playMaker

Author Topic: Playmaker 2.0  (Read 16775 times)

djaydino

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5547
    • View Profile
    • jinxtergames
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #45 on: July 13, 2020, 09:19:39 AM »
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.

TotalHavoc

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #46 on: July 13, 2020, 03:15:34 PM »
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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #47 on: July 18, 2020, 11:53:26 AM »
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

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #48 on: July 24, 2020, 02:22:33 AM »
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
« Last Edit: July 24, 2020, 02:30:22 AM by nightcorelv »

djaydino

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5547
    • View Profile
    • jinxtergames
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #49 on: July 24, 2020, 02:41:41 AM »
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

  • Beta Group
  • Junior Playmaker
  • *
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2020, 03:57:40 AM »
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 :)

TotalHavoc

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2020, 09:08:59 AM »
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

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5547
    • View Profile
    • jinxtergames
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2020, 09:26:12 AM »
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

krmko

  • Beta Group
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
    • View Profile
    • Fat Pug Studio
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2020, 11:41:12 AM »
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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2020, 08:24:29 AM »
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

  • Playmaker Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2020, 05:40:59 PM »
If you guys are aiming to compete with Bolt a huge feature you should try to include is C# code generation
Follow me on twitter!

krmko

  • Beta Group
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
    • View Profile
    • Fat Pug Studio
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #56 on: July 28, 2020, 11:58:33 PM »
That's impossible and a whole other cup of tea, they simply work differently.

Broken Stylus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #57 on: July 29, 2020, 01:06:52 AM »
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

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15403
  • Official Playmaker Support
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #58 on: July 30, 2020, 12:36:04 AM »
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

  • Junior Playmaker
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Playmaker 2.0
« Reply #59 on: August 23, 2020, 04:31:26 AM »
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.