Godot or Armory ?

@emo10001 said: I've had my eye on Armory for a while too. I just don't think its quite there yet. But with the new funding it got, I think it will get there soon. The thought of Armory being directly integrated with Blender is really appealing. However, there's certainly room for both it and Godot in the indie community.

-emo

Godot is not ready on some 3D features like full navigation components, stable better physics and Armory already allow to make the same 3D gameplay you would make with Godot limitations. Creating your level and objects and test the game directly on Blender the game is something that would speed a lot game creation. Godot can't rival with BLender modeling,sculpting and animation tools, but Godot could get a modeling tool like CryEngine

Some engine have skeletal creation and animation plugins, Godot could also got those for 3D games and it would become a 3D engine with modeling tools for static and animated objects. This way many games could be made almost entirely in Godot. I will follow Armory progress, it could be interesting even if there is less editor features.

@TwistedTwigleg said: Well, I'd look at how many games have been made with Armory in comparison to how many games have been made with Godot. So far, I have not been able to find any games made with Armory, so in theory it is possible to make 3D games with Armory right now.

Not to say 3D games cannot be made with Armory, but so far I'd say Godot is the safer bet as far as game development goes. That said, I'd love to see a 3D game made with Armory!

I want to say the same for Godot,how many good3D games ? I don't see anything beyond small arcade games. Perhaps we must stay safe and look at how many great 3D games have been made in [name your engine] ?

Godot is not ready for ambitious 3D games and Armory is on the same position, they will need time to get lot more 3D features.

I encountered issues and limitations in Godot 3D, while Godot has more editor features, Armory is capable of making the same 3D arcade games we see in Godot, and much more.

It has good potential

Some things are better than Godot

Game creation in Armory is the winner with Blender integration, all 3D game is made without leaving Blender.

Blender 2.8 could get Armoryintegration, this means Armory will get Blender shader editor, vertex and textures paint and a full modeler and animation. You could play your game and decide to tweak your character animations, modify the level and play test , all in Blender.

I'm more hyped for Amory 1.0 than Godot 3.0.3.

@TwistedTwigleg said:

@MagicLord said: I want to say the same for Godot,how many good3D games ? I don't see anything beyond small arcade games. Perhaps we must stay safe and look at how many great 3D games have been made in [name your engine] ?

That is fair, and I agree we could do the same comparison for any game engine. I was not intending to offend in any way.

I would agree that there is not much beyond relatively small games in Godot. I'm sure this will change, as Godot 3 has really strengthened what is possible in Godot, especially on the 3D side of things. There are lots of really cool looking 3D games using Godot 3 coming out. I'm especially looking forward to RivenTails :smile:

No doubt as more people use Armory, I'm sure there will be more games made with Armory. I have nothing against Armory, in fact I'd love to give Armory a try and probably will in the future. I did not know about the community made game, which looks pretty cool. Up to this point, I had only seen the development videos and pictures from Lubos :)

It has good potential

This looks really cool! I remember seeing a similar image from Lubos's twitter and I was really impressed!

There is deferred or forward rendering, FXAA, SMAA,TAA, SSAO,RTAO, RTGI,sky radiance, Voxel GI and Voxel AO, Soft Shadows, all tweakable. For example AO is lot more faster than Godot and Voxel GI can also be tweaked to stay fast.

Reflections look good and are less taxing than Godot SSR, and there is many ray traced options. armory3d.org/manual/#/./graphics/global_illumination

I am more impressed by Armory performance and graphic options than Godot 3.

Godot will grow and Armory also will grow, the choice will be how you want to work, it's too awesome to modify your level or objects and animations and test right away.

It's too fun to have all Blender tools and test game modifications right away.

Making a low poly game in that style with Armory would mean there would be absolute no assets export and import; all done in Blender. This is what i will try in Armory before choosing to stick with it.

Armory for sure will get very popular among indie Blender users.

@BinaryOrange said: Armory does indeed look and sound very intriguing and promising. I have to agree with you 100% on Godot's somewhat lackluster 3D features, though compared to Godot 2 it's a huge step in the right direction, they just need more time to add all the bits and bobs in with future updates.

I typically use Godot for small 2D projects (not that I've published anything, but have definitely played around making small "test" games), and Unity for 3D. If I had more experience with Blender I'd probably give Armory a try, but right now it's hard to justify me trying to learn yet another engine. Cool find nonetheless, definitely going to keep my eyes open about it. It's always nice to have competition, it encourages growth!

Blender 2.8 will adress people that find it's UI difficult, Armory with Blender 2.8 will be a great 3D engine.

@frankiezafe said: Do not forget what Godot propose out of the box, compared to Armory3d: a cross-platform standalone editor (not a tiny feature!), easily tweakable, really good features for 2d games, developer friendly, with a module system that just works, gdscript (better than python in my pov) and gdnative. Therefore, it is more mature than Armory, and it's normal. Blender is actively working on integration with all game engines (see https://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2018-May/049438.html), so there is no risk for godot to be left aside.

I'm looking for 3D, for 2D indeed Godot is awesome and it's what i would use. Armory is not difficult, it's also friendly with visual scripting , Amory can compile code that is faster than Godot GDscript.

Godot is not so mature on 3D when you make something bigger than some arcade game,it has un polished areas like no navmesh agent and components, 3D tiles are not able to use GI, there is no blending between GI volumes, packed scenes not able to store other packed sub scenes and scripts, no additive scene loading and unloading, or many physics bugs made me let down the game projects. Godot is doing good in some areas, but i find armory is doing better in fundations and performance while i like a lot it's graphics and performance, Armory do the same pbr rendering as other engines and like Godot propose real time GI feature.

Many people will take Armory instead of Godot for Blender integration, you make,modify and play your game in Blender. This is the next generation workflow to make games for any one and this reminds me Dreams game.

What could bother me with Armory is not about graphics or features but the user base and slow progress. Unlike Godot, there is very low activity and the user base is too small, it's hard to get support and more tutorials this way. This could compromise Armory if it doesn't get more activity and popularity, this could be sad considering it has the top workflow to make games.

@Ace Dragon said:

Godot is not so mature on 3D when you make something bigger than some arcade game,it has un polished areas like no navmesh agent and components, 3D tiles are not able to use GI, there is no blending between GI volumes, packed scenes not able to store other packed sub scenes and scripts, no additive scene loading and unloading, or many physics bugs made me let down the game projects. Godot is doing good in some areas, but i find armory is doing better in fundations and performance while i like a lot it's graphics and performance, Armory do the same pbr rendering as other engines and like Godot propose real time GI feature.

To be fair, no one has really pushed Armory with fully-packaged yet very complex games yet (such as many levels and menus, most of the demos are well within reach using Godot). Also, the Godot engine has only recently seen a major push in 3D, so we should see more contributors in the area as more 3D games begin to get made.

Also, early indications on BA suggests that while Armory is in good shape already, they too will have to have a good regimen of bugfixing to make it enjoyable to use (this could be more complex compared to Godot due to its heavy dependence on external libraries).

As for the list you made, it is true that Godot needs further improvements in navigation and physics as well as a need to fix issues in graphics. However, I don't get what the benefit of additive scene loading would be when you can just instance any scene you wish (it could be due to Unity having the explicit separation between asset files and scenes like many engines).

Armory dependencies are not a problem, while Godot also uses external Bullet library. Armory is more capable, for example navigation is lot better and works with characters and animations, there is physics ragdoll, cloth,soft bodies, destruction support or 3D UI already. Armory third person level combined with ocean and some low voxel gi runs better than Godot.

I was very enthousiast about Armory but more i use it , more i discover some aspects need work, and scripting tutorials are missing, there is lot of examples, but tutorials are lot better for learning. I keep trying and and perhaps some game will come out.

I stay with Unreal 4 because it is prooven and used by biggest gaming companies to individual indies, there is no surprises when i start a game, i know i can make it without getting stuck on bugs or a missing tool. For example i would be unable to make 3D cinematics, dialog, open world, animations physics and IK in Godot.

Godot and Armory are 3D engine to keep an eye on, they have lot of potential and open source has it's advantages ;)

Armory script is also very simple, for example this is a 3D volume trigger

`

class Trigger extends iron.Trait {

var rb:RigidBody;
var physics:armory.trait.physics.PhysicsWorld;
var obj:Object;

public function new() {
	super();

	notifyOnInit(function() {
		rb = object.getTrait(RigidBody);
		physics = armory.trait.physics.PhysicsWorld.active;
		obj = Scene.active.getChild("Icosphere");
	});

	notifyOnUpdate(function() {
		// TODO: replace with notifyOnCollisionEnter or notifyOnTriggerEnter once implemented
		// ref: https://github.com/armory3d/armory/issues/331
		var rbs = physics.getContacts(object.getTrait(RigidBody));
		if (rbs != null) {
			for (rb in rbs){
				if(rb.object.name == "Cube"){
					obj.visible = true;
				}
			}
		} else {
			obj.visible = false;
		}
	});
}

}

`

While IK object to a bone is a nightmare :D

` function updateBones() { // Fetch bone var bone1 = anim.getBone("mixamorig:LeftForeArm"); var bone2 = anim.getBone("mixamorig:RightForeArm");

	// Fetch bone matrix - this is in local bone space for now
	var m1 = anim.getBoneMat(bone1);
	var m2 = anim.getBoneMat(bone2);
	var m1b = anim.getBoneMatBlend(bone1);
	var m2b = anim.getBoneMatBlend(bone2);
	var a1 = anim.getAbsMat(bone1.parent);
	var a2 = anim.getAbsMat(bone2.parent);

	// Rotate hand bones to aim with gun
	// Some raw math follows..
	var tx = m1._30;
	var ty = m1._31;
	var tz = m1._32;
	m1._30 = 0;
	m1._31 = 0;
	m1._32 = 0;
	mat.getInverse(a1);
	q.fromAxisAngle(mat.right(), angle);
	m1.applyQuat(q);
	m1._30 = tx;
	m1._31 = ty;
	m1._32 = tz;
	
	var tx = m2._30;
	var ty = m2._31;
	var tz = m2._32;
	m2._30 = 0;
	m2._31 = 0;
	m2._32 = 0;
	mat.getInverse(a2);
	var v = mat.right();
	v.mult(-1);
	// Todo: We do not do inverse kinematics just yet, right hand moves unnaturally
	// Point the hand down to the ground for now
	// q.fromAxisAngle(v, -angle);
	q.fromAxisAngle(v, -1.6);
	m2.applyQuat(q);
	m2._30 = tx;
	m2._31 = ty;
	m2._32 = tz;

	// Animation blending is in progress, we need to rotate those bones too
	if (m1b != null && m2b != null) {
		var tx = m1b._30;
		var ty = m1b._31;
		var tz = m1b._32;
		m1b._30 = 0;
		m1b._31 = 0;
		m1b._32 = 0;
		mat.getInverse(a1);
		q.fromAxisAngle(mat.right(), angle);
		m1b.applyQuat(q);
		m1b._30 = tx;
		m1b._31 = ty;
		m1b._32 = tz;
		
		var tx = m2b._30;
		var ty = m2b._31;
		var tz = m2b._32;
		m2b._30 = 0;
		m2b._31 = 0;
		m2b._32 = 0;
		mat.getInverse(a2);
		var v = mat.right();
		v.mult(-1);
		// q.fromAxisAngle(v, -angle);
		q.fromAxisAngle(v, -1.6);
		m2b.applyQuat(q);
		m2b._30 = tx;
		m2b._31 = ty;
		m2b._32 = tz;
	}
}

`

Armory has it'w own bugs, like Godot it will need lot of bug fixing and work unfortunately.

Unlike Armory 3D, Godot has more than one active developer, this is something perhaps lot more important than a full Blender integration.

I'm stopping using Armory, it has great rendering but i'll try it again when critical issues will be fixed like car physics wheels, game stuck or some few ones :/

Some big advantage using armory is you got the very essential tools to work in 3D without leaving the game editor because the game editor is Blender :)

Any mesh sculpting

Any mesh vertex paint

Any level objects or characters animations edit

There is plugins in Unity to allow in editor editing vertex or animations, but those plugins are not as advanced and stable as a modeler like Blender, they can get deprecated with new Unity releases when the author stop working on them, and they are not free.

I never needed inheritance or nesting, most of the time when i make a prefab it's unique like a tree or another new version. In godot you can't save instances as a new branch or new scene or when sub nodes have scripts. There is no scene additive support, for example i want to load and unload sub scenes in the main scene, each sub scene as it's own level, prefabs, and scripts. I'm not saying Armory do better in that field, but it's something lacking. Armory workflow is unmatched because the level editor is Blender full functionalities. Dynamic sky and water already surpasses Godot, while those can be used in most complex games, there is some work on Godot to get those nice graphics features.

My choice for release game remains Unreal 4 because it's prooven, the fundation is great , and there is much more than the editor, there is no need to present all it's functionnality and next gen capabilities, it's too long :D Armory is in Beta and has it's own issues, like Godot needs some work, but i enjoy trying both. When both will be more mature, the choice will be about how you want to work, what editor you prefer, what scripting language you want, or because one of them has some features you want for your game. Like Unity and Unreal, or like Gimp and Krita, perhaps Godot and Armory will become the most popular open source 3D engines, so we will have some choice and this is always better to have more choice ;)

@Ace Dragon said: What would additive scene loading do in Godot that you can't do already? Godot can load up an entire level's worth of content during gameplay as a natural part of its design (no distinction between prefabs and scenes, anything can be instanced, inherited, and created).

Also, nesting can be more useful than you think (you can create an individual block scene for instance and then use that to create a larger "platform" scene). Many times you might not think you want a feature until you want to do something where it comes in handy. Even the Unity engine people see enough of a reason to finally add it (as seen in a recent blog post). Sure, nesting is a little less needed because of the DCC program being there, but if Armory makes use of the new collections functionality in 2.8, people might find the nesting useful.

I'm more interest in some brush paint object than nested prefabs. Armory advantage is it gets all Blender plugins, like this one for terrain or any objects placement. https://blendermarket.com/products/asset-sketcher-v10

Could you upload some example with a scene loading sub scenes files ? I never found some example.