@John that’s fantastic, I can’t wait.
I’ve had a blast working with 3D in Codea so far, but an awful lot of dev time gets taken up with implementing features like these. Although I’ve learned a tremendous amount getting stuff like this working, Codea Craft’s C++ implementations will presumably be much more performant than the Lua-based ones we’ve been using. Most importantly though, Codea Craft will free us up to focus on what really matters, creating awesome experiences and games.
I have another question while we’re on the topic of taking inspiration from Unity: what level of 3D assets are you planning on bundling with it? My suggestion would be to hire a 3D artist (or license their work) to create genre-themed asset packs, which you could offer as additional IAP. E.g. A dungeon set would have dungeon fittings, treasure chests, skinned orc/ goblin/ dragon fbx models etc all the assets you’d need to create a great dungeon-crawler. It’d be similar to the Unity asset store.
I think this is one of the most attractive parts in the Unity ecosystem, as it’s a point where lots of indie devs struggle, in not having the time/ 3D skills to create and animate 3D assets. Even if you do buy assets online (or download free ones), getting them into your program and displaying correctly can still be really tough (especially if there are complex materials or skinned animations involved. Getting skinned animations out of a 3D authoring tool to display correctly in Apple’s SceneKit is a major, major headache).
I’d definitely drop $8 for a set of themed assets, if I knew I could drop an animated elf/ skeleton and have him/ her/ it run around in my code at the push of a button.
In fact, that’d be my recommendation for the pricing model. Make Codea itself and Codea Craft cheap, or free even, but offer themed asset packs at $3-10 / pop. Space-themed assets, dungeon- themed, cute-platformer themed etc.
You could do this for 2D assets too.
The 2D assets that ship with Codea are rather lacklustre (and are the same as the ones in Pythonista, and other IDEs. In fact, the Pythonista ones are better, because the Codea ones seem to have frames of the animation missing, so we can’t even make the dude with the bubble helmet walk properly in Codea).
I think the really big pay off for this approach would be that it would make Codea sample code look way better than it often does currently. People would look at the App Store description of Codea or come to the forum and see incredible animated graphics, instead of the same dude with the bubble helmet that’s in every other IDE, not even doing a walk cycle.