Playmaker 2.0

[djaydino]

Hi.
Personally i would not mind if 2.0 is not backward compatible.

I think most important should be the usability.

For example, currently if you make fsms with many states things start to slow down (due to unity limitations)

or if you have a object with many fsms and the are expanded in the inspector
this can also slow down (again due to unity limitations)

so if there is a different way that would be improving this issue but would not be able to be backward compatible, i would definitely choose for not backward compatible.

But it would also mean that Playmaker 1 should be continued supported at least for  a year or 2.

[GrumpyGameDev]

Hi.
Personally i would not mind if 2.0 is not backward compatible.

I think most important should be the usability.

For example, currently if you make fsms with many states things start to slow down (due to unity limitations)

or if you have a object with many fsms and the are expanded in the inspector
this can also slow down (again due to unity limitations)

so if there is a different way that would be improving this issue but would not be able to be backward compatible, i would definitely choose for not backward compatible.

But it would also mean that Playmaker 1 should be continued supported at least for  a year or 2.

I completely agree with you.

[Broken Stylus]

Hi.
Personally i would not mind if 2.0 is not backward compatible.

I think most important should be the usability.

For example, currently if you make fsms with many states things start to slow down (due to unity limitations)

or if you have a object with many fsms and the are expanded in the inspector
this can also slow down (again due to unity limitations)

so if there is a different way that would be improving this issue but would not be able to be backward compatible, i would definitely choose for not backward compatible.

But it would also mean that Playmaker 1 should be continued supported at least for  a year or 2.

True although a P1 LTS might strain their resources.

[nightcorelv]

i would love if playmaker 2 look like this



PS:the game engine is Construct3(a very popular engine) if your guys want to see more about this design

[djaydino]

Hi.
Personally i do not like this way.

Especially if you have more complex fms's i can see this getting very messy.

But everybody is free to have their own opinion

[Plancksize]

Hi.
Personally i do not like this way.

Especially if you have more complex fms's i can see this getting very messy.

But everybody is free to have their own opinion

I agree. Current way fsm's are shown it's nearly perfect and imo, would fit fsm grouping in a seamless way.
I'm pretty hyped for PM2.0 features

[GrumpyGameDev]

Hi.
Personally i do not like this way.

Especially if you have more complex fms's i can see this getting very messy.

But everybody is free to have their own opinion

Agreed. I used C2(Construct 2, which is not different with event sheet wise compared to C3) and it gets very messy and just plain annoying to deal with real quick.

[djaydino]

I agree. Current way fsm's are shown it's nearly perfect and imo, would fit fsm grouping in a seamless way.
I'm pretty hyped for PM2.0 features

You can already do kind of grouping with 'Run Fsm' and templates

[...]

i would love if playmaker 2 look like this



PS:the game engine is Construct3(a very popular engine) if your guys want to see more about this design

I don't understand what's going on here.

[Broken Stylus]

i would love if playmaker 2 look like this



PS:the game engine is Construct3(a very popular engine) if your guys want to see more about this design

I don't understand what's going on here.

Me neither!
Playmaker provides a function that acts like a map in its Graph view, with arrows, starting points, destinations, etc. But that thing, construct3's UI, is like parsing a whole c script and putting whole regions into collapsable boxes with pretty colours. It is absolutely not intuitive.
Does it provide any kind of advantage?

[Wrensey]

If you guys are aiming to compete with Bolt a huge feature you should try to include is C# code generation

[...]

That's impossible and a whole other cup of tea, they simply work differently.

[Broken Stylus]

If you guys are aiming to compete with Bolt a huge feature you should try to include is C# code generation

That's what µScript did and it did not do them any good. The code generated as far from being natural to look at.

[jeanfabre]

If you guys are aiming to compete with Bolt a huge feature you should try to include is C# code generation

Bolt has a totally different approach to visual coding, it's not about how it works internally, it's how logic is presented and the level of abstraction from the actual equivalent source code.

 On that regards, Bolt is missing the target, like all other visual scripting attempts so far. The competition is actually elsewhere on how Unity is going to support Bolt and if Bolt way was not as widely adopted by devs because of the price or because of something else.

Bye,

 Jean

[Uttpd]

i would love if playmaker 2 look like this

Construct approach to VS is the best I´v ever seen implemented. Easy to read pick up and manage (at least for small projects, cannot comment on big ones).
C3 business model and browser dependency keep it from becoming more popular, but the VS part is spot on.
PS: Do give it a try (its free to test) the Pics do not favour it.