PlayMaker vs. ICode

[DeepShader]

Hi there,
maybe I'm a lil bit to stupid, but is there any reason why I should use ICode instead of PlayMaker? Don't they do the same thing?

[Lane]

I haven't used it but it looks to be a State Machine based system, so in principle the two asset's are in the same family. ICode seems to pull some ideas from how Playmaker works with Actions.

Playmaker uses its own graph view and is very user friendly. ICode seems to use the built-in Mecanim graph view and apparently takes advantage of at least some of the Mecanim state systems. I suppose this could be good or bad, depends on if you enjoy the Mecanim interface or not.

That's about all I can tell from the asset store page.

[DeepShader]

Thank you. I love PlayMaker, but I'm confused why people combine PlayMaker and ICode if both are a State Machine oO

[DeepShader]

Can you do the same things with PlayMaker you can do with the Mecanim state system?

[Lane]

I was unaware that they were being combined. There isn't really much value to it in a practical sense, but in some fringe cases someone may want the two to communicate so they could take advantage of Actions in ICode that aren't in Playmaker or vice versa.

Then again, if that were the case then they would be better off just converting the missing actions and sticking to one asset unless they just love spaghetti projects and miles of maintenance trails.

Whether or not you can do something largely depends on how intuitive you are.

[DeepShader]

Can you do the same things with PlayMaker you can do with the Mecanim state system?

[Lane]

Maybe you misunderstand. Mecanim itself doesn't allow any gameplay design or whatever, but it does use the concept of the State Machine, which is what stuff like ICode is interested in using.

ICode (and other assets) are probably using the interface that Mecanim provides as a retrofitted UI and piggybacking of the Mecanim API for their own FSM asset. Playmaker has it's own original interface and FSM system.

Does it make a difference? I don't know - like I said, I haven't used those assets so I'm just guessing based off of what I can see in the asset page.

[jeanfabre]

Hi,

 Yeah, PlayMaker will be a lot different in terms of flaw, since mecanim transition system between states is very different then PlayMaker.

I guess, it's all about giving it a go. I am sure iCode has some very clear use case where it make sense, but I am also pretty sure it's nothing PlayMaker can't do out of the box.

 Bye,

 Jean

[DeepShader]

Maybe you misunderstand. Mecanim itself doesn't allow any gameplay design or whatever, but it does use the concept of the State Machine, which is what stuff like ICode is interested in using.

(before)
...and apparently takes advantage of at least some of the Mecanim state systems

This was, what I mean - you said "and apparently takes advantage of at least some of the Mecanim state systems" << so this doesn't mean "some special features of Unity or MSS-Animation-Control", right?

So everything can be done with PlayMaker, too and there's no reason to use/combine ICode, if you're happy with PlayMaker, because you can done the same stuff with PlayMaker



BTW: What do the two chars in the PlayMaker-Sign means in english?

[jeanfabre]

Hi,

 well, it also has a lot to do with your preference. iCode and PlayMaker have different workflow, so it will be a question of what feels better and/or more suitable for a task or for how confortable the developer is using icode and/or PlayMaker. I don't see anything wrong in using a combination of both, you have to use the right tool for the right task, and for this you need to take in account your preference as a person and frame of mind.

Bye,

 Jean

ps: wondering too what the sign means