my approach.
Now that you mention it, when I was doing the Bolt tutorials for my channel, I was thinking it backwards like you mention haha
Great introduction to Bolt.
Yes
The killer feature is the runtime coding feature. That's a one up over any other coding editor. If you could figure out an elegant way to keep other parts from disappearing that'd be great (it looks bad in the tute when you have to recreate the variable. Imagine how confusing that is to beginners)
You can copy the values when in Play mode
@@tonywoods1226 Sure, but that's horrible UX for a feature that's aimed squarely at beginners
agree, surely it could just recreate the variables that you made during runtime...
I use to play with playmaker back in the day... And now I use blueprint In ue... It's about time unity has its own visual scripting tools... Can't wait to try it...
Pretty sweet. Looking forward to using this. Programing is great, but this allows less focus on technical skills and more time for design.
The issue with Bolt is it's using the same terms and concepts as c#, it takes many steps to write the equivalent of a couple of lines of code. To make it truly useful, there needs to be a level of abstraction where instead of variables and other coding constructs it needs to translate plain english to scripts, perhaps ask questions to clarify intent of the user, you want jump or go forward, how fast etc. etc
agreed. that would be much easier for non-programmers. and it should be doable
I program all my stuff, but I can see using this in gamejams or other fast prototyping scenarios. This will also spawn libraries in the community that (should) be immune to unity changes that would normally deprecate or break C# code.
@machine Like Shader Graph is not EXACTLY 1:1 map to shader magic, I expect null checks, caching, and switching from deprecated calls to uptodate calls by the library owners. Bolt is nothing but advantages.
@machine The built-in renderer isn't going away anytime soon. DOTS is amazing in terms of performance, and ECS in general is a much more flexible, performant and powerful architecture. But, Unity isn't going to leave decades of legacy code out in the cold.
Could you create a full game using Bolt? And if so, are there any major disadvantages to using Bolt instead of coding?
Bolt is awesome! What a great tool for beginners, designers, level designers etc. 🤓👍🧡
making a game without programming just feels you didn't make anything , the bad feeling of struggling with coding turns good after you see good results, anyways good job for making Unity easy for everyone to use !
Haha, nobody can understand this thing as easy as programmers can. They have to learn atleast basics i think. But anyways, it's a nice step by Unity
Visual Programming is jus the same as any other high level programming, its jus another (beneficial) layer of abstraction, those who get that, are thos non-elitist, non-stubborn deveopers who are actually releasing games, good example: The First Tree. If writing endless lines of code is your thing, fine, but dont spread disrespect to those who do it visually, its not much easier programming the same logic visually. Coding is jus remembering synthax and more typework. If you are satisfied with typing code, cool.
This is like M4L for visuals! Sick!
I am 13 and it will help me to learn and create more quickly
This is nice for challenges and game jams which has a short amount of time... but I have been learning c# and I think the code gives more control... it's like the difference between tile based and Sprite based workflow (in 2D, if you make 2D games you know the difference).
If these guys can help in environment art (like Unreal and Quixel), I'll return to Unity!
i would like to see a tutorial on animation curves specifically how to add key frame arrays and making game object change key points in curve. also if u could point in right direction to find out more info on specific units.
Nice, can't wait for Bolt 2......................................
Tbh, maybe now I'll dive full force into Unity.
It's always the question right? Unreal vs Unity. I was gonna pick Unreal because visual scripting is good to get your feet wet in designing AND I've heard you can get some nice things with the visual scripting.
But Unreal will make my computer run HOT with just a cube on the screen...
Unity I never had that issue, but learning code is always so deep and daunting. I always get past the basic basics, but as I go even deeper, I get more and more lost since I'm doing it mainly as a hobby.
Visual scripting, although maybe not as flexible as ACTUAL coding, will help teach people and get them into it more gradually.
Definitely looking forward to seeing more about it soon!
UE4's Blueprint system is quite in-depth (which is a good thing, lots of control), but you can also write the code in C++ (after all, that's what your blueprints get compiled as, behind the scenes).
Unity has C# and... get ready to cringe... JavaScript. Now it seems they have a (very janky looking) node-based system too. I personally don't like Unity's node editors, the shader graph was a good example of how not to do node graph systems, and this one looks - from the video - almost as poor quality. I'm sure it was rushed.
As a long-time (and entirely self-taught) programmer, I would say writing code is always much better, but of course I have bias. Do whatever feels right for you. What I will say though is that although node-based scripting looks nice on the surface, you can often find that it's missing features or abilities that you can do with code, and can take just as much time, if not more, to achieve the same results (however this is situational). And I am not adverse to node graphs, they can be really good (take Blender or UE4, for example).
Also I doubt Unreal would make your computer run hot. I have one of the poorest CPUs in existence, by rating too (an AMD FX-4300, feel sorry for me! It's like plugging a literal potato into your motherboard), and this ancient relic from 3 thousand years ago can run Unreal perfectly, no problem, smooth 60fps throughout, and no heat.
Node graphs
- Pro: They can look very nice nice - Con: - not in Unity's case though
- Pro: Some people find visual scripting easier to understand, or more intuitive
- Pro: Can recreate a lot of things you could do in code - Con: - not everything though
- Pro: They can help protect you from errors - Con: - I don't trust Unity with that though because their own code and editor is often what's throwing most of (if not all of) the errors and this rushed-lookin-ass node graph will be no different, no doubt buggy for a long time coming
- Pro: Some can show you the flow-of-execution (UE4 does), which helps you understand the chronological order of your script as it runs
- Con: They can get really messy real quick, and are not fantastic when doing anything involving larger sets of data, or more complex data
- Con: You're going to struggle to create things like classes/structures, for example an Item class and an Inventory system, just wouldn't be as good or as easy to create with a node-based system (not impossible, just... tricky)
Code:
- Pro: You can do anything, anything, ANYTHING!
- Pro: Code is an art form in and of itself and it is very satisfying to learn new techniques or ways of doing things
- Pro: You have total control over your code (great for APIs), whereas with node graphs you don't, because the code is generated behind the scenes (unless they give you access to the generated code)
- Pro: Code can be applied to other projects externally, whereas node systems cannot generally. Meaning, if you program in C#, you can use that code in other (non-Unity) projects or translate that code to other languages with relative ease, but a node graph can't be transferred, you'd have to recreate it from scratch (if your other project even has node graph capability in the first place)
- Con: It's harder to learn for some people
- Con: JavaScript. Just... just steer clear if you have -and would like to hold on to- some sanity! C# all the way, C# is love, C# is life!
I hope this helps at least somewhat. Be safe and happy developing :)
@@logix8969 didn't like unity removed javascript long time ago?
Maybe it's just my misunderstanding and didn't worked with unity in past 5 months
@@Akyomi777 They might have, I never use it and haven't used Unity properly for a while now. But last I remember the option was at least still in the context menu
It is nice to have short tutorial to show what bolt can do but a nice tutorial series what explains it more in detail would be nice
I hope unity stays relatively lightweight with all these new features. UE4 took forever when starting the editor and compiling scripts, which is why i switched to unity.
Try Godot 3 - it's even lighter ;-)
@@igorthelight True to that, it's way lighter
Many of these features are downloadable add-ons, not inherent properties of the engine.
@@atlasveldine6314 True.
That's their new way of doing things.
But still:
Unity 2019.4.14f1= 7.85 Gb
Godot 3.2.3 x64 = 61.9 Mb (yes < 100 Mb!) + ALL export plugins = 700 Mb.
So it's under 1 GB with all the features. Even with mini-IDE for writing your game logic and offline help.
@@igorthelight I wasn't replying to your comment, only the initial post. My statement had nothing to do with what you said.
Lightweight refers to many variables, not just the size of the files. To illustrate how the size of a particular piece of software is pretty much entirely irrelevant, consider that an uncompressed movie could easily be in the 100s of GBs, and the compressed movie (a t a level of compression that is unnoticeable to the human eye) could be under 1GB. If you watch both side by side, and can't see any difference, you'd argue that the 1GB one is more lightweight, yet it's actually taking more of your processing power in lieu of hard drive space in order to uncompress the file and play it back. So, is it more lightweight, now? This is just one example to illustrate the point, it's not a perfect analogy, and I'm aware of that. Rather, it's intended to demonstrate that the term "lightweight" isn't really talking about just one element, but rather all elements. It is in effect saying, "this software uses few overall resources: runs fast on lower end hardware, uses a reasonable amount of hard drive space, uses a reasonable amount of CPU/GPU/RAM/etc., and importantly, the UI is not clunky as a result of additional features." This still doesn't properly explain the term, because it's largely contextual. If you look over at the original posters comment, he's not talking about hard drive space, he's talking about launch time and compilation speed, and if we consider the context of the video, he's talking specifically about "features" like Bolt. Hence my reply, Bolt is an optional component, not built-in, and as such will have zero impact on his experience using the software.
However. Ideologically I personally disagree entirely with both your standpoint, and his. I don't care how much space the engine takes up on my PC, and as long as the space it takes up on my players PCs is reasonable, I don't care about that, either. We live in the era of 1TB SSDs costing $60-100. Space isn't an issue. I am far more concerned with this question: will it run on most machines people use to play games comparable to mine with? That's it. That's all that matters. Sure, compilation speed helps lessen my annoyance, but it doesn't impact me that greatly. Sure, the IDE not taking forever to load is nice, but it's also a small fraction of the time I spend working - and most of the time, it's already up and running on my development system, anyway. At the end of the day, we are designing games and as such, we should be concerned mostly with how our users experience will be. As long as we are able to use the software in front of us, the rest should be focused on how our players needs are met, not our own.
And really, the last thing I care about is hard drive space. I'm well aware Godot is tiny... When you remove everything from it. It's also open source, not all that well supported, fairly slow in comparison, apparently terrible with 3d, I mean... In general, it plays out like using an early build of an open source software. Because it is. Don't get me wrong, I use plenty of open source things and I generally much prefer to. Godot is a cool project and it's fun to tinker around in. But for building a real title? I'm not risking it with open source, I'll stick with the very heavily funded projects where I know things work well and the team behind them will have actually put a lot of time, energy, and money behind figuring out the best, most optimal way to do things so that I can focus on my product, and not on the bugs and quirks involved in using very early open source software.
But... Yeah. Got a bit off track. Long and short of it, lightweight typically refers to the overall functioning of a software, not the size. Size is an element of it, but probably the least important one. Its definitely entirely contextual, though, as well as subjective.
In short this tool is usefull for those who know how to do it but dont know exact code for that
Haha... 💯
Can't wait for someone to make a multiplayer game with this :D - Works fine for small things, I wanna see how one codes networking with it :D
good for AI as well and animation events but i refuse to use bolt for more than that especially player controller
@@Onidourou You might be surprised. Going through IL2CPP / LLVM produces some seriously tight, performant code.
@@xnadave Didn't mean it in terms of performance, at the end of the day that thing is turned into assembly code and should be somewhat optimized. I'm talking at the huge mess that will be at the end :D if it's maintainable at all.
I Mean if you understood what happened in this video.. You might as well be a programmer 😂 coz programming is not all about the syntax
Its about the logic really. You can know all about the English language, does not make you a good writer :D
This really is a game changer. Im a programmer and wont substitute my core programming, but i've been chasing like crazy for a propper way to have visually-editable state-machines, which are incredibly usefull for fast behaviour-prototiping and even final product.
I've iterated various times around the development of designer-friendly tools to hook up chains of pre-defined behaviours or ad-hoc-per-instance behaviours associated with being on different states, but programming a FSM and hooking its state and modularity to a propper and potent editor is a big task. This would just simplifys it 1000% if nodes and graphs are extendable, and their editors.
Does anyone know if this would be the case? *Will official-Bolt be extendable*?
It's very useful for beginning.
C# is very easy to learn. Much more can be done with it..👍
Can you *NOT* make Bolt an extension and more of a prefab that comes with the next Unity update (Like you don't have to download Bolt on the Unity Asset Store or the Unity website, but rather it comes with the next Unity update)?
FINNNNAAAALLLYYYY
I can make games on unity, Thanks
Guys this is fantastic tool! Try combine it with c# use them together is a powerfull tooll that can help us!
So we can use regular coding and visual scripting together in one game?
Well, I think it can because bolt is just code visualized, so I think it can easily work together.
Nice to see Unity is finally doing what Unreal has been doing for like what 10 years ?
No, unreal introduced blueprints 5 years ago
@@ugochanneltv5600 And before that, the "same thing" was called Kismet. So I think Unreal engine's visual scripting is more like 20 years old.
@@andrasi_gyula damn right
Why don't Unity just put visual script instead of downloading separate tool? it confuses new users.
you literally click one button in the editor to activate it.
Because the engine has become a fragemented, bloated mess, and they themselves dont know how to tie all those different packages together anymore without braking things. Its jus a matter of time until Unity will fall apart. Its leaking on every end already.
Wow, cool! Thanks Ashley!
Can something like this be done for simple programming too. I mean not just limited to game development but a full fledge programming language.
Me 2 Days ago: hmmm... I would like to try out visual scripting, may I should switch to Unreal for some Time
Unity: hold my beer...
This was uploaded 4 days ago tho?
Looking forward to the custom scripts even as a programmer. Might be better to offload the editor portion of my behaviour tree to Bolt instead of doing it all myself.
Graph asset file is a script, compiled on build creation step, or it is just an text asset, that will be loaded in run-time?
Cool. More video tutorials (on Unity Learning) please.
This will make it easier for GM Studio users to transition to Unity!
Making Bolt free was in great demand
Isn't this confusing to use when say you create a game with a complicated game logic?
I don't think it's any more confusing than normal code, no
Well its a matter of preference, in which case you can just use c#
Amazing ! Visual Scripting !!
please add more tutolrials about 3d games ( import objects, import action for animate player )
Scratch 2 is looking pretty good
Well, you just invented the indie version of BluePrints... Congratulations👏😉😁
Question for Unity. In terms of using C# Script, or Bolt, which method performs the fastest after compiled and running?
does this plugin convert the graph into code to be used without the plugin?
Looks good. However, this doesn't show how to work with the scripts created by Bolt, or how translation from scripts to Bolt and back again works. I doubt it can represent much of the complexity possible in C# - so does it just display a black box for some functions / classes?
I have been using clickteam fusion 2.5 to create my 2D projects and i will still use it for 2D projects because it's super easy and powerful enough to create every 2D game I think of but now seeing unity having a visual programming way i will stick with it for creating 3D stuff because latest unity updates made unity easier to understand and a lot powerful than what it already was... great job unity team!
Clickteam costs 80 dollars. I will never buy a game engine at this price
@@ugochanneltv5600 Ok man it's you opinion after all but for me and for a lot of other people it's totally worth it
and also remember the pro version of Unity is 1800$ a year not like even a onetime purchase that's more than the cost of my whole PC setup lol
@@A-Random-Guy but nobody need the pro version of unitt
Wow that’s incredible. Gonna give this a go
Thank you sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much for Bolt. My brain is not good for regular scripting.👏👏🎊🎊✨🎉🎉🎉🎉😄
Can you do that check when other referenced object collides thing in code? 15:55
This seems like a great thing to have!
otherwise bolt seems really messy and complicated.
You need Jesus Romans 10:9-10
What is the performance like? Will this be able to replace coding in a large project or is it just a prototyping tool?
I have the same question
Bolt is finally free, so I will DEFINITELY check it out.
Is the graph fully converted to code on build? I have performance concerns because I work with phones where the power varies a lot.
in my opinion, every one should the c# basics at least.if you learned code.Bolt will be so easy
this looks awesome, but how is this different from Unity's current visual scripting feature
out of genuine curiosity, why do we have to use our browser to install packages in 2020 when in 2018/19 it was all accessible from within the editor? that seems like an obvious downgrade to me
It's possible after using Bolt to see the C# Script?
Is this supposed to be easier for non programmers?
But i dont get it and please im a newby ...thats fine if you connect scripts like that but by downloading Bolt we get prewritten scripts for everything?
As in c# many things have to be written from the groundup to fit your game, there is no button trigger mechanics, there is no shooting mechanics.
would this be comparable for making video player VR apps for oculus or Openxr?
Am I right that visual scripting works ok for procedural coding but kind of rubbish for Object-orientated projects? I’m firmly in the “what’s the point? Just use readable code” side at the moment. Like if I want to add x and y, “z= x+y” is so much simpler than trying to wire two variables into a adder operation and the Outputting the flow back into a new variable box at least to me.
Question, why call them super units when they're just functions? Isn't this just making it harder for beginners to transition to c#? Also 'embed' might be better to be 'instance' to teach real terms.
I’m assuming all that is fixed if you pick the programmer code
@@NightOwlDev I get that, but that's purely for ease of use for beginners. The term 'super unit' is just as weird as 'function' and a whole lot less useful in the long run.
@@Octamed They're called "Void" in C# anyway.
@@captainoblivious_yt eh?
@@Octamed Calling them "functions" would also be incorrect from a learning perspective (even though they are functions) because in C# you don't refer to them as "functions", you refer to them as "Void". Void Start(), Void Update() etc
is bolt ok just to start with unity cause programming is a bit confusing for me. and my question is: is it gonna help me with real scripting in the future
is it possible to make an indicator or even an expert advisor with this program?
Bolt : I AM COMING
PlayMaker : (RIP)
Don't think so. Bolt is like UE4 Blueprints. The hard way of visual scripting. Playmaker is the easy way. I really prefer Playmaker.
Abhi maja Aenga Na Bhidu 😍😍😍
That is just like unreal's blueprint
yeah, that's why I use Unreal instead of Unity... But now, they make bolt... IDK what I should do then...
@@joshuachan6317 Stick with UE4. Its Vs is a lot better than bolt and unity is saying they are dumping bolt2.
@@usmanmemon When did they say that? I thought they were working to finish bolt2.
@@joshuachan6317 stick with Unreal. I still think it's a better high-end engine if you have the knowledge to use it. Unity is better choice for starters but most people that use Unity for years move to UE later anyway.
@@666222333111 Unity is better for programmers and unreal s better for artists.
Could you please make a video on how to make your game look better?
My bolt still not be refund to me but that's not a big deal.What i mostly concerned is when the bolt 2 coming out or whether bolt 2 will come out?
If it is as complete as blueprint, I may consider whether to use unit it unreal.. Me now if unreal can get great graphic out of the box like unreal then...
Hopefully the Unity-produced version is better than the 3rd party one. I use this in a VR project and it is not good at all, with terribly slow UI and no concept of trapping errors in event handlers (ie, error at bottom of an event chain bubbles to top of event chain). It may be ok for quick proof-of-concept games but I absolutely recommend NOT using Bolt in any form of professional production.
I hope this brings a shift ton of tutorials?
Playmaker and bolt have so few good tutorials
Really good news for anyone trying to get into scripting but don't have the time or enegy to learn it from scratch
This is so complex. If the goal was to empower non programmers to be able to create game mechanics, I don't think bolt accomplishes its goal. I hope it's gets easier and simples with future iterations.
Visual assembly is the future. Get it right.
Playmaker makes life easy, Bolt makes life more complicated.
playmaker is really easy, but bolt has a lot more functionality when it comes to more complex stuff
@@glimby bolt will be useful for people who don't know to code at all, according to my understanding 🤔
@@VINNUSAURUS no no that's the exact opposite
@@Horzinicla It is only good to prototype with Visual scripting, anyway you will have to translate it into c# code
@@rkwdev6442 bolt actually has developed a system that translates flow graphs into c# in realtime, though I'm not sure how well it works, I haven't used bolt in a while
Which is better C# or Bolt VS
How the **** do you move around in the graph! I can only zoom in and out but cannot pan into any direction.
When see said "without code" I was already intrested
learn to code, it'll be useful
Technically visual scripting is literally just code with pictures. So you can't escape programming sadly
yea its cool making a game without a code but i recommend you to still learn c# its much more enjoyable than just dragging and putting it together