Game Architecture Tips - Unity 

Sure thing :)

Well first off you're going to need to throw a lot of your previous conceptions out. Game code does not look like your pretty SOLID code. We sacrifice "standard practice and clean maintainable code" for performance, and other pragmatic reasons. So if you're a code queen this might not be the road for you. So you're going to have to stop thinking about classes and polymorphism and all that nonsense band start thinking in components and data

@@jayocaine2946 No, amateurs sacrifice maintainable code. Professional game devs are focused on clean, maintainable, scalable code otherwise any large project becomes a nightmare to add to and riddled with bugs. Good architecture and coding is crucial for professional game dev if you don't want to be burning your money/time. Most videos are made by students/amateurs hence their lack of structure or good practices. Components originated in OOP for clean, flexible code that is easily maintained. Data-oriented design just added the caching performance improvements on top. Also, most gameplay code doesn't need DOD/performance-first mentality, just engine code and process-heavy systems.

The real problem here is that no professional c# developer wants to devote any serious time to educate amateurs. I'm looking forward to your tutorials.

I'm glad he doesn't stop every two seconds to explain what a class is or what each and every data type is, etc... It's concise advice focused on the big picture part of setting up your code. I get why a lot of videos go over that basic information, but as someone who's new to Unity and C#, but can already code in other languages, it gets really tedious after a while. It only takes a few minutes to learn what those things are, but it takes a lot more to learn good practices when actually making your own project.

@@jayocaine2946 lol....

Thanks for the sub! Glad you are enjoying the content :D

Lots of people seem to be interested so I'm definitely going to continue :)

Totally! Awesome video. Very basic stuff, but very cleanly described, and gives good "mass" to the theory.

I hope you manage to see the benifits :) Just don't go overboard, not every monobehaviour needs to be like this, only when it makes sense to be

Good job YT :D

Sure thing, I'll keep them coming :D

I've just increased my OBS mic level so next video should be easier to hear :D

Yep :D Can't wait for DOTS to be more user-friendly (or at least more documentation and guides) hopefully around the time it comes out of preview and into production but it will probably end up taking longer haha

I'm glad you enjoyed the video and I wish you good luck with the end of Uni :D

The only downside I see is that yeah, but it's no big deal anyway really, it's just a different form on dependency injection I guess haha

@@DapperDinoCodingTutorials Is it really not a big deal? I have a lot of classes that do some Unity-independent work and I don't want to create a MonoBehaviour for each of them for just being able to make prefabs and set some serialized fields to the components.

You can avoid writing the same fields twice by simply define a new serializable class that declares all those fields, put it in the monobehaviour as a serializedField, and then passing it into C# class.

Try defining structs containing your data with the serializable Attribute, you can edit those in the inspector and reuse them in both classes.

Usually I just have my game logic in a dll and then unit tests as a separate dll so that when I build I can exclude the tests.

I've never looked into functional programming for game dev. Sounds interesting though! I'll see if I can make use of it :D

That heap is going to be huge.

I've already gone ahead and increased my OBS mic level so it should be better for next video :)

@@DapperDinoCodingTutorials Awesome thank you!

I don't have many in mind at the moment but if I think of any I'll try to remember to let you know :)

@@DapperDinoCodingTutorials Thanks man😃

@@ashishdandge5587 Also, if you join our website, we'll have some nice resources to go through. We will soon be adding more content! student.dapperdino.co.uk

Thanks man, I'll give those a go :D Might take a while to pick up using underscores for privates. I'm used to using underscores for private read-only fields rather than all private fields

Idk if this will still help you, since it has passed 6 months from the comment, but ill respond anyways. At 5:40 he said if you can avoid using unity's namespace, it will help a lot, but in the case of the Movement class he needed a reference to the CharacterController and thats why he used it. But I dont think this is the way to go with unity.

Lmao, if you're a code queen I have bad news for you. Game code isn't pretty, we are pragmatically tossing your favorite coding standards out in the name of performance , optimization and readability. Stop thinking about your SOLID crap, stop thinking about polymorphism and all that nonsense. Start thinking in components and data oriented design. You don't need to have a heart attack or get "concerned" when using public fields because that's what they're there for. Use them embrace it, if it works it works , you don't have to be part of the "cool club" anymore . You don't have to impress people anymore by your over engineering with oop

@@jayocaine2946 No thank you. I'll stick to elegant design. I'm now modding for a game written in C#, but written by Java programmers. A lot of the cosebase is copypasta from Java, so still has all the Java coding standards, that jar horribly with C#. However, I'm able to code in my own way, and a lot of the refactoring, I've been able to take back to the developers, and have them implement it to streamline their codebase. We've seen huge performance gains as a result. Elegance in design is what I strive for. I agree that SOLID is pretty redundant in C#. It's a relic from Java. Same as all the architecture arguments, which is mainly an argument over folder structure, with fancy terms. Clean Architecture is the same. I didn't fully appreciate that when writing this post. It's mainly for Web Developement. With my mods, I've developed my own Core, which is then used within each mod. I rely heavily on polymorphism, generics, and at least some of the key principles. Liskov's substitution, interface segregation, and dependency inversion, and DRY. Not so much SRP, because a lot of the mechanisms are so indepth, and I've never been keen on Open/Closed anyway. I think it's too restricting. Especially when working with a volatile codebase. Also, a lot of what I do, I use Harmony for, so O/C is redundant. I'm not willing to toss my own programming experience and culture into the fire, just to lower myself to the inferior standards of others. That would be a massive mistake for everyone involved.

@@ApacheGamingUK then you're a dogmatic fool if you're not willing to adapt. And we known what happens to things that don't adapt. (It's not inferior practice, it's just different tools for different jobs) you wouldn't finish a concrete warehouse the same way you finish a sidewalk would you? Would be a complete nwaste of time and resources. The side walk needs to be finished with a broom so it's pretty and so it's grippier , a warehouse just needs to be functional and doesn't need to be grippy so it can just be finished with a sponge and a trowel. Like wise with web vs game. Web is constantly being worked on by new people. Games are worked on for a set time then done with aside from some updates.

@@jayocaine2946 I am willing to adapt. I take the best from new experiences and skillsets, and add them to my own. Any knowledge that is superseded, is necessarily inferior, and is therefore dropped. As I say, Resharper will not allow me to code as badly as the developers of some of the game that I write mods for. That's a good thing. Why would I not use every tool available in my arsenal?

[SerializedReference] List CheckMeOutInTheInspector = null;

Good luck with the learning. I hope this video manages to help you out at some point in the future :)

ru-vid.com/group/PLS6sInD7ThM21gSGGFC1mQBL9nqlmUQOo

I'll give it a go, it's just that Unity is behind on C# versions, there are quite a few shorthand techniques that aren't compatible with Unity. I'll try using it in the future :D

it's a tutorial on architecture. The class is an example

You're not an awful programmer, you're a unity programmer. And why tf would you need to use constrcutors or properties in unity lol. Unity is an ECS frame work, were not dealing with classes, were dealing with components you never need to use a constructor. And properties we don't need them, we just set our variables to public and deal with it in the inspector or use [serializeable] . What this guy is trying to do is inject work flow from other frameworks into a unity framework and it's just uneccesarry bloat that defies everything that component based architecture stands for