Before and After · Manual UI Delivery vs VectoUI

Where does the real difference show up between manual UI delivery and VectoUI?

The homepage already shows a before/after comparison, but a standalone proof page is better for explaining what actually changes, what becomes faster, and what still remains explicit engineering work.

Evidence boundary: this page reuses the public homepage comparison, public docs screenshots, and already-public feedback. It does not invent unpublished project metrics.

Proof Summary

  • The public homepage already exposes the strongest time-level signal: traditional workflow `1 hour – 2 days` versus automated workflow `~5 seconds`.
  • The real difference is not only speed. It also changes who handles slices, how hierarchy is restored, and where the engineer starts working.
  • Even inside the automated path, business logic, custom rules, and special project conventions remain explicit human decisions, and the proof page has to show that too.
Public screenshot of the VectoUI Unity generation step
Public docs screenshot: after setup, the workflow starts from output validation instead of manual node assembly.

Case Definition

Comparison source

Public homepage before/after section

The workflow and time contrast on this page is directly reused from the already-public compare section.

Current scope

Unity UI delivery path

The proof is intentionally anchored to the current public Unity path rather than generalized to every future engine.

Evidence supplements

Docs screenshots and public quotes

The before/after structure is stronger when it is paired with visual setup evidence and already-public user language.

Before VectoUI

  • Designers export slices and reference screenshots manually, then pass packaged assets to the engineer.
  • The engineer recreates nodes by hand, aligns every element, and checks anchors, coordinates, and font sizes one by one.
  • Variable binding, asset organization, and design-review loops keep pulling the work back into the same manual cycle.

With VectoUI

  • Designers stay on the existing design-tool plus Lanhu flow instead of preparing separate slice packages.
  • The engineer opens the VectoUI plugin, runs Generate UI, and lets assets land in the project automatically.
  • The starting point shifts from rebuilding UI nodes to validating generated output and then binding logic.

What this page can prove clearly

Workflow time range

1 hour–2 days vs ~5 seconds

This is copied from the public compare section and should remain framed as a workflow-level signal, not a universal ROI promise.

Communication path

Repeated review loop -> direct output verification

Public testimonials repeatedly point to lower coordination cost, so the meaningful change is the workflow position, not one isolated KPI.

Asset and node handling

Manual export/build -> auto download/create

Both the compare section and the public docs screenshots support this change directly.

What still remains manual

  • Automation does not silently replace business logic binding or project-specific script decisions.
  • Fonts, component rules, and post-processing still need to be configured at the project level.
  • If path maturity, access, or source quality are still unclear, automation will not erase those problems by itself.

Public screenshot evidence

Public screenshot from VectoUI advanced usage guide one
Public advanced-usage screenshot: post-generation workflow still includes explicit rule and binding layers.
Public screenshot from VectoUI advanced usage guide two
Public advanced-usage screenshot: after automation, project-specific logic moves into more reviewable engineering steps.
Public screenshot from VectoUI advanced usage guide four
Public advanced-usage screenshot: the useful comparison is not “magic vs manual,” but repeatable rules vs repeated rebuild work.

Public feedback quote

Designers no longer need to export separate slice packages. Once uploaded to Lanhu, we use it directly. The communication overhead between design and engineering dropped massively.
Li Xiaoyan
UI Design Lead
Indie Game Team PixelForge

Evidence Sources

Open homepage comparison

The original public before/after source reused on this page.

Open homepage comparison

Open manual prefab comparison

Use the comparison page when the decision is still about whether automation is worth trial at all.

Open manual prefab comparison

Open integration guide

Use the setup guide to see which steps sit behind the faster delivery path.

Open integration guide

Open advanced usage guide

Use the advanced guide to see what still remains explicit engineering work after generation starts.

Open advanced usage guide

Next Steps

Lanhu to Unity integration case

Move here when you want one contained public integration case rather than a broader process contrast.

Lanhu to Unity integration case

Unity UI delivery workflow

The workflow page is better when the current question is rollout order rather than proof alone.

Unity UI delivery workflow

Pricing

Only review plan scope after workflow fit and evidence are already clear.

Pricing

FAQ

Common questions

Why does this page keep highlighting manual boundaries?

Because a trustworthy before/after page has to show both what is reduced and what still needs human configuration. Otherwise it turns back into empty evaluation copy.

Can this time difference be treated as ROI for every project?

No. It is a public workflow-level signal from the homepage comparison and public testimonials, not a universal ROI guarantee for every team.

What if the team still has not decided whether automation is worth trying?

Start from the manual-prefab comparison page first, then come back through roadmap, docs, and cases once the decision is closer to a real validation path.