First of all, just let me congratulate for this great project, it looks very promising so far.
Getting to the question, I would like to evaluate the workflow of this engine for prototyping a videogame, and I am wondering whether Armory allows to build a project in a collaborative environment. What I mean is if the workflow is viable for teams, where artists and coders can change part of the same scene, or assets, at the same time, and which of the assets can be merged with VCS (Git, Perforce). If I look at the current examples I see one single .blend file distributed. I imagine this is for simplifying the redistribution, but, what about the development process?
Thanks for any eventual clarification, this can be a very dumb question, but my zero-experience with this engine doesn’t allow me any smarter one
Armory looks amazing, but getting emission materials on meshes to work right is a nightmare.
But other than that I would recommend it, cuz armory is probably the most realistic engine out there.
Yes, the examples are generally packed into single .blend to simplify distribution. Otherwise the scene can be split into multiple blends and linked together, with source code and assets also being separate files. This would deserve a proper topic in the docs, have to cook something up…
Nonetheless, I would still recommend Armory just for playing around, till we drop the preview tag (which should happen this year!)
I’m curious to know what exactly do you mean by “cuz armory is probably the most realistic engine out there”?
Are you saying it has a path-tracing renderer than just quick make-do PBRs? I.e full quality render/physics/GPUcode etc? Or are you saying it is better than UE4?
because it is based mostly on cycles and can already render some cycles scenes as-is.