Godot

Juan Linietsky's (reduzio) response:

This article is very interesting. Just want to note that this is something we are aware of and the intention is to work it on in two fronts:

• From the binder API, adding a struct type, to pass these results more efficiently.
• The GDExtension side can already expose these structs to the binder API with a proper layout description, but the C# in support has not been moved to it yet (its one of the missing steps to merge both the C# and default editor).

So basically, this area of the engine is a work in progress. To do this also we had to finalize the system to provide compatibility functions to older builds of Godot libraries and extensions as a prerequisite and this was completed in 4.1. Fortunately there is not a lot of the API exposed this way, the majority uses more efficient interfaces. This is more part of the legacy code that is being modernized. None of this is particularly complex to do, but the demand has not been high enough so other things are prioritized. I am hoping your article motivates some contributors to do it :)

Give us a bit of time. Everything is kind of a mess because of the suddendly increased interest of several users and companies on the C# side. This work has to be properly organized but the general idea is that funding will be used to make sure all works as smooth as possible.

From https://old.reddit.com/r/godot/comments/16lti15/godot_is_not_the_new_unity_the_anatomy_of_a_godot/k16982q/

TLDR - Godot's raycasting is considerably more memory intensive than Unity's. Using the Godot API to call its raycast in any language is much slower than simply using the builtin Node. Most of the performance woes are due to how GDScript is implemented: a slow, interpreted language (Python)

It's a fair complaint, Godot is far from perfect in many areas and may not be ideal for certain projects. This is fine, really. If it's possible to make the engine better, I hope the pull requests that do so get accepted

He did a small complaint that GDScript should be ditched. If you care entirely about performance, that is true. The problem, obviously, is that a lot of people, me included, rely on it instead of C#. For all intents and purposes, this is something that could be done, but it'd end up as a wholly separate branch of Godot that would end up with several incompatibilities, eventually becoming a different engine. In that case, it might be better to just check an alternative like Stride3D or Torque3D

Necessity is the mother of invention. My hope is that Godot sees more devs wanting to contribute to the project since we've now seen firsthand what being under a corporate umbrella can do to your product when it's not your own umbrella.

UPDATE: This article has started an ongoing conversation with the Godot devs. They care about the issues raised, and would like to improve things. Significant improvements will almost certainly be made, although it’s still early days and it’s unclear what will change and by how much. I am encouraged by the response. I believe Godot’s future could be very bright indeed.

Well that's nice to see so quick

There’s another response here - incorrect API usage