Followers 0

# Unity my c++ d c# benchmark!

## 71 posts in this topic

Quote:
 Original post by PromitLastly, realize that if someone were to break out the MMX intrinsics, everything except C would be seriously screwed. You'd be looking at times for the C code that were about 1/4 to 1/3 what they are now. DMD, C#, and Java wouldn't be able to touch that -- and we can't even do autovectorization like that statically, let alone in a JITter.

D could do the hand-tuned MMX (in a compiler and op. sys. portable way) as well:

D inline assembler
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by KambizI thought that JIT compilation can produce more efficient code because it can optimize for the target machine. Maybe I should just wait for the next version of those compilers. C/C++ is a mature language and it is not surprising that there are excellent compilers available for it.

Ahhh, the marketing folks have been at it again... That's been promulgated for years by Sun and the Java lobby, and for a few micro-benchmarks, it may even be true <g>

Real-life code (especially game code) usually doesn't seem to follow.

Here's even a set of micro-benchmarks that Java still sucks in:

Shootout Benchmarks

Probably several 10's or 100's of millions of $'s and 10 years has been spent trying to make Java run like C++, and the different language semantics shouldn't prevent that for the most part. Yet it just isn't happening. Given the emphasis on Java performance, I figure there has to some computer science reasons behind it (besides available time to optimize -- Sun's Hotspot -server takes all the time it needs) and I'd be willing to bet that statically compiled code and langauges will be around for a few more decades because of it. From what I've seen, I think D kind-of builds a bridge between C++ and Java. 0 #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites Quote:  Original post by DaveJFProbably several 10's or 100's of millions of$'s and 10 years has been spent trying to make Java run like C++, and the different language semantics shouldn't prevent that for the most part.

We can agree that the code representation (ie: language) isnt an issue in most cases, including Java, C#, and VB.NET.

Quote:
 Original post by DaveJFYet it just isn't happening. Given the emphasis on Java performance, I figure there has to some computer science reasons behind it

While this may be true, this is the first time I have hear the idea mentioned. I don't see why the act of JITing is any different than regular compilation.

What I do see different is that all these JIT languages use an intermediate language designed with the intention of porting. Most compilers do compile to an intermediate language as a first stage. What could easily be different is that in those cases, porting isnt a consideration.

I am uncertain as to if the strive for porting has restrained the design of the intermediate languages used in JIT's. I am completely unfamiliar with java's and I am only minorly self educated in MSIL. Both the Java IL and MSIL are stack based while perhaps the 'good' stand alone compilers do not use a stack based IL.

The issue in question however does not seem to be related at all. It simply seems that the .NET JIT neglects to make an "obvious" optimisation specific to the x86-style div instruction (in that it returns the modulus as well) - clearly the case at hand isnt a deficiency of the language or of jitting in general.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by DaveJFAhhh, the marketing folks have been at it again... That's been promulgated for years by Sun and the Java lobby, and for a few micro-benchmarks, it may even be true Real-life code (especially game code) usually doesn't seem to follow.

Not true at all. You can write Java benchmarks and run them differently to see the effects of JIT compilation. Even running with different versions of the JVM will show improvements. The problem is that most people who write Java benchmarks are benchmarking the wrong thing.

JIT compilation doesn't happen instantly. The JVM first runs code in interpreted mode. It will only start compiling after a certain number of executions. Benchmarks that don't take this into account are flawed. If you run a timed loop for a few thousand iterations, you might be getting only interpreted mode -- which is nowhere near being a realistic benchmark. Maybe you will get a mix of interpreted mode and compiled mode, but in that case your results will be skewed by the compilation time.

0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Aldacron
Quote:
 Original post by DaveJFAhhh, the marketing folks have been at it again... That's been promulgated for years by Sun and the Java lobby, and for a few micro-benchmarks, it may even be true Real-life code (especially game code) usually doesn't seem to follow.
Not true at all. You can write Java benchmarks and run them differently to see the effects of JIT compilation. Even running with different versions of the JVM will show improvements. The problem is that most people who write Java benchmarks are benchmarking the wrong thing.
I'm not so sure of that. It's not about writing a benchmark that favors the way Java works. It's about writing a benchmark that functionally resembles a real application.

Quote:
 JIT compilation doesn't happen instantly. The JVM first runs code in interpreted mode. It will only start compiling after a certain number of executions. Benchmarks that don't take this into account are flawed. If you run a timed loop for a few thousand iterations, you might be getting only interpreted mode -- which is nowhere near being a realistic benchmark. Maybe you will get a mix of interpreted mode and compiled mode, but in that case your results will be skewed by the compilation time.Read more about how to properly benchmark Java in this article and this article.
I read the article. What I inferred from it is that Java benchmark results are erratic and often unpredictable, and that the erratic and unpredictable parts always seem to result in slower programs. Only under the very best of ideal conditions can Java hope to approach static compilation results, and for that the Java app has to run for hours first.

Even worse than what that does to app speeds, is the corollary that the programmer is going to have a hard time optimizing the algorithms, because he can't get repeatable timings from one run to the next. He can't tell if his algorithm changes are making things better or worse.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by StachelOnly under the very best of ideal conditions can Java hope to approach static compilation results, and for that the Java app has to run for hours first.
Um. Kambiz ran his test for 15 seconds and it was as fast as the statically compiled C version (The C version didn't have decimals shown so the result can be on range 15-15.99). So much for "approaching" the results or "very best ideal conditions" (just a random test written originally for D[*]) or even "running for hours first"...

[*] And slightly altered by Promit for .NET
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
Quote:
 Original post by StachelOnly under the very best of ideal conditions can Java hope to approach static compilation results, and for that the Java app has to run for hours first.
Um. Kambiz ran his test for 15 seconds and it was as fast as the statically compiled C version (The C version didn't have decimals shown so the result can be on range 15-15.99). So much for "approaching" the results or "very best ideal conditions" (just a random test written originally for D[*]) or even "running for hours first"...

[*] And slightly altered by Promit for .NET

The running for hours bit comes from the article cited: "Timing measurements in the face of continuous recompilation can be quite noisy and misleading, and it is often necessary to run Java code for quite a long time (I've seen anecdotes of speedups hours or even days after a program starts running) before obtaining useful performance data." The author, Brian Goetz, is an expert in the field.

Secondly, my cited post was not about that particular benchmark, but about Java benchmarking in general, and it was based on the Goetz article. I stated that quite clearly.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Stachel
Quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
Quote:
 Original post by StachelOnly under the very best of ideal conditions can Java hope to approach static compilation results, and for that the Java app has to run for hours first.
Um. Kambiz ran his test for 15 seconds and it was as fast as the statically compiled C version (The C version didn't have decimals shown so the result can be on range 15-15.99). So much for "approaching" the results or "very best ideal conditions" (just a random test written originally for D[*]) or even "running for hours first"...

[*] And slightly altered by Promit for .NET

The running for hours bit comes from the article cited: "Timing measurements in the face of continuous recompilation can be quite noisy and misleading, and it is often necessary to run Java code for quite a long time (I've seen anecdotes of speedups hours or even days after a program starts running) before obtaining useful performance data." The author, Brian Goetz, is an expert in the field.

Secondly, my cited post was not about that particular benchmark, but about Java benchmarking in general, and it was based on the Goetz article. I stated that quite clearly.

The key here is that your original statement was overgeneralized. It does not matter that you were not refering to that specific benchmark, because it is contained within the boundries of the set to which the statement proportedly applies to ("the Java app", refering to [any] arbitrary application of "Java").

And while Brian Goetz may be an expert, he certainly didn't make this overgeneralization himself. Unless I've inadvertently missed it, he in fact makes absolutely no references to either compilation methods resulting in faster programs than the other. The "often hours" figure comes from reaching optimals within that language, which are never compared to the static version. For all you know, this is significantly faster than the equivilant C/C++ due to optimizaitons based on input data which absolutely could not be made in the equivilant staticly compiled program (because, as that first article mentions, Java is able to make profile guided assumptions, even when those assumptions may later prove invalid for the general case!). For all you know, it's been running faster than the static equivilant for all those hours!

Not that I think this is the general case, but I'm not even going to state that, as I would be woefully under-evidenced to the point of making such an undereducated assertion as mine on the subject completely worthless.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by MaulingMonkeyFor all you know, this is significantly faster than the equivilant C/C++ due to optimizaitons based on input data which absolutely could not be made in the equivilant staticly compiled program (because, as that first article mentions, Java is able to make profile guided assumptions, even when those assumptions may later prove invalid for the general case!). For all you know, it's been running faster than the static equivilant for all those hours!
I read about the profile guided assumptions, and the theory that JITs can therefore produce faster code. But the results always seem to be missing in action.

Here's one set of benchmarks comparing Java with C++: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=java&lang2=gpp

Score 1 out of 17 for Java.
0

##### Share on other sites

Some seem to be attached to certain languages more than others.

I really enjoyed it.

IMO, nothing in life is fair. It's true that there are some flaws in the benchmark, but so many comparisons made today aren't fair...

Anyways, there's a more interesting point to it all.

What can we conclude from all this? What am I really seeing? What should you be seeing?

C/C++ is the best tool for intense calculations.

D is not, along with C#.

What are they good for?

Building larger projects that don't require so much computation. And also decreasing development time...

The key is, is that you should use the best tool for the project, something that meets your needs.

(I'm not implying any sarcasm through this whole thing, just an fyi)
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by dbzprogrammerC/C++ is the best tool for intense calculations.D is not, along with C#.

Errr... right. And I haven't shown that D gets as fast as C++ when using the GCC-based compiler...
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Stachel
Quote:
 Original post by MaulingMonkeyFor all you know, this is significantly faster than the equivilant C/C++ due to optimizaitons based on input data which absolutely could not be made in the equivilant staticly compiled program (because, as that first article mentions, Java is able to make profile guided assumptions, even when those assumptions may later prove invalid for the general case!). For all you know, it's been running faster than the static equivilant for all those hours!
I read about the profile guided assumptions, and the theory that JITs can therefore produce faster code. But the results always seem to be missing in action.

Here's one set of benchmarks comparing Java with C++: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=java&lang2=gpp

Score 1 out of 17 for Java.

Fixed: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=java&lang2=gpp

Final comment: 1 out of 17 is similarly enough to contradict your earlier generalization, espeically considering most of the tests listed there only run a few seconds (only 4 out of 17 take longer than 5 seconds in the C++ version), which I already knew Java was at a disadvantage at (Just look at the Java vs C++ startup benchmark to see what I mean - almost a 43x increase just to run hello world - nevermind JIT compilation/optimization). We were talking about the scope of a few hours, a 3600x in timescale. Presuming we need the program to start performing faster than the C++ version after a mere few minutes in order to come out ahead for the hours scale, that's still a 60x increase.

"Only 1 out of 17 in a few seconds [where Java >= C++]" I can believe at face value.
"Only 0 out of N in a few hours [where Java merely 'approaches' C++]" does not follow that at all - which again, is how your original overgeneralization interprets.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by dbzprogrammerC/C++ is the best tool for intense calculations.D is not, along with C#.

Urmmm..

D is built with speed in mind (D 1st class array types, built-in strings, etc.).

Overall Shootout Benchmarks

D and C++

10 of 15 (C++ is missing 2) in favor of D, and D is not quite at version 1.0.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by StachelIt's not about writing a benchmark that favors the way Java works. It's about writing a benchmark that functionally resembles a real application.

I'm not sure what your point is. For a real-world application, a Java programmer would code in a manner that favors the way Java works. If a benchmark doesn't reflect that, then it isn't accurate.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Aldacron
Quote:
 Original post by StachelIt's not about writing a benchmark that favors the way Java works. It's about writing a benchmark that functionally resembles a real application.
I'm not sure what your point is. For a real-world application, a Java programmer would code in a manner that favors the way Java works. If a benchmark doesn't reflect that, then it isn't accurate.
Think of it like a test in school. There's teaching the test so the students can pass it, then there's teaching knowledge so passing the test falls out naturally.

For a benchmark, consider that D supports inline assembler. That means one could write the Pi benchmark entirely in hand-optimized assembler, and that would technically be writing it in D. Nothing could beat that for speed. But is that a reasonable benchmark for D? I'd sure cry foul. I didn't see any special tweaking in the D or C versions of Pi.

For the Java benchmark, it's been tweaked to replace (x / 10) with (x * .1f). That's faster on some CPUs, but slower on others. Doesn't that mean the Java JIT should do this transformation on its own because after all, isn't the great strength of the JIT being able to adapt to the particular CPU? If I have to bend my otherwise straightforward Java code around shortcomings in its JIT, that doesn't reflect well on the Java implementation, and it's fair for a benchmark to point that out. If the Java implementation is written to do a good job with straightforward Java source code, then doing well on a benchmark will fall out naturally.

I'm not interested in benchmarks custom carefully designed to avoid weaknesses in an implementation, and only show its strength. It's like posting a picture of the good side of your car for sale on ebay, and neglecting to mention that the other side is bashed in and the car won't drive straight. You'll also find that if you do tweaks like (x * .1f), supposedly portable Java source is going to do very badly on some CPUs, and those tweaks may actually sabotage performance if the Java implementation improves.

Write benchmarks in a manner that's straightforward to the language being used. Straightforward code is what the language implementors work hardest at improving performance for, so you're not likely to be left in a backwater with oddities like (x * .1f). "Optimizations" like that were once popular with C, and they did work, but with modern compilers such things perform worse than the original unoptimized code.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by StachelFor the Java benchmark, it's been tweaked to replace (x / 10) with (x * .1f). That's faster on some CPUs, but slower on others. Doesn't that mean the Java JIT should do this transformation on its own because after all, isn't the great strength of the JIT being able to adapt to the particular CPU?
Actually that particular optimization was not an optimization any compiler could do. It could be said being a (minor) algorithmic change because it changes the input/output mapping of the div and mul functions. It just "happens" to work in this application because it's not so important how the numbers are distributed in the array that represents large numbers, only that the array's "real" value is correct. (e.g. 4*10^2+1*10 is same as 3*10^2+11*10)

The problem was really that neither Java nor C# did div/mod with just one instruction so another way had to be used to get same speed as those combined. But it's not that complex or time-wasting optimization that it couldn't be done in a JIT compiler. It just shows the immaturity of the .NET and Java JIT compilers as compared to C++ compilers. This information is relevant today, but it doesn't prove anything against "managed" languages' compilation model.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by StachelFor a benchmark, consider that D supports inline assembler. That means one could write the Pi benchmark entirely in hand-optimized assembler, and that would technically be writing it in D. Nothing could beat that for speed. But is that a reasonable benchmark for D? I'd sure cry foul. I didn't see any special tweaking in the D or C versions of Pi.

Writing in inline assembler is not writing in D. I'd cry foul, too.

Quote:
 For the Java benchmark, it's been tweaked to replace (x / 10) with (x * .1f). ...I'm not interested in benchmarks custom carefully designed to avoid weaknesses in an implementation, and only show its strength....Write benchmarks in a manner that's straightforward to the language being used.

Indeed. So what you were on about is optimizing the benchmark and not about tailoring the benchmark to the language. I was referring to the latter.

The problem is that most of these multi-language benchmarks that we see online are written by people who have most of their experience in only one of the languages. So when it comes to porting the benchmark from that language to the others, they carry with them the same idioms -- which may not apply to the other languages being benchmarked.

For example, in a benchmark that makes use of a large number of objects the C++ version might preallocate the objects upfront in an array. In Java these days, object pools are rarely used except for resource-intensive objects (such as Threads) because of advances made in garbage collection, so doing the same thing for the Java benchmark would not be a reflection of real-world code. If what you were benchmarking is array access, then that's one thing. But if the storage and allocation of objects are peripheral to the benchmark they should be done in a manner that reflects real-world usage.

There's a difference between optimizing a benchmark to get better results and "coding to the language". For many benchmarks it isn't going to matter, but it's always important to be aware of the common idioms of each language you are benchmarking so that you create a benchmark that is accurate (well, whatever that means in the world of microbenchmarks).
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by StachelFor a benchmark, consider that D supports inline assembler. That means one could write the Pi benchmark entirely in hand-optimized assembler, and that would technically be writing it in D. Nothing could beat that for speed. But is that a reasonable benchmark for D? I'd sure cry foul. I didn't see any special tweaking in the D or C versions of Pi.

I wrote things in a "hand" optimized assembler. What about you? Is compiler able to convert that hand optimized assembly into 64 bit code? Could you use that compiled code on any CPU in natively optimized form? You could also write hand optimized ASM in Java and use JNI. Then you could attempt to run that ASM in error condition, and say. Java application didn't crashed because of that ASM code, the other did and blasted out OS. Should this be in benchmark? Obviously it should.

However this benchmark is a simple one. It's just coincidence that C++ code was so similar there was no need for modifications. In fact you can find also code that is so nicely written you could just copy and past it into Java, or C# and change method naming, and it works.

Quote:
 For the Java benchmark, it's been tweaked to replace (x / 10) with (x * .1f). That's faster on some CPUs, but slower on others. Doesn't that mean the Java JIT should do this transformation on its own because after all, isn't the great strength of the JIT being able to adapt to the particular CPU?

Are you saing that there are CPUs where division isn't 80 cycles monstrosity, and multiplication 1 - 1.5 cycle sweety operation?

If "a" is a double precision floating point number writen in a IEEE standard and
"a" modulo 10 != 0 then
"a"/10 != "a" * 0.1D

If a compiler would replace it without your permission, it could decrease precision of computation considerably.

BTW I was bitten by a * b / c != a * (b / c)
It created a hiccup in the middle of screen.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by RagharAre you saing that there are CPUs where division isn't 80 cycles monstrosity, and multiplication 1 - 1.5 cycle sweety operation?
Yes. The 386/387 CPU combination and the 486 have integer division faster than float multiply according to clock cycle counts. Not to mention any processor that doesn't have hardware floating point (seen in embedded processors). It isn't just the multiply, there's the conversion to and from float to add in, plus resetting the rounding mode.

I tried this change on my machine. Despite CPU instruction timings saying that the floating multiply should be faster, the actual benchmark timing shows it to be slower. I can't explain this other than the fact that for modern CPUs the cycle counts aren't the whole story. It probably has to do with some internal pipelining/scheduling issue.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Kevlar-X
Quote:
 Original post by deathkrushThe fastest way to calculate PI in C is of course:*** Source Snippet Removed ***

Hey, I loved the snippet!
Though, it wouldnt compile as given (F_00() is used before defined) so I rearranged the code blocks.

Then it crunches out the number '0.250'.

So I might add: it may be a great way to calculate pi, compact and cool looking, but it lacks one extra nicety we would like in a program to calculate pi. Determining the correct result.
On all other accounts its cool though! :)

- Jacob

It's from the International Obfuscated C Contest. It probably worked fine with old compilers and produced a correct result. Does anybody know what's wrong with the code, I get a wrong result too. The author says that you can get more precision by using a bigger ASCII picture though. :-)
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by PromitSure (with the exception of support for vectorized instruction sets, which Java and C# lack).

You could add them yourself. Source code of Java JIT is accessible, and if you don't screw it too much, you could add that little support for SIMD instructions.

BTW SIMD means Single Instruction Multiple Data. And I somehow doubt they would add support for multiple instructions.
0

##### Share on other sites
Quote:
 Original post by PromitSure (with the exception of support for vectorized instruction sets, which Java and C# lack).

You could add them yourself. Source code of Java JIT is accessible, and if you don't screw it too much, you could add that little support for SIMD instructions.
The problem you'd know if you'd use ASM is SIMD registers are not that great win. First at all, they are small 128 bits is VERY small if you need to work with 64 bit numbers.
Suport for possibility to make all operations on 128 bit regiseters in one clock cycle was added by introducing Core2Duo. Previous CPUs splited some operations/all? into two 64 bit operations.

BTW SIMD means Single Instruction Multiple Data. And I somehow doubt they would add support for Multiple Instructions...
0

## Create an account

Register a new account

Followers 0

• ### Similar Content

• Do you like numbers?
Actually I do.
When I was child, I enjoyed to make multiples of 10 using license plate.
It was not a big deal, but quite interesting to me.
Decades later I planned to make a game and remembered that time.
So I decided to develop game based on that memory.
At the first time , it was just game to make 10, but I started to put various game like elements:
items, obstacles, store, trophies, leader board, etc...
And finally it becomes a game.
Some people tells me it's too difficult, but some people tells me it's enjoyable.
How does it looks like to you?
"Puzzle Ten Final"
Android Exclusive.

• By Kajamaz

Summary: EverEmber Reborn is a multiplayer online hardcore open-world action RPG.

Description:
The game takes place in the world of EverEmber, a fantasy world where you have no direction, only your skill and other players to either aid or hinder you on your journey. The game is a first person open world pvp game, with progression aspects taken from agar and slither. The world is not too huge, and because of that players will constantly fight and die, dropping their obtained gear and forcing to restart. The combat is skill based, with many places to explore. The best aspects from Runescape, Ultima, Mortal online, and the Elder Scrolls games are taken and incorporated. Everyone has their own adventure, it’s your choice how it starts and ends.

EverEmber Reborn is a sequel to the game EverEmber Online (check it out at http://www.everember.com/). They are very different in their concept and execution, but the fantasy elements and ideas are brought over from its predecessor. We have been developing EverEmber online for over 4 years, but it’s time we move on. We have also worked on various private server projects, so the developmental process is nothing new for us.

Team:
We currently have a fairly large development team already, 10 main developers, myself, Ozfer (server host, developer, IT tech), Juicyz (Lead Programmer), EMPHyperdrive (Programmer) Amit (Game Developer and Modeler), HugeJackedman (Game Developer), Gw1p (Game developer), Naitsirik (Modeler), Symbolizemusic (Musician), Aytimothy (Programmer). We also have a musician assisting us (Davide Severi) with our soundtrack and a concept and concept artist (Akram). SeeEnvy is a writer for us.

What we're looking for:

What we need are programmers as of this moment. We need someone who is determined on helping us program the game itsself. We have much of the networking done and we are using Photon. The language we're using is C#, so knowledge of C# is a MUST HAVE!

Requirements:

-Experience with Unity and its technology

-Interest in the games concept

-Ability to do one of the things listed in our needs, either C# unity programming, or networking assistance.

-Time to dedicate to the game, we don’t have a constraint but a few hours every couple of days will suffice.

-Be able to communicate in English, as all of our team speaks English either fluently or well.

-Have a method through which we could pay you eventually.

Eye Candy (In-game screenshots):

More Eye Candy/Concept Art:

If you are interested, please do contact us via Everemberonline@gmail.com or message me here on unity forums with what you can do for us, why we interest you, and whatever questions or comments you have. Feel free to join our website if you cannot help us in development, but instead can assist us by playing the game upon release or testing it!

http://www.everember.com/

See you in the land of EverEmber.

• Hi, we are small game develop studio called Drunken Monday. We are only two people and during the last year we developed a cross-platform multiplayer game: Slash Arena. And we're almost done. We are glad to present you our game:

Massively multiplayer online battles with swords and axes.
Simple arcade action! Dodge the attack and choose a perfect time to strike.

Battle Modes:
★ Deathmatch — Player vs All mode for 30 players. Score the highest damage and survive to win.
★ Arena 1vs1 — ranking duel for hardcore players. Your skills mean more than your high-level weapon.
Features:
★ Rapid battles. Play 5 minutes or 5 hours. It’s all up to you!
★ Swing your hammer and make 'em fly! Damage is calculated according to physical laws. Timing and distance matter!
★ Two types of attack — enough to make your enemy suffer from a painful combo! Master your skills.
★ Separate ratings for each Battle Mode. Monitor your progress.
★ Monthly rewards for the best players. Earn a pile of resources and unique character portraits.
★ Daily tasks. See if you can cope with them! >:]
★ Three characters with unique weapons and fighting styles. More characters are coming soon!
★ More than 30 upgrade levels for each character’s weapon and armor. Start with a simple leather jacket and get to the legendary royal armor!
★ Character’s appearance changes each 3 levels. Everyone will see how cool you are!

Game available on: Facebook, it passed greenlight and coming on Steam, soft-launched on GooglePlay and AppStore in Russia ( If you contact us we will send you .apk or testflight invitation ). Also take a look at Slash Arena: Online and Drunken Monday web sites.
• By NA-45
EDIT: We've found a designer/composer and an artist.  I'm looking for one more artist!

I'm currently working on Metroidvania style game that I was inspired to start by Hollow Knight and Beksiński's art.

It's built in Unity using C# and has quite a bit done already.  I'm handling the programming myself and have a working model (besides combat which is a WIP) that can be expanded greatly depending on where we decide to take the project.  You can see the current test area here: https://streamable.com/mp5o8  Since I'm not artistically gifted, its all rectangles but can easily be skinned once we've desired on designs.
I have professional experience using Unity and C# working on both a released game and a prototype as well as having extensive Java knowledge.  I also dabble in Python with a little bit of C++.
I have worked on and completed many projects before, the most recent being a 2D stick fighting game written ground up in Java Swing (don't ask why): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Bkoyp_f0o
I'm looking for a 2D artist (potentially more than one) to create concept and game art and a designer/writer who can help flesh out the story as well as map out and create challenging and eye catching areas.  I can handle most if not all of the programming side of things though if there is anyone who is extremely passionate about this sort of thing, I'd consider splitting the load.
The end goal is a completed game that can be sold however profit isn't really a concern to me as it's mostly a labor of love from my part.  Any profits would be split between team members however that's pretty far off so don't make that a reason to join.
______________________________
The story I have in mind is something like this:
A man wakes up in a chasm that stretches seemingly endlessly in both directions lined with enormous statues.

He discovers a temple with text above a closed gate that tells of the failed kingdom that lies below.  After finding a way around this, he drops down into the subterranean kingdom.  Adventuring through the labrynth below, he comes across different cities in which the residents succumbed to different sins such as Greed, Wrath, etc.  Each city tells a story of how its fixation on something lead to their demise leading up to a fight with the personification of their mistake.
______________________________
An very rough idea for Waterways, a potential area:
- To enter you must be wearing a pair of glasses that you find somewhere earlier in the ruins.  There are similar glasses found in every home.  Everything appears incredibly beautiful however something seems wrong.  After triggering some event, the glasses break and it's revealed that the glasses are made of some sort of stone that makes everything appear differently.  The city is in ruins and absolutely disgusting as everything was neglected.
- The only thing that remains intact is in the center of the city, an incredible statue of a goddess holding up a large sphere of the same material that was used for the glass.  You slowly learn the story behind the statue: the goddess came from the sea that the city lies on and brought prosperity to them.
- After opening up the the temple of the goddess that lies right on the edge of the waters, a giant sheet of the glass covers an opening in the back of the temple that reveals the goddess behind it.  You shatter the glass and it becomes apparent that the goddess is actually a disgusting creature half beached and mostly immobile that appears to secrete the material that makes up the glass. Fight ensues.
______________________________
The combat is pretty up in the air and part of the reason I need a designer to bounce ideas off of but I think it will be something like this:
- 4 orbs equipped at a time
- 2 orbs selected at a time
- Pressing the cast button will cast a spell determined by the 2 orbs that are selected
- Spells cost mana however you can use spells with 0 mana and it will cost health instead
- These spells in addition to being useful for combat, are the Metroidvania "gating" metchanic.  For instance, one of the conceptualized spells is a water orb + water orb to create a ice pillar that can be either used to block projectiles/enemy paths or to jump on to reach high areas
______________________________
If you're interested or have any questions, contact me through discord.  My id is NA-45#3692.
• By sZokka

Radio Rabbit is a local coop shoot ‘em up where two players control one more or less combined character. The character exists out of a rabbit’s body and a floating, still to the body connected, giant eye.
Each player controls one of them.

The rabbit’s goal is to fly safely through the level and to avoid enemies to reach the goal.  The Eye on the other hand can shoot. He is the one who clears the way. One character can move the other can shoot. So both player need to work together to fight of evil creatures and to complete the level.

•    explore the level to find the key which activates the portal gate
•    escape through the portal before the timer runs out
•    if you are to slow, the nuke will explode
•    use your character abilities, the rabbit can boost while the eye got the vision
•    you’ll get more powerful abilities from items such as a supershot
•    shoot as many enemies as possible to gain score
•    remaining time at the end of each level gets added to the score

Features
•    2 Player couch coop
•    4 level + tutorial
•    an epic boss fight
•    fully gamepad supported (XBox or equivalent)
•    local high score

Grab a friend and check it out!