I don’t need fancy branching or detailed features. What I need is the easiest version control to handle large binary files.
Essentially the most basic version control that can handle a projects binary files without any hitches. I just want to make changes then upload; get the changes, add a new asset, add changes, push to server. My game is very stable, I have many backups and am not worried about breaking anything.
All I want is a simple system that allows my small team to work on the game from a server that is not on a local network (i.e. paid hosting). The project is ~130gb right now. I’ve got the custom engine code backed up on Git but Git does not handle the project files nearly as efficiently, LFS has been tricky to deal with thus far because of the size of some of my files (but if that’s what you guys suggest I might try to stick with it).
I’m not worried about concurrency issues whatsoever just want the most basic version control that will backup the files and make it easy to work from multiple computers. Thanks for any help.
You should probably look around the forum, as there are regularly the same type of question that arise.
Basically IMHO (I am the author of the Git and the Plastic SCM plugins):
raw Git is perfect for prototyping,
Git LFS2 with Github is good for small teams but LFS is very slow,
SVN should be pretty solid, but I’ve not compared hosted solution for a while now
Plastic SCM (and Plastic Cloud) is a challenger for Perforce, and as such is much less expansive (disclaimer: I’ve work with the nice guys at Codice Software)
Perforce is the default standard, costly but reliable and well know by many, with fancy features all around to adapt to any complex workflows
Cheers,
Sébastien
Sorry for not even mentioning Mercurial! (sad but realist
SVN is what I use in my job, easy to use, simple to understand and solid as hell, in my opinion it’s the best for binaries, but for code we use raw github
After months of research and experimentation with everything (except Mercurial) I’ve decided on the Plastic Cloud Edition. SVN’s versioning and branching is cumbersome, P4 was expensive and cumbersome, Git has good versioning (obviously) but was just a pain working with binaries and large files. SCM seems to be the best current option for a future commercial release.
I’m in the same boat regarding the source control requirements you stated in your initial post. Given that you opted for Plastic SCM, I’m just wondering if you feel it was a good decision? I’m just about to give it a go myself but thought I’d ask just in case you’re able to share any insights.
Sorry for the late reply. Plastic is great. I don’t work for them but I’d recommend it. Tested many different version controls, Plastic is by far the most efficient to use imo, and pretty cheap so can’t really complain.
Same here. The UE4 Editor integration works well for our needs and since we add/remove users all the time (for external clients/collaborators) it’s nice to not have to bother with managing (and paying for) licenses every time we do it.
Our setup: server in the office. Multiple projects and other files totaling over 500 GB. Idea is to keep cost as low as possible.
I tried most of source controls out there, so… here are my results:
Plastic - no issues but expensive. I used it with Unity for 1 year, then dropped when I had to renew a license.
Plastic cloud - a way too expensive due to size needed.
SVN - is good, but leaves all these hidden files in every single directory - it is very annoying! Also, all visual clients I tried I did not like, especially using for 10+ years SourceAnyWhere.
SourceAnyWhere - is the best, IMHO (it uses MSQSL database, so it is basically 1 large file). But it is expensive (~$300/user) and there is no plug-in for UE4. Good thing is that all licenses are permanent and in overall it is cheaper than having Plastic.
Git - complicated to set up, binaries problem, no locks, AFAIK you have to have a local copy of repository (you project + local copy… really?), and it also leaves some hidden ■■■■.
Perforce - this is the best so far (and this is what we are using now) - easy to set up and very fast commits. Upside: 5 free user licenses, Downside: according to my research you pay around $950/user for additional licenses.
