I have no Programming Skills

anonymous_user_44ac7082 · October 29, 2015, 10:36pm

I just saw an ad for URE and thought I’d check it out. I have no coding training. The ad said I would be able to use this with out coding skills. Is this true? I don’t mind putting in the work to learn this engine. But is it truly drag and drop for those who don’t code and able to build the game we want? Thanks in advance!

Jamendxman3 · October 30, 2015, 12:43am

Blueprints ARE a programming language of sorts, so you can’t expect to make a full game without any coding knowledge, but blueprints are much simpler to learn as code is represented in a more visual manner. This may sound harsh, but: Creating a production quality game is NOT a simple task, I have 4 years of experience in computer programming, and am still not comfortable of embarking on a solo game project, as I know how difficult it can be. If you are not willing to put in several years of effort (less if you are already experienced) in order to make a game come to life, you will just give up in a few months from now when you are stuck on a problem that takes weeks to solve.

Just have realistic expectations, and prepare for failure (and success), because that is what programming is all about. I have tutored several people so far in programming, and a majority of them have given up and quit (Don’t worry, I didn’t scare them away lol), so my advice is to not give up if you start learning to program. Great challenges come with great rewards, remember that!

BrUnO_XaVIeR · October 30, 2015, 12:47am

lol are they really running ads like that? Where did you see this ad, any screenshot?
Only reason they’d run ads of such lie is if Tencent isn’t happy with results so far.

anonymous_user_44ac7082 · October 30, 2015, 7:44am

Here’s a screenshot. Haha too good to be true I guess!

anonymous_user_44ac7082 · October 30, 2015, 7:46am

Blueprints ARE a programming language of sorts, so you can’t expect to make a full game without any coding knowledge, but blueprints are much simpler to learn as code is represented in a more visual manner. This may sound harsh, but: Creating a production quality game is NOT a simple task, I have 4 years of experience in computer programming, and am still not comfortable of embarking on a solo game project, as I know how difficult it can be. If you are not willing to put in several years of effort (less if you are already experienced) in order to make a game come to life, you will just give up in a few months from now when you are stuck on a problem that takes weeks to solve.

Just have realistic expectations, and prepare for failure (and success), because that is what programming is all about. I have tutored several people so far in programming, and a majority of them have given up and quit (Don’t worry, I didn’t scare them away lol), so my advice is to not give up if you start learning to program. Great challenges come with great rewards, remember that!

I have actually been developing with GameSalad which is drag and drop. But if this is programming heavy I definitely don’t have the time to learn it. It’s not that I get weak in the knees it’s just the reality of my situation. Maybe one day I will learn to program or maybe I will learn a little but at a time each day. I’ll just stick with that I got for now then.

ConnorTheScot · October 30, 2015, 8:50am

Hi Motorcycle Boy,
I had the same thoughts as you prior to downloading the engine, and what i would say is that the Blueprint system for me so far has been excellent.
Even though I have only managed to implement some mechanics and features (more due to my time constraints and work) there has not really been any issue which has totally stopped progress.
As is said above, pluck away at Unreal when you can and persevere. Before you know it you will feel much more confident and competent using the editor.

anonymous_user_73094a6c1 · October 30, 2015, 10:22am

I believe Unreal has provided a crash course video for C++ programming. Just run through it, make some coffee.

BrUnO_XaVIeR · October 30, 2015, 10:51am

I think the add is trying to say “no C++” required.
If you learn Blueprints, you’ll become a coder too. It’s visual, but as said above, it’s a programming language too.

Jamendxman3 · October 30, 2015, 4:21pm

Lol, time for me to email the UE4 marketing team and make a complaint about that ad.

anonymous_user_d1f1e259 · October 30, 2015, 5:03pm

It’s not a programming language. It’s a visual scripting language.

C++ is a programming language.

Jamendxman3 · October 30, 2015, 5:06pm

That’s incorrect, here is the definition of a ‘Visual Programming Language’, which blueprints are:

Achilleon · October 30, 2015, 5:32pm

The AD is still misleading though. There are important things that Blueprints still can’t do.

One of the most important thing is having no in-game input-key change option. Which is well, a must for maaaaany games.

You can make almost everything with blueprints though, it got a point.

Jamendxman3 · October 30, 2015, 5:39pm

Yes but even something like that can be made in just a few minutes in C++, but I see your point.

anonymous_user_d1f1e259 · October 30, 2015, 6:29pm

The UE4 docu begs to differ - Blueprints Visual Scripting in Unreal Engine | Unreal Engine 5.3 Documentation

Notice at the top - ‘Visual Scripting Language’

It’s not a programming language. Everything you call in Blueprints has already been coded in C++, it’s just exposed to the Blueprint scripting engine. It’s not a programming language. Sorry.

Just like Unrealscript wasn’t a programming language - it was a scripting language.

DragonMaster · October 30, 2015, 6:41pm

Yea but C++ is a programming language and since it is used in Blueprint nodes I can see them calling Blueprints a programming language even though they aren’t that in the end. I wouldn’t called it a script either though but that is what they call it so what can we do.

Jamendxman3 · October 30, 2015, 7:23pm

Yes but programming languages are made by other programming languages and so on, the further down the hierarchy, the more restrictions that language has.

anonymous_user_d1f1e259 · October 30, 2015, 8:16pm

It’s not a programming language. Simple as that.

You can’t use it in any context outside of the unreal engine. Go look at what you can do with a real programming language like C/C++, Java, C#, Python, etc…

The only thing you can do with Blueprint is script gameplay in UE4. It is not a programming language.

anonymous_user_a2779061 · October 30, 2015, 9:13pm

IMHO The best of both worlds is to know C++ and Blueprints but then you CAN program a game in blueprints only if you do not need special code. It is when you need to deviate away form the standard game mechanics that you will eventually find yourself needing it.

So far I have just been brain storming concepts but already can see some things are going to function better in C++ and I prefer C++ or assembly over any scripting language.

BrUnO_XaVIeR · October 30, 2015, 10:59pm

C? C++, JAVA?!? C#(really?), Pythffwhat? pff
real programming languages? w.t.f…

sigh :rolleyes:
Here we go again; the story of Mel, a ‘real programmer’…
Datamation magazine, 1983:

A recent article devoted to the macho side of programming
made the bald and unvarnished statement:
Real Programmers write in FORTRAN.
Maybe they do now,
in this decadent era of
Lite beer, hand calculators, and “user-friendly” software
but back in the Good Old Days,
when the term “software” sounded funny
and Real Computers were made out of drums and vacuum tubes,
Real Programmers wrote in machine code.
Not FORTRAN. Not RATFOR. Not, even, assembly language.
Machine Code.
Raw, unadorned, inscrutable hexadecimal numbers.
Directly.

Lest a whole new generation of programmers
grow up in ignorance of this glorious past,
I feel duty-bound to describe,
as best I can through the generation gap,
how a Real Programmer wrote code.
I’ll call him Mel,
because that was his name.

I first met Mel when I went to work for Royal McBee Computer Corp.,
a now-defunct subsidiary of the typewriter company.
The firm manufactured the LGP-30,
a small, cheap (by the standards of the day)
drum-memory computer,
and had just started to manufacture
the RPC-4000, a much-improved,
bigger, better, faster — drum-memory computer.
Cores cost too much,
and weren’t here to stay, anyway.
(That’s why you haven’t heard of the company,
or the computer.)

I had been hired to write a FORTRAN compiler
for this new marvel and Mel was my guide to its wonders.
Mel didn’t approve of compilers.

“If a program can’t rewrite its own code”,
he asked, “what good is it?”

Mel had written,
in hexadecimal,
the most popular computer program the company owned.
It ran on the LGP-30
and played blackjack with potential customers
at computer shows.
Its effect was always dramatic.
The LGP-30 booth was packed at every show,
and the IBM salesmen stood around
talking to each other.
Whether or not this actually sold computers
was a question we never discussed.

Mel’s job was to re-write
the blackjack program for the RPC-4000.
(Port? What does that mean?)
The new computer had a one-plus-one
addressing scheme,
in which each machine instruction,
in addition to the operation code
and the address of the needed operand,
had a second address that indicated where, on the revolving drum,
the next instruction was located.

In modern parlance,
every single instruction was followed by a GO TO!
Put that in Pascal’s pipe and smoke it.

Mel loved the RPC-4000
because he could optimize his code:
that is, locate instructions on the drum
so that just as one finished its job,
the next would be just arriving at the “read head”
and available for immediate execution.
There was a program to do that job,
an “optimizing assembler”,
but Mel refused to use it.

“You never know where it’s going to put things”,
he explained, “so you’d have to use separate constants”.

It was a long time before I understood that remark.
Since Mel knew the numerical value
of every operation code,
and assigned his own drum addresses,
every instruction he wrote could also be considered
a numerical constant.
He could pick up an earlier “add” instruction, say,
and multiply by it,
if it had the right numeric value.
His code was not easy for someone else to modify.

I compared Mel’s hand-optimized programs
with the same code massaged by the optimizing assembler program,
and Mel’s always ran faster.
That was because the “top-down” method of program design
hadn’t been invented yet,
and Mel wouldn’t have used it anyway.
He wrote the innermost parts of his program loops first,
so they would get first choice
of the optimum address locations on the drum.
The optimizing assembler wasn’t smart enough to do it that way.

Mel never wrote time-delay loops, either,
even when the balky Flexowriter
required a delay between output characters to work right.
He just located instructions on the drum
so each successive one was just past the read head
when it was needed;
the drum had to execute another complete revolution
to find the next instruction.
He coined an unforgettable term for this procedure.
Although “optimum” is an absolute term,
like “unique”, it became common verbal practice
to make it relative:
“not quite optimum” or “less optimum”
or “not very optimum”.
Mel called the maximum time-delay locations
the “most pessimum”.

After he finished the blackjack program
and got it to run
(“Even the initializer is optimized”,
he said proudly),
he got a Change Request from the sales department.
The program used an elegant (optimized)
random number generator
to shuffle the “cards” and deal from the “deck”,
and some of the salesmen felt it was too fair,
since sometimes the customers lost.
They wanted Mel to modify the program
so, at the setting of a sense switch on the console,
they could change the odds and let the customer win.

Mel balked.
He felt this was patently dishonest,
which it was,
and that it impinged on his personal integrity as a programmer,
which it did,
so he refused to do it.
The Head Salesman talked to Mel,
as did the Big Boss and, at the boss’s urging,
a few Fellow Programmers.
Mel finally gave in and wrote the code,
but he got the test backwards,
and, when the sense switch was turned on,
the program would cheat, winning every time.
Mel was delighted with this,
claiming his subconscious was uncontrollably ethical,
and adamantly refused to fix it.

After Mel had left the company for greener pa$ture$,
the Big Boss asked me to look at the code
and see if I could find the test and reverse it.
Somewhat reluctantly, I agreed to look.
Tracking Mel’s code was a real adventure.

I have often felt that programming is an art form,
whose real value can only be appreciated
by another versed in the same arcane art;
there are lovely gems and brilliant coups
hidden from human view and admiration, sometimes forever,
by the very nature of the process.
You can learn a lot about an individual
just by reading through his code,
even in hexadecimal.
Mel was, I think, an unsung genius.

Perhaps my greatest shock came
when I found an innocent loop that had no test in it.
No test. None.
Common sense said it had to be a closed loop,
where the program would circle, forever, endlessly.
Program control passed right through it, however,
and safely out the other side.
It took me two weeks to figure it out.

The RPC-4000 computer had a really modern facility
called an index register.
It allowed the programmer to write a program loop
that used an indexed instruction inside;
each time through,
the number in the index register
was added to the address of that instruction,
so it would refer
to the next datum in a series.
He had only to increment the index register
each time through.
Mel never used it.

Instead, he would pull the instruction into a machine register,
add one to its address,
and store it back.
He would then execute the modified instruction
right from the register.
The loop was written so this additional execution time
was taken into account —
just as this instruction finished,
the next one was right under the drum’s read head,
ready to go.
But the loop had no test in it.

The vital clue came when I noticed
the index register bit,
the bit that lay between the address
and the operation code in the instruction word,
was turned on —
yet Mel never used the index register,
leaving it zero all the time.
When the light went on it nearly blinded me.

He had located the data he was working on
near the top of memory —
the largest locations the instructions could address —
so, after the last datum was handled,
incrementing the instruction address
would make it overflow.
The carry would add one to the
operation code, changing it to the next one in the instruction set:
a jump instruction.
Sure enough, the next program instruction was
in address location zero,
and the program went happily on its way.

I haven’t kept in touch with Mel,
so I don’t know if he ever gave in to the flood of
change that has washed over programming techniques
since those long-gone days.
I like to think he didn’t.
In any event,
I was impressed enough that I quit looking for the
offending test,
telling the Big Boss I couldn’t find it.
He didn’t seem surprised.

When I left the company,
the blackjack program would still cheat
if you turned on the right sense switch,
and I think that’s how it should be.
I didn’t feel comfortable
hacking up the code of a Real Programmer.

*P.s: since you are a real programmer I’m sure you are proficient as much as Mel and that talk about C++ scripting being a programming language was a joke, right?! Every real programmer knows that C is for teens to play around and C++ is stuff for minor children having their first contact with a PC; to be a man they gonna learn real programming later, of course!
And of course you knew the story. Hell, I’m no real programmer and even I know the legend…

Neoptolemus · October 31, 2015, 7:39am

I never understood the snobbish attitude some programmers have with regards to choice of language. A language is a tool, plain and simple, and there are reasons why higher level languages like Java and C# are popular and it’s not because they’re easier for idiots to use. I started with Java and later moved to C, and you know what? It’s not that hardcore. Took me a bit of effort to get to grips as I had to learn more about how memory is used, but not much.

Back in the early days, before concepts such as object orientation, software was generally simple enough that you could expect one or two guys to write it in a few months. Then you had your star programmer, like Mel in 's story. He would use some cryptic low-level language and basically disappear behind mountains of coffee cups, churning out black magic that nobody else could hope to understand but would run amazingly well.

That was great then, but we live in an age now where software has grown in complexity to the extent where you can’t rely on one guy to do it all. Often it involves multiple components running across different platforms. You no longer program for a specific machine, but hundreds of potential configurations and driver types.

Speed of execution is no longer the one and only requirement for software, other factors such as ease of supporting the software, extending it and maintaining strict coding standards when working with large teams are now equally important. It’s no good having software that runs ultra fast if it only works with one system configuration and only one person on Earth has the knowledge to modify and extend it.

Languages like Java still need skill to implement. There are still a hundred ways to mess something up and one or two ways to do it the fast and efficient way. It still requires a logical mind to design and build components, and intimate knowledge of the language to implement. You may not need the same intimacy with the hardware, but since knowing a particular processor is now largely useless due to the variety of platforms your software must run on that’s not really a disadvantage. The exception of course is writing driver software, which is where someone like Mel would still fit in.

In short, snobbery over programming languages is daft. They all have their uses for particular situations with pros and cons. You wouldn’t write UE4 in assembly language because that would be like constructing the empire state building using hammer and nails instead of a crane.