Godot GLES3 vs. libGDX - FINAL GAME - side by side comparison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 окт 2024
- This video shows the differences side by side between the Godot 4.3.b6 vs. libGDX 1.12.1
Godot is using the Compatibility renderer (GLES3) so its a fair comparison. If I use the Vulkan based Forward+ renderer, the quality will even be better.
Both solutions get 60fps on the web builds.
Godot work was done with 22 hours of work over 5 weekends (documented below) .
The libGDX 3D game is a game I developed for over 2 years now with at a minimum 120 hours of development time.
See my weekly progress here:
Weekend 1: • Raid on Bungeling Bay ... (prototype)
Weekend 2: • Godot 3D: Fighter, Bom... (Fighter, Bomber, AA Gun behavior)
Weekend 3: • Godot 3D: Projectiles ... (Projectiles and Collisions)
Weekend 4: • Godot 3D: Explosions w... (Particles and Explosions)
Weekend 5: • Godot 3D: AI, Statisti... (AI, Statistics, and Credits)
Weekend 6: • Godot 3D: Adding contr... (Controller support)
Play the completed game at: antzgames.itch...
#godot4 #godotengine #godot #compare #libgdx #3d #3dgames #gameengine
Very interesting. Thank you for this vivid comparison. I'm interested in game design, and I'm considering learning some FOSS game engine with cross-platform possibility. I will take a look at Godot.
Godot is a good choice for a FOSS game engine. Over 500 contributors worked the latest version 4.3 effort. Also, unlike libGDX, you are not tied to end of life technologies like OpenGL ES.
Hi Antz.
Would you be able to do a test with the water shaders disabled? It looks like different water shaders were used and I'm curious how much they affected performance.
Thanks for putting together these videos and sharing your findings. I appreciate your time.
Hi. So this video does not compare performance, as the Godot version has to draw 120+ 3D models, while the libGDX version is drawing only 15 3D models. In addition Godot is using higher quality textures, and more textures in general. Even though Godot version is doing much more work than the libGDX version, performance is relatively the same, with Godot having more consistent FPS, and libGDX having more varied FPS. The main purpose of this comparison is the difference in DEVELOPMENT EFFORT and VISUAL QUALITY. That being said, yes, the water shader for libGDX is far more complex than the Godot water shader.
@@AntzGames There is a lot of good analysis here about memory/cpu usage. I was wondering if the water shader used in your libgdx app was bogging down performance or if the difference was negligible. That water looks way too good to be computationally cheep, but I could definitely be wrong.
I'm not disagreeing with your point about Godot being better for making games at all. Cheers
The game on left looks like a prototype, the game on the right looks like a production ready mobile game that's just about ready to ship. In the end what does it matter if you "can" make LibGDX work like Godot? It's gonna be hundreds of hours of extra work and the most valuable commodity in this industry is time!
Perfectly said. Unfortunately individuals in libGDX community say the complete opposite and say stupid crazy things like: Using a game engine is cheating. I am not joking on this, these are actual words from the libGDX community.
From my experience, you can be 10x more productive using Godot vs. libGDX when making a 3D game.
@@AntzGames Understandable... realistically every community is going to have people like that, but if the neurotic, obsessive compulsive types who always have terrible reasons for doing what they do are the majority of users for LibGDK, that really just means LibGDK isn't very good and it's userbase is probably shrinking and not growing... it's LibGDK job to convince you use it, not your job to justify why you are still using it when it obviously doesn't work for you.
That was me, in a comment, may be many others, and yes I'm under 30. And I know how to make 3D games, with Unity and Godot. The reason why I said so, because, if you know how to use GLSL and OpenGL with LibGDX, you can get good results, and you know Godot is 3D capable engine but its not so, much perfect. not for know at least. So, Don't mind, you. You are a good programmer because you have done the game in Godot 4 in just 22 hours. Keep it UP. Use what you want. Libgdx is not for 3D, you are correct. But there are two to three games made with it, Technicity and Alchemist. These are good looking games and you can get 60+ FPS with mid range graphics card from 2016 or 2017 in 1080p. Games videos: Technicity: ruclips.net/video/4LQdKn6430s/видео.html
Alchemist: ruclips.net/video/ydyLzXitMlM/видео.html
In the end, I will say that, graphics depends upon the features implemented in game engine and you also can add those in libgdx, and Godot 4 have own already implemented. so, yes 100+ hours saved there. I love Godot 4 and Libgdx, all FOSS are best because people working on these projects are giving their time to humanity. Be happy and be motivated. Keep it up. You are not just hobbyist you are the person living some of his dreams. be like that. May our God Guide us all. Good Luck !!
From what I read, Technicity and Alchemist use a HEAVILY MODIFIED version of libGDX, which means they built a custom game engine on top of libGDX. Also, if you read the steam comments on these games, people complain its an ABANDONED game. So do you have another example of a commercial libGDX 3D game to support your arguments?
If libGDX is not a 3D engine, is there a 3d engine for JVM languages?
@@katm9877 JMonkey Engine is a 3D game engine with editor, 3D navigation, collisions, physics, 3D sound, LoD implementation and much more that you can develop games in Java: jmonkeyengine.org/
In addition you can also make games with Godot using Kotlin and Java using this version of the Godot editor: ruclips.net/video/9AjNzFbTFVo/видео.html
@@katm9877 Hello. So I created a complete video on your question here: ruclips.net/video/CaV4I_7PL3I/видео.html