Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
It isn't slower than other engines but it is lacking a lot of common features such as raycasting, reflections, normal maps, 3D physics, the list goes on.. And while these all of been created before by other users, gluing them together is more of a challenge than using another engine.
Looks to me like it would be a waste of time making what would be a pseudo 3D - 2D game.
Game Make has fine performance for any 3D game. So that statement is false. However it does not have access to the video card in the same way as a write yourself engine would. That is not to say that it is not capable of access to it with some really complicated DLL work but that is out of the question. Go with Unity or Unreal for 3D. Stick with Game Maker for 2D.
Wasn't referring to fps but lack of support for 3D natively from Game Maker Studio, it's really not made for making 3D games and making them in Game Maker is pain without proper support. You're much better off using Unity or something else for 3d games.