Hacker News Reader

Comment by martin-t | Hacker News Reader

To the uninitiated, bevy is one of Rust's two main game engines, the other being Fyrox.

Bevy, despite being written by an army of contributors is continually behind Fyrox which is developed mostly by one guy. Fyrox not only has an editor and a UI toolkit, both of which bevy devs keep just talking about, it recently also added a UI editor. In addition the author is writing 2 games to dogfood Fyrox.

Yet despite all this, Fyrox gets a fraction of the attention and money. Maybe it's because it uses proven old tech instead of being a resaerch project, maybe it's because the author is russian, maybe because people are afraid of a 3D-first engine, maybe fyrox doesn't focus on promotion enough. Idk, but here i am doing my bit to make the world a tiny bit more fair even if I annoy all the bevy fans who kept posting about bevy on every single fyrox post that wasn't completely downvoted and ignored.

View on HN

While I think Fyrox is impressive, reading your comment felt like: Sir, This Is A Wendy's

Good, point, maybe i should have told that to bevy fans doing the same on every fyrox post.

Maybe you should. It is not good to shit on each other.

Looks to me like Fyrox is competing more with Godot or Unity, than it is with Bevy. The cool part about Bevy is its ECS handling. There aren't a lot of ECS-first game engines, and Bevy is one of the few that do exist.

Personally, I feel the real competition is the OSS Rust engines against Unity, Unreal, and to some extent Godot, rather than the competition being between Rust engines. Bevy and Fyrox are both great frameworks.

Your conspiratorial framing here strikes me as odd, as well as unnecessarily denigrating Bevy as a "research project." Isn't the answer quite obvious, which is that if someone wants to use an engine built off "proven old tech", they should probably just use one of the major players in the space, and that Bevy's uniqueness/commitment to the ECS model is precisely what causes it to generate more hype and energy? Is this really an issue of "fairness"?

> Isn't the answer quite obvious, which is that if someone wants to use an engine built off "proven old tech", they should probably just use one of the major players in the space

All of the major engines are written in C++. I've tried Unreal, Unity and Godot. They all have their flaws. With Unreal and Godot those flaws are mainly the scripting languages BP and GDScript which one can get tired of quite easily, especially BP. You can of course use C++ for all your scripting but both engines strongly encourage you to use their scripting solution for a big chunk of your game. (Unity has a bunch of other issues and isn't source available, although C# is fairly pleasant to work with IMO).

There is definitely need for an OOP engine in Rust just as there is need for an ECS engine in Rust.

> There is definitely need for an OOP engine in Rust

Is there a need for an OOP engine in Rust?

I don't want to be too negative here — the developer of Fyrox seems like an incredibly talented and productive engineer and they can work on whatever they please, more options in the ecosystem is always a net good — but in my experience attempting to model OOP patterns in Rust is almost always the wrong decision.

It's a mixed approach in the end. Bevy is 100% ECS from what I gather. Fyrox is doing a pragmatic approach of taking what's good from different engines. I'm sure as it evolves it will abandon the things that don't work in a Rust context. So to rephrase: there is definitely a need for a game engine in Rust that's not 100% ECS.

Bevy has actually moved away from the ECS for performance-critical lookups in the renderer where the ECS doesn't carry its weight. The engine isn't dogmatic about ECS use.

Thanks for the info. That's good to know.

> Fyrox is doing a pragmatic approach of taking what's good from different engines.

And bevy isn't taking what's good from different engines? Bevy gets inspiration from everywhere. Just because it uses an ECS doesn't mean it's all developed in a bubble.

It's not _that_ OOP. I keep telling people not to use OOP to refer to fyrox because people associate it with java but there maybe isn't a better commonly known word.

OOP in fyrox means composition and message passing.

> Yet despite all this, Fyrox gets a fraction of the attention and money.

Heh Bevy sounds like Rust itself. Good PR with money behind it is its no1 cause of adoption.

What PR money has been behind Rust?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com