Pros of Graphics

• Larger, more comprehensive repository with broader scope
• Official Unity repository, likely more up-to-date with latest Unity features
• More extensive documentation and community support

Cons of Graphics

• Potentially more complex and harder to navigate for beginners
• May include features not relevant to all users
• Larger codebase might lead to longer build times

Code Comparison

TestbedHDRP:

public class CustomPass : CustomPass
{
    protected override void Execute(CustomPassContext ctx)
    {
        // Custom rendering logic
    }
}

Graphics:

public class HDRenderPipeline : RenderPipeline
{
    protected override void Render(ScriptableRenderContext renderContext, Camera[] cameras)
    {
        // Rendering pipeline implementation
    }
}

Summary

TestbedHDRP is a focused repository for experimenting with HDRP features, while Graphics is a comprehensive repository covering Unity's entire graphics system. TestbedHDRP may be more suitable for quick prototyping and learning HDRP specifics, while Graphics offers a complete view of Unity's rendering capabilities but with a steeper learning curve. The code examples show that TestbedHDRP focuses on custom passes, while Graphics deals with the entire rendering pipeline implementation.

Pros of UniversalRenderingExamples

• Focuses on Universal Render Pipeline (URP), which is more versatile and suitable for a wider range of platforms
• Provides a comprehensive set of examples covering various rendering techniques
• Officially maintained by Unity Technologies, ensuring up-to-date compatibility with Unity releases

Cons of UniversalRenderingExamples

• May not showcase cutting-edge graphics features available in HDRP
• Could be less suitable for high-end PC and console projects requiring advanced visual fidelity
• Might have a steeper learning curve due to the breadth of examples

Code Comparison

TestbedHDRP:

[SerializeField] HDAdditionalLightData _light = null;
[SerializeField] AnimationCurve _curve = AnimationCurve.Linear(0, 0, 1, 1);
[SerializeField] float _frequency = 1;

UniversalRenderingExamples:

public class ExampleFeature : ScriptableRendererFeature
{
    public override void Create()
    {
        // Feature setup
    }
}

The code snippets show that TestbedHDRP focuses on HDRP-specific components, while UniversalRenderingExamples demonstrates URP renderer features. TestbedHDRP appears more tailored to specific visual effects, while UniversalRenderingExamples provides a broader framework for custom rendering pipelines.

Pros of HDRP-Custom-Passes

• More comprehensive documentation and examples for custom passes
• Actively maintained with regular updates and community contributions
• Includes a wider range of custom pass types and effects

Cons of HDRP-Custom-Passes

• May be more complex for beginners due to its extensive features
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to TestbedHDRP
• Potentially higher performance overhead for some effects

Code Comparison

TestbedHDRP:

[CustomPassDrawer("My Custom Pass")]
class MyCustomPass : CustomPass
{
    protected override void Execute(CustomPassContext ctx)
    {
        // Custom rendering logic here
    }
}

HDRP-Custom-Passes:

[System.Serializable, VolumeComponentMenu("Custom Passes/My Custom Pass")]
public class MyCustomPass : CustomPass
{
    protected override void Execute(CustomPassContext ctx)
    {
        // Custom rendering logic here
    }
}

Both repositories provide frameworks for implementing custom rendering passes in Unity's High Definition Render Pipeline (HDRP). TestbedHDRP offers a simpler, more straightforward approach, while HDRP-Custom-Passes provides a more feature-rich and flexible solution. The code structure is similar, but HDRP-Custom-Passes includes additional attributes and integration with the Volume system for easier management of multiple passes.

Pros of BoatAttack

• Provides a complete game demo showcasing HDRP capabilities in a real-world scenario
• Includes advanced water simulation and interaction systems
• Offers a more comprehensive set of assets and gameplay elements

Cons of BoatAttack

• Larger project size, potentially more complex to navigate and understand
• May include features not directly related to HDRP, which could be distracting for those focused solely on rendering techniques

Code Comparison

TestbedHDRP:

[SerializeField] Renderer _renderer = null;
[SerializeField] float _frequency = 1;
[SerializeField] float _amplitude = 0.1f;

void Update()
{
    var t = Time.time * _frequency;
    _renderer.material.SetFloat("_Displacement", Mathf.Sin(t) * _amplitude);
}

BoatAttack:

public class BoatAlignNormal : MonoBehaviour
{
    public float waterLevel = 0.0f;
    public Transform[] floaters;
    public float bounceDamp = 0.05f;
    public Vector3 buoyancyCentreOffset;
    protected Rigidbody rigidBody;
}

The TestbedHDRP code focuses on simple material property manipulation, while BoatAttack demonstrates more complex physics-based interactions for water simulation.