[HN Gopher] Godot 3.5
___________________________________________________________________
Godot 3.5
Author : tmstieff
Score : 152 points
Date : 2022-08-05 15:10 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (godotengine.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (godotengine.org)
| MrYellowP wrote:
| I've looked at 3.4, 3.5 and 4.0a ... and while 4's scripting
| engine is definitely faster than the others before, it's still
| way too slow to consider using it.
| zlsa wrote:
| I can concur - the stated position is that GDScript should only
| be used for non-performance-critical tasks, but even with a
| hundred objects running a simple script every frame,
| performance absolutely tanks in 3.x. The performance wall is so
| easy to hit that GDNative is almost a requirement to get good
| performance in non-trivial projects.
| Tyndale wrote:
| In 3.4 I could not get in-app purchases working for iOS apps. Is
| it fixed now?
| anonGone73 wrote:
| Is it Go Dot or Go Dough? Asking for a friend :)
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| I always thought it was a play on the play, "Waiting for Godot"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot
| upupandup wrote:
| the latter
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot
| Uehreka wrote:
| Actually neither, it's "Guh-doe".
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| Actually not, it's
|
| /'gadoU/ GOD-oh
|
| pronunciation is where phonetic alphabet shines[1] and
| English totally sucks [2].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Al
| phabe...
|
| [2] https://jakubmarian.com/english-words-spelled-the-same-
| but-p...
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| /'gadoU/ (read like GOD-oh)
|
| see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32358256
| ehutch79 wrote:
| Either, but the developers aparently say "go dot"
| PTOB wrote:
| Their logo is a robot. "Go dot" rhymes with "robot". I always
| assumed that it was a purposeful misdirection using the
| popularity of "Waiting for Godot" to lead people to
| mispronounce it as "guh-doh". I know I'm wrong, but I like
| that story better than the real one.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| Now that Godot seems to be getting much hotter, I feel like I am
| having to update my game engine more and more frequently. It's
| great to see then update the navigation system, but will it break
| my game? I worry it could be heading to the same problem I see
| with Unity where things are constantly getting updated and re
| engineered. I have seen professional teams working in Unity be
| many version behind because they dread the work of updating.
|
| Plus, I don't know how many more integrations I want to do on 3.x
| before 4.0. I am hoping that the move to Vulkan will give me
| better 3d performance on mobile
| wongarsu wrote:
| With Unity the general wisdom seems to be to lock in one
| version for each project, and only update when you start a new
| project.
|
| Which I guess isn't the worst? Sure, better forwards and
| backwards compatibility would be better, but this way you get
| more features quicker and more coherently, at the downside of
| not getting any improvements during development
| dleslie wrote:
| Unless Godot has solved the problem of forward compatibility of
| binary asset bundles with compiled assets, then what's true of
| Unity is true of Godot: the cost of your engine upgrade is
| proportional to your reliance on existing assets.
|
| It may just be a recompile. It's may be that the upgrade
| requires more, a whole art pass before recompile. Maybe there's
| mods you don't have the source for, that you can't upgrade at
| all.
| Uehreka wrote:
| Hopefully the incentive schemes help with this: part of the
| reason for Unity's feature churn is that they're more
| incentivized to create new features (to acquire new customers)
| than maintain old ones. You'd think this approach would
| backfire, but with the amount of lock-in engines have they can
| afford to piss off current customers at least up to a point.
|
| Godot, not being beholden to shareholders and quarterly growth
| targets, can hopefully make more clear-headed decisions around
| product roadmap.
| dleslie wrote:
| Unity needs existing customers to continue their pro
| subscriptions; and game developers are notorious for throwing
| everything out and staying afresh on every project. The new
| features are as much for existing customers as they are for
| attracting new ones.
|
| That said, Unity ads is where the real money is at.
| cptcobalt wrote:
| I've been part of shipping one of perhaps the largest used Godot
| projects in production. It's not a game, and you may not even
| realize it's Godot. Godot is below average in quality compared to
| Unreal, and probably about on par with various idiosyncrasies
| that Unity has.
|
| Unreal is winning the technical race _because_ they ship projects
| and games _themselves_ with their engine. Unity does none of
| that, at least nothing that counts. Godot is a bit better than
| Unity because it 's open-source so contributors are often
| contributing to things they use and want to improve, but it's
| still got weird opinions at a maintainer level and severe
| performance downfalls from those opinions.
|
| We're considering another renderer, but for the time being we're
| still tepidly okay with Godot.
| fezfight wrote:
| It's small enough of a code base that you can change things to
| suit your needs, too. Godot is definitely going to win the race
| long term, just like blender. People can use whatever they
| like, of course, but if you want future developer talent, youre
| going to need to use Godot.
| sk0g wrote:
| That's a very bold statement, what has Godot done to warrant
| it?
|
| It's not even the most advanced open source 3D engine right
| now, considering O3DE (a fork of CryEngine) is open and
| backed by a fair few big players.
| TeaDude wrote:
| O3DE requires "40-100 GB of free disk space" and a separate
| compiler.
|
| Godot (3.5) on the other hand requires a paltry 72.6 MB.
| Even less if you go for older versions or recompile it
| without certain features. It comes fully featured with it's
| own scripting language (or C# if you prefer but that
| requires extra disk space) and pre compiled builds for
| distribution with the final product. You can still use C++
| if you wish however I've personally never needed to.
|
| Godot may not be the biggest and flashiest engine out there
| but I find that it uses what it _has_ got very effectively.
| It 's extremely easy for newcomers to set-up (Just click
| the executable and you're all set. It even has it's own
| IDE.) and comes pre-packaged with the majority of features
| that your average developer will need.
|
| For comparison, I'd say that it's the game engine
| equivalent of "QBE" or "tcc" to O3DE's "LLVM". It packs
| most of the punch of the latter in a neat little package.
| mackatap wrote:
| Usability. For artists and non professional programmers,
| those options are fairly inaccessible.
| sk0g wrote:
| Is it usable because it's... usable, or is it usable
| because it's barebones? It can be hard to tell the
| difference when it's pretty far from feature parity with
| the competition.
|
| FWIW, I don't think cornering the non-professional
| developer market will lead to market dominance. GameMaker
| is even simpler, and even if it were open source, hobby
| developers will not be competing technically against
| thousands of full time, professional engineers working on
| an engine.
| [deleted]
| TillE wrote:
| It's totally bizarre to compare Unreal Engine with Godot. One
| is a AAA 3D game engine with awful support for 2D games, the
| other is a superb 2D game engine with modest 3D capabilities.
|
| There's just very little overlap in sensible use cases, they
| barely even count as competitors.
| welshwelsh wrote:
| Godot allows for very quick development compared to Unreal.
| The learning curve is shallower and the developer experience
| is much better.
|
| Unreal, of course, has more features and is more powerful.
|
| Choosing Godot means you are more likely to actually finish
| making the game. Choosing Unreal means you can potentially
| make a better game. For me, that's a tough choice, and I
| often have trouble deciding between one and the other (for 3d
| games)
| zlsa wrote:
| It's not a direct comparison, but there are definitely many
| games that could be feasibly built in any one of Godot,
| Unity, or Unreal. There's a lot more to consider beyond just
| the engine features, such as the asset pipeline, the tooling
| ecosystem, and the availability of third-party assets and
| scripts.
| naet wrote:
| Can I ask what it is you're using godot for if it isn't a game?
| barnabask wrote:
| Not OP but educated guess: Tesla's mobile app.
| https://twitter.com/AlexGuichet/status/1528149807709048833
| cptcobalt wrote:
| You'd be right, and we're hiring to invest more in 3D
| visualizations in the app. https://twitter.com/alexguichet/
| status/1549492941202137088?s...
| fezfight wrote:
| You can build really fancy UIs in it so you can use it for
| basically anything.
| httpsterio wrote:
| what's the lowest hardware requirements you would say you
| could run a Godot built UI on (not necessarily your
| product, just generally?)
| sprkwd wrote:
| Think folks have used in on a Raspberry Pi
| moffkalast wrote:
| Godot doesn't really export for ARM though, are you sure?
| jayd16 wrote:
| How is Unreal on mobile and VR these days? The new UE5 tech
| doesn't seem to run on it. I can't really speak from experience
| but it always felt like mobile dev was a much higher priority
| for Unity than Unreal. Is that still the case?
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| It works for mobile. Likely not one of the primary use cases
| though.
|
| VR support is there. Again, I think not the engine's
| priority. Last I checked some of their new core tech behind
| ue5 (lumen, nanite) didn't work correctly in VR, though that
| was around launch time. I would probably start a new VR
| project in Unreal, and Godot for mobile.
|
| edit: the RE4 VR remake was in Unreal for example
| birracerveza wrote:
| >Internal Server Error
|
| Huh... looks like it did stop
| ccbccccbbcccbb wrote:
| Came to testify the same, lol)))
| mshockwave wrote:
| same here, the hug of death from HN I guess
| KronisLV wrote:
| Here's a Wayback Machine link of the article, just in case:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220805154013/https://godotengi...
| Supermancho wrote:
| Anything beyond surface level is difficult to extract from the
| documentation and that hurts a lot. From the new user experience,
| the Godot IDE still feels buggy. Features (like the inspector)
| populate with values from code sometimes and sometimes not,
| because of complicated rules or you get the fun blank file script
| names or dupes when resources are changed/moved/deleted.
| bilekas wrote:
| I've been hearing so much about Godot recently that I'm going to
| try it out. I'm not even a game developer.
|
| Good marketting I guess!
| BudaDude wrote:
| Godot is becoming the game engine of the internet. It checks
| all the boxes.
|
| - Open Source
|
| - Cross Platform
|
| - Frequent updates
|
| - Easy to learn in a weekend
|
| - You can use almost any programming language with it
|
| - Godot 4.x has beautiful graphics
|
| - Godette
| willismichael wrote:
| > beautiful graphics
|
| Doesn't that depend entirely upon the artwork used in the
| game?
| krapp wrote:
| A lot of it depends on shaders and lighting.
| BudaDude wrote:
| This is only sort of true. If you load any 3D model into
| Unreal Engine for example, the lighting and shaders will
| make it look pretty good without much modification. Godot
| is getting a big upgrade to its lighting and shader engine
| in 4.x
| naet wrote:
| If you have a nice engine that helps with beautiful
| lighting / shadows, dynamic range, good animation rigging,
| or other useful tools related to graphics and visuals, it
| will be easier for you to make a "beautiful" game with less
| work than if you have to try and bring some of those things
| yourself.
|
| It is true that people make stunning games even with janky
| engines by using great art and design. But the easier it is
| to implement your vision for graphics, the more likely
| you'll reach that level.
| EarthLaunch wrote:
| I think three.js is that.
|
| - All of the above except language
|
| - Library rather than engine
|
| I've had really good luck with it versus Babylon or Unity.
| iFire wrote:
| Let's be fair to three.js, the comparison would be to
| aframe.
|
| https://aframe.io/ or similar projects.
|
| (Godot Engine Maintainer)
| EarthLaunch wrote:
| Thank you so much for your work on Godot.
|
| You are right, though I think all three can be compared,
| depending on the type of project. Unity is on the decline
| and I would be happy for Godot to become the future for
| those types of games.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > I think three.js is that.
|
| three.js doesn't produce native multi platform apps for
| desktop and mobile.
| EarthLaunch wrote:
| The mobile builds are its killer app, in my view as a
| gamedev. Unity has lost the plot in many ways. Desktop
| builds are important too, but there's competition there
| if you consider browser/electron as a desktop platform,
| plus Unreal. But Godot is the exclusive up-and-coming
| competition in mobile builds (that I am aware of; granted
| I am not a mobile dev).
| naet wrote:
| Three.js is a 3d graphics library, not a game engine. You
| can use it to render your game but it doesn't bring the
| same things as Unity or Babylon.
|
| I have often worked directly with an html canvas and some
| javascript to make 2d web games. It works well for me and I
| enjoy it, but I wouldn't call it a "game engine" either.
| arran-nz wrote:
| Stoked! I think I'll continue on my Godot VR Project now that
| Label3D and Textmesh are implemented - Text within the scene is
| vital for VR Debugging.
| iwebdevfromhome wrote:
| How is the support nowadays to export your game to mobile, anyone
| knows?
| [deleted]
| robrtsql wrote:
| > Physics interpolation in 3D
|
| This is huge. Initially, Godot didn't support any interpolation,
| which meant you either ignore fps altogether (and your game
| literally plays slower, and therefore differently, if the game
| slows down from 60 to 30 fps), or you move physics code to the
| _physics_process() and suffer from stutter/jitter because the
| physics code and the rendering code slowly drift out of sync.
| Amazing!
|
| EDIT: I forgot to mention the _third_ possiblity, which is that
| you write a bunch of custom code in GDScript or C++ which
| attempts to do the interpolation.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Why couldn't you just run physics at the graphics frame rate
| (or double it if the graphics becomes too slow)? I don't think
| many games need fully deterministic physics do they?
|
| Like x += v * dt draw(x)
|
| Or is that what this does?
| spacehunt wrote:
| Collision detection is a major reason. If you only sample
| positions at the frame rate, you're going to have bullets go
| through walls without hitting anything.
|
| Also, physics is costly to run, so usually it's not run on
| every frame.
| wongarsu wrote:
| And you really want your collision detection to be
| reasonably deterministic. Reasonable frame rates range from
| 30fps to 240fps, which is nearly an order of magnitude, and
| you want your bullets to behave the same over that range.
| sdkgames wrote:
| TLDR: The problem with Godot is that it tries to be everything to
| everyone.
|
| They made an engine, an editor (a text editor, resource editor,
| debugger ...), invented a new language. They "support" export to
| almost all popular OS platforms. But in my opinion it's lacking
| in quality. The engine is slow (old style based on OOP), the
| editor is buggy, the language (GDScript) doesn't have the
| features of a modern scripting language.
|
| But it's certainly good for rapid prototyping and learning.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| Godot is a fantastic project.
|
| But, I really wish it was written in something other than C++. I
| really can't bring myself to go back to programming C++ again
| after a decade away using more recent languages like Go and Rust.
| I even find deciphering the types of variables to be painful when
| reading C++ code these days.
| hiccuphippo wrote:
| You don't need to program in C++ to use Godot. It has its own
| scripting language (gdscript) and you can use C# as well.
| demindiro wrote:
| IMO the issue is not that Godot uses C++, it's that they refuse
| to use a standard more recent than C++03.
|
| Being able to use `auto` would make the code already a lot less
| verbose IMO.
| iFire wrote:
| Godot uses c++ 17 in master.
|
| Autos and lambdas are not allowed from a style guide
| decision.
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| If you're looking to an up and coming game engine project,
| there's "Bevy", which is an ECS game engine (like Unreal)
| that's also open sourced, which is Rust based:
|
| https://bevyengine.org/learn/book/introduction/
|
| They aren't at first release yet. I think they're at 0.8, and
| I'm unsure as to their contribution structure, but read their
| documentation. It's in there I hope.
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| I've contributed to bevy, you can just make a PR for
| something small, or an RFC for something big.
|
| While I'm here, I might as well give my $0.02 about bevy.
| It's got an amazingly sturdy foundation, but it lacks
| essential game engine features like asset preprocessing and
| render postprocessing stacks. Those are both slated to land
| in time for 0.9, which should put it ahead of most OSS
| engines.
|
| Currently, there's also some very annoying stuff related to
| managing when and in what order systems run. There's a
| mostly-done big refactor called "stageless" which totally
| fixes this, but it touches a lot of code and needs to be
| merged. I'll quite be happy if that makes it into 0.9 too.
|
| There are lots of other features missing, like everything UI,
| but these are the near-term changes and should put it in a
| good place for future growth.
| netr0ute wrote:
| I can't tell if this is a GPT-3 comment or not.
| yodon wrote:
| Please don't cast GPT-3 aspersions on people or posts, they
| add nothing to the discussion and are rarely if ever correct.
| This one certainly is not.
|
| The commenter is lamenting that they don't feel comfortable
| contributing to an open source project that they use because
| of the language choice of the project. It's far easier to
| simply write the couple of sentences involved than to coax
| GPT-3 to do it. Your apparent inability to understand the
| commenter's point doesn't make the commenter an algorithm.
| The correct response, if you are puzzled by a comment, is to
| ask a respectful question about the comment.
|
| "Assume the best interpretation of a comment" is a core
| assumption that HN readers are asked to make when reading and
| commenting on threads, and it's a remarkably good place to
| start here.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| Well, that comment is definitely GPT-3.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Why are you worried about the language it's written in? You
| have a few options when it comes to which languages to use when
| working in it.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| I mean to contribute.
| m0llusk wrote:
| You might want to check out the code. I was unsure at
| first, but have found the code to be well structured,
| commented, and formatted such that it is relatively easy to
| see what is going on and make significant changes.
| NewsyJake428 wrote:
| Anyone else getting server errors?
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I'm seriously considering trying it out. Is support on C++
| development very good? Because I don't want to learn the
| scripting language.
| the_duke wrote:
| Not my field of work, but I'm curious.
|
| From what I'm hearing Unreal is establishing a big lead over the
| competition with things like Lumen, face model generation
| (Metahuman?), asset libraries, ML assisted images/video to model
| converters, very polished editor tooling ,world builders, ...
|
| All things that take a lot of money to make.
|
| Is there any chance to compete in the near or medium term for
| things like Unity or Godot? Outside of small indie studios or
| hobbyists that is.
| netr0ute wrote:
| > All things that take a lot of money to make.
|
| Untrue, as shown by numerous FOSS projects run by volunteers.
| qznc wrote:
| I'd say Godot is the best FOSS can offer and it is clearly
| behind Unreal. This, True.
| fezfight wrote:
| Blender (and Linux) is possibly the best thing FOSS can
| offer.
| jayd16 wrote:
| This is kind of like looking at a race car and wondering how
| anything else can compete. First off, Unity and Godot have
| different license models from Unreal. There's room just based
| on that. Moreover, a lot of the fancy new stuff doesn't run
| well or at all on mobile, a huge segment of the market. I'm not
| saying Unity or Godot have it easy but there's still a lot of
| room in the market.
| djmips wrote:
| The race car analogy can be extended in that UE4 doesn't even
| give you a competitive F1 car but it's marketed as such. AAA
| companies outside of Epic using UE4 have spent a kings ransom
| on customizations to tailor it for console. Much like top F1
| teams just getting an engine doesn't put you out front
| without a bunch more work. Nevertheless, this is only a
| problem if you think you can take UE4 and a small team and
| make a AAA game that's pushing lots of polys on older
| consoles at high fps without extra work.
| danbolt wrote:
| I'm a little surprised you're being downvoted. There might
| be a bit of hyperbole in your words, but no game engine is
| entirely off-the-shelf per-game. Or, idiomatic code suited
| to an engine always requires a bit of elbow grease to be
| ready for shipping.
| malikNF wrote:
| >This is kind of like looking at a race car and wondering how
| anything else can compete
|
| Sorry I have nothing else to add to your comment, but I just
| wanted to say I love your analogy. I am stealing this one.
| _hao wrote:
| Unreal is ahead for a couple of reasons (mainly historical +
| money) and they target industries outside of games as well now
| - namely film productions.
|
| With that said most big AAA companies still use their
| proprietary game engines and I don't see that changing. General
| purpose engines like Unreal/Unity/Godot have their place of
| course, but to use the full set of features of Unreal you need
| a big team anyways, so comparing it to Unity and Godot doesn't
| seem right to me at least. Godot is slowly eating Unity's lunch
| though. Especially given the direction that Unity has taken
| after their IPO they might be in trouble in the near future.
|
| Also there are some crazy people (like me) that just write
| their own engines for the projects they are doing and here's
| hoping that in time our number will actually grow. It would be
| very sad if the game engine world ends up like the OS or
| browser world for example.
| klodolph wrote:
| Crazy people writing their own engines--growing in absolute
| numbers, shrinking in relative numbers.
| arocketman wrote:
| I am not sure about the "I don't see that changing". CD
| projekt red has adopted unreal engine leaving behind the
| engine they built AAA games such as The Witcher 3. I can see
| a future where more gaming houses adopt the engine as well.
| _hao wrote:
| There are good arguments from both sides of the fence in
| the "generic solution" VS "custom solution" debate. I think
| the decision should be made on a case by case basis after
| sufficient analysis has been conducted. For example, I
| wouldn't do an RTS/Total War type game in either of the 3
| aforementioned engines. Also it should be noted that sign
| of the times is that we'll be getting less AAA games, not
| more. It's clear that those huge budget games carry
| substantial risk if not successful (hence early incremental
| updates, DLC, mico-transactions etc.) and studios are weary
| of that.
|
| For CD Project the move to Unreal might make sense just
| from labour market perspective - it's easier to hire
| programmers for Unreal than to train programmers to learn
| and develop your own in-house engine. Larger community and
| support already exists for Unreal etc. That move will
| affect their bottom line on their next games though. 5% is
| nothing to scoff at for a big product from a big company.
|
| In any case, I'd advise caution to companies relying
| entirely on a single platform for their business. To echo
| my previous statement choosing only between Android and iOS
| for mobile is an illusion of choice. If you're a mobile
| game dev your entire business relies on two relatively
| hostile companies.
| jsf01 wrote:
| Not my field of work either but my understanding is that Unity,
| as a public company, should have no trouble competing with
| Unreal where cost is the limiting factor. They've got plenty of
| resources. Godot on the other hand has a totally different
| audience. So while they have far fewer resources/staff to throw
| at their product, they don't need to try to achieve feature
| parity with Unity and Unreal. Part of why hobbyists and small
| studios enjoy working in Godot is its simplicity.
| naet wrote:
| Unity is still extremely popular. The Unreal vs Unity engine
| debate has raged with plenty of people on both sides for years
| now all over game dev forums.
|
| I don't have any exact stats offhand, but I believe there are
| plenty of big games recently published that were developed on
| Unity. The only examples I remember rn are Fortnite (Unreal,
| but sort of doesn't count because it's made by Epic Games, the
| makers of the engine...) and Fall Guys (Unity).
|
| Unreal may have an edge on certain areas, and might have a
| slight edge with AAA level game producers that haven't built
| their own engine... but Unity has a possible edge in ease of
| use, a very popular asset store ecosystem, etc that make it
| arguably better for certain projects. See above examples,
| Fortnite and Fall Guys both chose their engines appropriate to
| their teams and project sizes.
|
| Godot is for sure more indie, but has a pretty good trend
| upwards. Unity had some bad press recently after the merge /
| acquisition that may push a percentage of their market share
| towards Godot.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| As someone who's been following that debate since the Unity
| 2.x days, I'd say Unreal might start to pick up steam once
| "Verse" drops
|
| That's their purported scripting language for Unreal. By far
| the most "serious hobbyist" unfriendly aspect of Unreal has
| always been the heavy macro based C++. They tend to be people
| who don't like the idea of visual programming, so hate
| Blueprints (no hat in this race, I think they're ok), and
| have come from the cushy tooling you get with C# like Rider
|
| Verse has a good chance to give Unreal a fresh start with
| some tight focused tooling and good ergonomics.
|
| It's also a little ironic to say that since that's the
| opposite story of Unity, which dropped Boo and "Unityscript"
| to great effect... but that's how daunting C++ is for some
| people
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Unreal has titles like Borderlands, Street fighter, Kingdom
| Hearts, and XCOM
|
| List
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games
| lux wrote:
| I would assume Unity has something in the works internally, but
| it looks like someone is creating a Nanite/Lumen equivalent for
| Unity here:
|
| https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-unity-improver-nano-t...
|
| As for Metahumans, Unity has started on an equivalent of that
| too:
|
| https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/essentials/tutorial-pr...
|
| Character Creator is also looking like they're stepping up
| their game to match Metahumans:
|
| https://www.reallusion.com/character-creator/default.html
|
| That said, I'd love to see these things come to Godot
| specifically, including performance on the level of Unity
| ECS/DOTS.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-05 23:02 UTC)