Is 2D Toolkit getting over complicated?

[netlander]

Hi,

In my experience using this plugin over several versions I have experienced a fair amount of pain learning and relearning the ever changing API.

When I first used the 2d toolkit I was charmed and seduced by its simplicity and was won over in terms of not looking at any other similar plugin, but that initial feeling has dwindled over time and now I find the plugin getting more and more complicated with each new release.

In my opinion the developers of 2d toolkit should keep the plugin simple and focused on what it does best and compete in that area and stop trying to solve bigger and bigger problems with each iteration.

Does anyone out there feel the same way or otherwise? Give some feedback.

Thanks

[micky]

Hmm, strongly disagree based on the fact that I'm using (literally) almost every aspect of what's in there right now and I still feel like it needs a few more options in some areas (such as a custom anchor point instead of just center, lower middle, etc.) - I don't know how useful it would be without being where it is honestly.

With 4.3 having a default 2D workflow, it's probably a good thing 2D toolkit didn't stagnate - or it may already be a thing of the past.

[unikronsoftware]

There is a custom anchor point option isn't there? Just select custom and set the point.

[micky]

Apparently I'm blind! lol!

[netlander]

Don't get me wrong, I like your plugin a lot and I have used it on more than a few prototypes but my worry is that the core API is not stable. The reason I say this is for example you have different documentation for every dot release and that worries me, the only way I would consider using the plugin in production is to know that it will be going steady and migration (to new features, etc...) would be seamless.

it's all well and good to play around with a plugin but when you have a project with millions of lines of code the last thing you need is for your builds to break because you want to upgrade to a newer version that has features you need.

So I hope (as I know you do) you will listen to your users, one of whom is saying please think your APIs through carefully and keep in mind the users who are involved in large projects.

Many thanks

[unikronsoftware]

We take API stability very very seriously.

Over the course of the entire tk2d lifetime, we've changed / broken things once exactly. i.e. the from 1.x -> 2.0. We had a very comprehensive migration guide (http://2dtoolkit.com/docs/latest/migration_guide.html) and most things were purely renaming / using the correct function.

The reason docs are tied to the releases is that we add pretty big features between point releases. Eg. 2.3 added support for an entirely new physics engine in Unity 4.3. That kind of stuff is only relevant to that release, and it would be really bad to included references to it in docs for other versions. Script docs are also updated with the releases, but you should find that they are very stable (apart from that one transition above).

Personally we value data stability over API stability which can be fixed fairly quickly, and beyond the usual flakiness caused by Unity itself (Not having meta files on by default is a disastrous design choice, IMO, which has been fixed in unity 4.3), we have been data stable and backwards compatible from 1.1 or 1.2 (we accidentally broke vertex colours in one of those releases). All of this is a huge time sink which means we can't innovate as quickly as we'd like, but hopefully you agree its the right decision.

[Rirath]

In way of support of Unikron Software, my own $0.02 is I agree with micky.  I bought 2D Toolkit after the release of Unity 4.3 and its native 2D features.  I did this because while Unity's new box2d physics and better 2D integration into the editor interested me, 2D Toolkit's features completed the package and sold it.  Better GUI tools, tilemaps, static sprite batching, fonts, platform dependent sprites, pixel perfect camera.  All very important tools to me that Unity doesn't yet support, or not as well as I'd like.

Plus, looking through these forums before buying, it made me confident that Unikron Software will continue build 2D Toolkit as an extension of Unity's native functionality, rather than it becoming an obsolete plugin.

it's all well and good to play around with a plugin but when you have a project with millions of lines of code the last thing you need is for your builds to break because you want to upgrade to a newer version that has features you need.

My own personal view on this is you should never upgrade mid-production unless you absolutely have to, which also means you shouldn't use a tool that doesn't have the features you need when you start.   If an upgrade is deemed worthwhile, significant project time should be devoted to making the upgrade.  It's nice to hear Unikron takes API stability so seriously though.

[netlander]

Thanks for the clarification unikron.

I don't know which rock some developers live under these days but modern software development is an ever-evolving process and iterative in its nature and therefore there is no avoiding the need to upgrade plugins at some point, and that's not just for new features but also for the fact that sometimes plugins break due to necessary upgrades in other tools (like Unity in this case).