• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Unreal Engine 5 - unbelievable.

Most overrated stuff I've ever seen in my life

https://youtu.be/MGyaR2sSBkA?t=10

It could've been something more, something different. Maybe it will. Not in this state, surely...

Destroyed particles are despawned. Much nextgen, wow physics.

Spice up some higher quality textures, add some kind of RT to the DICE'S brilliant Frostbite engine and there you have it, more performant and better graphics than UE5.

You're welcome...
 
So really they made a demo where both the 3090 and the 6900xt get destroyed and need TSR to go above 30FPS at "4K".
And the frametime on the 3090 is insane, looks like Big Navi on QuakeII RTX, probably complete lack of optimization. :D
The 6900xt is not much faster but the frames look smoother. Still a bad performance considering this is already fake 4k by a lot.
So look what nice games you can build but you'll need to wait a couple of generations of videocards to be able to play at 30FPS/4K native. 10 years for 60 FPS. :)
 
nvidiamd said:
So really they made a demo where both the 3090 and the 6900xt get destroyed and need TSR to go above 30FPS at "4K".
And the frametime on the 3090 is insane, looks like Big Navi on QuakeII RTX, probably complete lack of optimization. :D
The 6900xt is not much faster but the frames look smoother. Still a bad performance considering this is already fake 4k by a lot.
So look what nice games you can build but you'll need to wait a couple of generations of videocards to be able to play at 30FPS/4K native. 10 years for 60 FPS. :)
Click to expand...
its a visual bug, i played it myself with a 3070 (1080p 40-50 fps, i don't know it was fake or not but it looked sharp as hell. no way it was 540p) and it was smooth despite the weird frametime graph

probably some kind of reporting bug on rivatuner's side

besides, this is just unoptimized raw game code, its not representative of anything regarding performance. by the time they optimize it, a 3080 should have an easy time at 1440p 60, maybe with better graphics (unless it needs more vram)
 
Last edited:
Klunt Bumskrint said:
Call me stoopid but I can't work out how to get a demo up and running, help. I've downloaded UE5 and have the ancient sample.
Click to expand...

Did you create the project?

oBRs7AI.png

(this viewport has nothing do to with the actual content, i'm not on my actual computer rn)

Click content drawer, find the "maps" section, select "ancient valley" or something like that

Then click the play button

You can also find scalability settings (you can choose between high, ultra and cinematic, they mostly looked same to me, but medium really looks horrible compared to others)
 
I can remember when a shiny ball on a chessboard in Imagine or a render of Olympus Mons in Vistapro took a couple of hours. Kids these days...
 
It seems to run at about 25-30fps on my Vega64 at 1440p when there’s lots going on, and 30-35 when you’re just cruising around the landscape. (no clue what it’s rendering at internally, by default)
 
I know they are making a big deal about Nanite and using movie quality assets without worrying about LOD, etc. The demo looks amazing but I just don't see how that is going to work in an actual game.

I watched a video of someone using the engine, they used the internal browser to find a staircase asset to add to their game and had a choice between the 'low' poly version at 80MB and the 'nanite' quality one, which was around 1GB in size. The Nanite model tanked his framerate. When he had both assets in his level, you just couldn't tell the difference between them unless you up very close (closer than you ever would be in a game). Surely Epic aren't expecting games to ship with that size of asset? Can anyone that has used the demo provide more info on how this works? My best guess would that compiling the final 'game' run an initial LOD step on the assets to produce a base that suits the target platform - so a million poly asset would be set to 20,000 polys for PS4/Xbox1 game, and 200,000 polys for the PS5/XSX version.
 
Steviepunk said:
I know they are making a big deal about Nanite and using movie quality assets without worrying about LOD, etc. The demo looks amazing but I just don't see how that is going to work in an actual game.

I watched a video of someone using the engine, they used the internal browser to find a staircase asset to add to their game and had a choice between the 'low' poly version at 80MB and the 'nanite' quality one, which was around 1GB in size. The Nanite model tanked his framerate. When he had both assets in his level, you just couldn't tell the difference between them unless you up very close (closer than you ever would be in a game). Surely Epic aren't expecting games to ship with that size of asset? Can anyone that has used the demo provide more info on how this works? My best guess would that compiling the final 'game' run an initial LOD step on the assets to produce a base that suits the target platform - so a million poly asset would be set to 20,000 polys for PS4/Xbox1 game, and 200,000 polys for the PS5/XSX version.
Click to expand...

The valley of ancient tech demo comes in at 100gb, the project has full quality models. I agree in principle, games will not look like this - developers will scale them the assets to lower quality version for multiple reasons, one of which is game sizes. If a tiny tech demo is 100gb, a full open world game with these quality levels in assets would be pushing 1TB+, for a single game!

And yeah performance is rough, the tech demo as cool as it is in isolation pales in complexity to a full game which would have many more assets on screen at once and this simple demo only manages 30 to 40fps on the best graphics cards ever made which are twice as powerful as the ps5
 
Have to say this isn't doing it for me yet - there is a slight inconsistency as you move around with surfaces slightly shimmering and warping even though it is slight it is enough it feels discontinuous and distracting and while the lighting is good there are little touches missing that make RT so good.

chris85oc said:
So many armchair devs here :rolleyes:

Many experts.. much wow.

:o
Click to expand...

There are some posters here with actual game development experience and/or currently work in game development.
 
Last edited:
Not impressed. Looks like any other highly graphically polished last-gen game. Ran it on my system, lots of space is required for it along with other Unreal Engine crap. Had to delete it after checking it out.
 
Rroff said:
There are some posters here with actual game development experience and/or currently work in game development.
Click to expand...

Some that work in Unreal too ;)

I haven't actually got round to firing up 5 yet though, but have had plenty of chats with Epic already about the new features. Graphics isn't my area though so I've only a passing interest in Nanite and Lumen.
 
mid_gen said:
Some that work in Unreal too ;)

I haven't actually got round to firing up 5 yet though, but have had plenty of chats with Epic already about the new features. Graphics isn't my area though so I've only a passing interest in Nanite and Lumen.
Click to expand...

I've not played around with Unreal Engine since early versions of 4 but I found it poorly catered for people like myself at an intermediate level - blueprint system is fine and all but actually not a good approach if you are making something beyond simple games and interactive scenes, etc. but too many areas where you end up reinventing the wheel and/or suddenly on your own if you take the advanced approach - which I guess is fine if you have a team doing it for hours a day as a job.

While not the most experienced I'm pretty comfortable in C/C++ and there aren't many video game features I've not implemented from scratch but didn't find it much fun trying to work around the engine - too many things there wasn't an intuitive path and the documentation made huge assumptions suddenly jumping from one bit to another without covering the ground in between.
 
Rroff said:
I've not played around with Unreal Engine since early versions of 4 but I found it poorly catered for people like myself at an intermediate level - blueprint system is fine and all but actually not a good approach if you are making something beyond simple games and interactive scenes, etc. but too many areas where you end up reinventing the wheel and/or suddenly on your own if you take the advanced approach - which I guess is fine if you have a team doing it for hours a day as a job.

While not the most experienced I'm pretty comfortable in C/C++ and there aren't many video game features I've not implemented from scratch but didn't find it much fun trying to work around the engine - too many things there wasn't an intuitive path and the documentation made huge assumptions suddenly jumping from one bit to another without covering the ground in between.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of Unreal tbh. It's great that anyone can have access to the source of a top-tier engine, but it's still basically an arena FPS engine that's had lots of stuff bolted on. To do anything that's not an arena FPS you typically have to rewrite a lot of stuff, and most things aren't easily extensible so you just have to throw the engine implementation in the bin and start from scratch. The editor sucks ass too.

It's great for total newbs who are happy to just plug some blueprints together and play with it....but the next step up is a nightmare if you're new to C++.

I would much rather still be working in Snowdrop, which is just all round far nicer to work with...but alas. You work with the tools you got :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom