UE 5 demo featuring limitless detail: Gaze upon Unreal Engine's true form!

[StDragon]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Absolutely, being able to store it in ram is very valuable. That said i think it' also important to note that as the player plays the game what needs to be buffered to account for what they could do is going to change and thats going to mean feeding the buffer new data from storage. So there is a point at which no amount of ram can compensate for slow storage.

There's no doubt about it, consoles offer the best bang for the buck. Primarily for two reason.

• They're mass produced and often sold break-even or at a loss with game licensing profit making up the difference.
• They have a long lifespan to where the cost gets cheaper to manufacture later in its life-cycle (often going through multiple HW revisions along the way).

At a rumored $549 MSRP for the PS5, that's putting it out of reach for most; especially when people are financially hurting now. I doubt both Sony and Microsoft will do well in the holiday season. If anything, Nintendo would pick up market share (if they can keep the Switch in stock). So I totally get the rational behind the shared 16GB pool of RAM. But unless Sony will prevent memory paging, it could chew through the life of NAND flash. I'm not a game developer, so my assumption any kind of write-back paging is pure speculation on my part; maybe it doesn't. If so, the cost could be penny wise pound foolish.

 

I really hope for Sony's sake they engineer the PS5 to be RAM upgrade-able with something like an Expansion RAM pack like in the days of N64. If not, I'm thinking these next generation games are better suited for the PC due to more resources being available and not just raw CPU/GPU computation. Meaning, they might be stretching to reach that high bar. And FWIW, the Unreal Engine is top tier (best of the best). So what you're seeing in this demo is probably all that you will ever see in games. Still, it's darn impressive for what it is!

 

Just my 2 cents.

[CarlBar]

 

1 hour ago, StDragon said:

There's no doubt about it, consoles offer the best bang for the buck. Primarily for two reason.

• They're mass produced and often sold break-even or at a loss with game licensing profit making up the difference.
• They have a long lifespan to where the cost gets cheaper to manufacture later in its life-cycle (often going through multiple HW revisions along the way).

At a rumored $549 MSRP for the PS5, that's putting it out of reach for most; especially when people are financially hurting now. I doubt both Sony and Microsoft will do well in the holiday season. If anything, Nintendo would pick up market share (if they can keep the Switch in stock). So I totally get the rational behind the shared 16GB pool of RAM. But unless Sony will prevent memory paging, it could chew through the life of NAND flash. I'm not a game developer, so my assumption any kind of write-back paging is pure speculation on my part; maybe it doesn't. If so, the cost could be penny wise pound foolish.

 

I really hope for Sony's sake they engineer the PS5 to be RAM upgrade-able with something like an Expansion RAM pack like in the days of N64. If not, I'm thinking these next generation games are better suited for the PC due to more resources being available and not just raw CPU/GPU computation. Meaning, they might be stretching to reach that high bar. And FWIW, the Unreal Engine is top tier (best of the best). So what you're seeing in this demo is probably all that you will ever see in games. Still, it's darn impressive for what it is!

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Consoles allways have the issue that whilst they're really powerful when they come out they degrade over time relative to PC's as the hardware inside remains unchanging whilst new stuff is coming out all the time. The flip side is the fixed config makes it very easy for games developers to optomise to a high degree and learning how to do that takes time. Couple that with consoles being willing to run at 30fps, (or lower in some cases), and even doing upscaling, (the whole 4k debacle), and they can generally hang in there.When they start to really struggle, you get the next gen of consoles.

[JZStudios]

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

There was no rule that you need to pump out bazillion triangles on any surface that doesn't need it. But they've done it anyway, coz reasons. Literally. And so most games with tessellation ran like dog shit instead of the opposite, run way faster at no visual expense of what we had at the time as "standard".

Okay, @SpaceGhostC2C said I had a low quality reply, so let's go through this and explain why you're wrong.

 

Yes, I agree, tessellation was often misused, as is the case with the Crysis 2 implementation. HOWEVER, this is no longer the norm and tessellation has been scaled back quite a lot since then. Tessellation was also never designed to make the game run faster. I mean, compared to super high res models yes, but compared to average game assets, no. This is fundamentally wrong. Tessellation is a method to try and bring low poly assets back in line with source models and sculpts that the game engine can't handle and would need a lot of LODs.

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

LOD in the old days usually had 3 stages, high, medium and low, high for close distance, medium for medium distance and low for far away objects. And as that object moved away from you or was closing in on you, you could see the shift in model quality. And you had to "master" actual separate models and define which is used when.

Yes...

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Tessellation is just advanced LOD.

Sort of...

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

You feed it highest quality model you expect player to see close up and let tessellation engine do its job in progressively removing and adding triangles UP TO the quality you deemed "highest fidelity expected". Basically the reverse of what everyone was doing.

No. You absolutely do not feed it the highest quality model. It takes the same low quality asset and dynamically tessellates it UP TO the an amount specified by the artist based on screen space. At no point does it take the master sculpt or raw asset. It might tessellate between preset LOD models, but I haven't seen anything that states that. In fact, NVIDIA, who invented the technology and has a fairly decent grasp of how it actually functions says this;

"Seamless Level of Detail

In games with large, open environments you have probably noticed distant objects often pop in and out of existence. This is due to the game engine switching between different levels of detail, or LOD, to keep the geometric workload in check. Up until this point, there has been no easy way to vary the level of detail continuously since it would require keeping many versions of the same model or environment. Dynamic tessellation solves this problem by varying the level of detail on the fly. For example, when a distant building first comes into view, it may be rendered with only ten triangles. As you move closer, its prominent features emerge and extra triangles are used to outline details such as its window and roof. When you finally reach the door, a thousand triangles are devoted to rendering the antique brass handle alone, where each groove is carved out meticulously with displacement mapping. With dynamic tessellation, object popping is eliminated, and game environments can scale to near limitless geometric detail."

 

I believe this is where you're getting your misunderstanding from. This still does not denote anywhere that a master object is involved, and explicitly states that displacement mapping is utilized.

 

That same NVIDIA paper you refused to read also states this;

"For developers, tessellation greatly improves the efficiency of their content creation pipeline. In describing their motivation for using tessellation, Jason Mitchell of Valve says: “We are interested in the ability to author assets which allow us to scale both up and down. That is, we want to build a model once and be able to scale it up to film quality…Conversely, we want to be able to naturally scale the quality of an asset down to meet the needs of real-time rendering on a given system.” This ability to create a model once and use it across various platforms means shorter development times, and for the PC gamer, the highest possible image quality on their GPU."

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Basically the reverse of what everyone was doing. What everyone was doing was adding some model and forcing tessellation unit to add things that don't exist there basically predicting non existent things. It may sometimes work on cylindrical or spherical objects where you can easily project polygon smoothing via curvature calculation and adding in extra polygons to smooth it, but when you render a cuboid object, it literally doesn't matter if you use 5 million polygons on it or just 12 which is minimum for a cuboid object. It'll look the same.

Literally no. This is what tessellation was designed for, and if they used it correctly it would have displacement maps, once again, provided and shown by the NVIDIA release. But they're dipshits, and your complete misunderstandings based on failures of a decade ago are showing with your information. If it's a completely flat cube, yes, it will look the same as a cube with 8 vertices. No one does this, outside of early failed implementations. Beyond that, anything that isn't a completely flat surface will have smoother edges.

After a coarse model (left) goes through tessellation, a smooth model is produced (middle). When displacement mapping is applied (right), characters approach film-like realism. © Kenneth Scott, id Software 2008

Look how there's no increased detail at all. It looks identical to the base mesh. How about this?

Yep, that ball on the right is completely smooth.

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

And you'll be facing the same issue on I don't know rocks and things where there is an expected shape and just pumping in polygons doesn't actually make things better since they don't have a predictable end shape. Sphere does, rock doesn't. For sphere, the engine can clearly know that adding polygons on the curve and chopping away angled surfaces and making them more detailed with more polygons also yields actual results

No, this is what displacement mapping is for. You have a base misunderstanding of how this works. Objects have textures, those textures control the height information of the tessellation. A displacement map is a grayscale image, where white represents 1 and black represents 0. This information is then converted into vertex offset from the base position. Here is an image of a flat plane being completely unaffected by displacement mapping. It's 100% flat. No bumps at all. It has literally nothing to do with the shape of the object, why you think that, I have no idea. I have literally no clue why you think the object shape matters in the slightest.

 

Here's a sphere being completely round and not at all affected by tessellation and displacement mapping. This image also shows the displacement map.

 

Here's another example also showing how displacement mapping doesn't work in conjunction with tessellation.

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

(it's how ATi's TruForm, the grand daddy of tessellation worked and it's why we sometimes got funny results of inflated things because the engine was too eager adding in polygons where they shouldn't be)

Don't know, don't care. I'm not researching a dead technology only utilized by like 15 games.

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

And if that was actually the case even for cylindrical or spherical surfaces I'd never witness them again in blocky forms since introduction of tessellation yet that's just not the case even today in many games. Still bunch of ugly ass blocky objects. The whole point of tessellation was that developers shouldn't be having to make decisions whether some objects like railings are insignificant and not worth spending polygons on it and require extra work. It would always spend more polygons up close and less further away where you really wouldn't see the difference so obviously.

Tessellation is not a global thing. It could be, but it's not. You bitch about them using it wrong and making it too resource intensive, so they turn it off for those objects and then you bitch about it not being on. If a railing looks near identical with an extruded octagon, why the hell would they enable tessellation on it? if it's only noticeable when the camera is unrealistically close for most circumstances, does it really matter? Alternatively, maybe it does have tessellation on, but since tessellation works in x, y, and z they might have it set to a low value so the actual base mesh is square or hexagonal and tessellation makes it octagonal or dodecagonal. In this instance, the railing really only needs a start point of vertices and and end point of vertices. Tessellation will produce vertices in the main part of the rail (assuming it's a regular straight rail) that absolutely will not be visible since it doesn't have displacement mapping. So once again, why would they tessellate it? It literally only increases render time for no reason.

See the difference? It looks identical, but one uses more resources. Why would I use tessellation? I can't believe you bitch about it both ways.

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Developer would just make the high quality model they have to make anyway and just import it into the game and engine would do the rest. The problem at that time was that developer worked on super high poly models in lets say Maya anyway and then they had to manually (by hand) chop details away until performance was acceptable for whatever visuals they wanted because production models are always higher fidelity than in-game ones. And that wasted a lot of time. In the end they were still wasting time in chopping away details and forcing tessellation unit to fill them back in which is just retarded wasteful thing.

No. They don't import the master build. They might import the high LOD mesh, but not the master build. When you do something like sculpting you end up with a mesh of a few million triangles, and normally would use that master to bake normal and displacement maps to use with a reduced quality mesh in an attempt to bring it back in line with the master build. This is what it was designed for. But these people are stupid. These industry professionals and inventors of the technology don't know how it works.

 

Holy SHIT. Half done.

 

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Also, what you're describing under the video, that's literally how tessellation works. It's not unique or new to Nanite. It's LITERALLY how tessellation works. My god, no wonder all developers were going bananas with it when no one seems to understand it...

Clearly people don't understand it. But it's not how Nanite works.

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Also the level of detail is not the same across the scene. It's distance based progressive detail. The amount of polygons to display is fixed at certain distance from the viewport, however as player moves around, objects in your view are changing distance between them and viewport. The detail is not constant through the scene, it's dynamic.

Each pixel is being represented by a single polygon. By definition that means the level of detail is consistent across the scene. Using tessellation or the old method of LODs has geometry at varying levels across the screen, often with sub pixel geometry, thus the level of detail is inconsistent.

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Constant quality means that object half a meter in front of you has 15 million polygons and it still has 15 million polygons when it's 200 meters away. Dynamic is when same object has 15 million polygons in front of you and 5000 when it's 200 meters away. There is no point in forcing 35 million polygons on a 15 million polygons base model. Unless it's a sphere, chances are you won't see any visual difference up close, but you'll just waste 20 million polygons that could be used better on something else.

Constant does not equal consistent. Nor does it equal... equal.

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Anything else, no matter how insignificant that object might feel to the developer or the player.

This is not a sentence.

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

It's why in the past misc items like oranges on tables or glasses looked like they are made of 16 polygons. Because they were considered low priority props.

Yes...

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Tessellation was meant to remove that decision making from developers. They'd waste less time on a lot of things and players would still have nice looking objects. Because that orange you see in game on some table didn't start its life as 16 polygons object during production. It began its life as something with 50.000 polygons. And they chopped them away to fit the performance metrics and status of misc object. That was literally the point of tessellation. Developer would just stick that 50.000 polygon object into the game and let tessellation do the rest.

Not really. Guaranteed that orange NEVER had 50 thousand polygons, or that dev is incompetent beyond belief. It might've had 30 and a texture applied to it. This is retarded. Just for shits and giggles, I started up Blender. A UV sphere needs 155 segments and rings to get to 47 thousand triangles. Considering you model in squares, that number needs to be doubled. You don't EVER approach that number for something like a simple sphere or an orange, or any other low priority asset. This is a baffling thing to even think about to have this much of a misunderstanding. A UV sphere with 16 segments and rings with smooth shading has 480 triangles and looks perfectly fine. Bumping that up to ~2000 triangles looks perfect, even upon close inspection.

And no, that wasn't the point of tessellation, yet again.

 

As an addendum, Kratos in the PS4 God of war has a paltry 32 thousand polygons for his entire head. His entire body is only a meager 80 thousand. Damn dude, that orange is freaking nuts. Holy shit.

“Kratos from God of War 2 (PS2) had 5,700 polygons for his entire body, 1,200 of those for the face and used five textures. Kratos from God of War 3 (PS3) had 64,000 polygons for his entire body, 5,700 for the face, which was already a big improvement. But compared to what we can do with the PS4 system, it is still not enough for what we wanted to accomplish. The Kratos for God of War (PS4) has 80,000 polygons in total, with 32,000 for the face – 30x what we had for the PS2 models."

[RejZoR]

Oh god I'm not even going to bother responding to this massive wall of everything. The point is, we had all the tech to make "Nanite" thing a decade ago and everyone was so blinded by the whole thing they all used it all wrong and it apparently never crossed anyone's mind to use it differently and more efficiently. Also you're mixing up height map based tessellation with progressive tessellation. The bricks or rocks don't know how far they need to be protruding out. Height map defines that. Where progressive tessellation is solely distance based.

[JZStudios]

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Oh god I'm not even going to bother responding to this massive wall of everything. The point is, we had all the tech to make "Nanite" thing a decade ago and everyone was so blinded by the whole thing they all used it all wrong and it apparently never crossed anyone's mind to use it differently and more efficiently. Also you're mixing up height map based tessellation with progressive tessellation. The bricks or rocks don't know how far they need to be protruding out. Height map defines that. Where progressive tessellation is solely distance based.

[BlackManINC]

Reality Check - Unreal Engine 5 Tech Demo was NOT a "Gameplay Reveal":

We will see the engines "true form" with actual games, not tech demo's.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, BlackManINC said:

Reality Check - Unreal Engine 5 Tech Demo was NOT a "Gameplay Reveal":

 

We will see the engines "true form" with actual games, not tech demo's.

 

The UE 5 PlayStation 5 presentation is a playable tech demo rendered in real-time, showing-off some new capabilities for the latest version of the UE engine. The new tech that is shown-off is the ability to render that high level of detail in real-time, in a playable scene - as opposed to a pre-rendered cinematic.

 

I don't know if there was any confusion about the presentation being a demo of UE 5 rather than an upcoming game, though the OP title does say it's a UE 5 demo. But what was shown in the demo and also what future UE 5 games will do are all a part of the engine's capabilities.

 

UE 4's engine demo also didn't show graphics as they appeared in UE 4 games when the engine was new. But UE 4 games have come to look as good or even better than the initial engine demo:

 

 

[BlackManINC]

11 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

The UE 5 PlayStation 5 presentation is a playable tech demo rendered in real-time, showing-off some new capabilities for the latest version of the UE engine. The new tech that is shown-off is the ability to render that high level of detail being rendered in real-time, in a playable scene - as opposed to a pre-rendered cinematic.

 

I don't know if there was any confusion about the presentation being a demo of UE 5 rather than an upcoming game, though the OP title does say it's a UE 5 demo. But what was shown in the demo and also what future UE 5 games do are all a part of the engine's capabilities.

 

UE 4's engine demo also didn't show graphics as they appeared in UE 4 games when the engine was new. But UE 4 games have come to look even better than the initial engine demo:

 

 

Sure it was a tech demo, obviously, but would the average joe know that by looking at it? Nope, because Epic Games failed to mention it, which was intentional. The tech demo was sold as if those graphics are possible in a REAL game on the next gen consoles, and now sub Reddit is going fucking nuts over it. This is where it rubs me the wrong way, and all the people getting excited over it will be sorely disappointed in a few months. The eye opener for me was finding out the damn demo was running at sub par 30 fps, another thing they neglected to mention while they got everybody enamored over it. It tells me all I need to know. This is with nothing going on mind you, no NPC's, no A.I, no other players, yet 30 fps is the most they got out of it. So tell me, why is everyone getting so damn excited if 30 fps is the most they can hope for, even with NOTHING intensive going on beyond the visuals? I mean, it just tickles my ball sack at how easily suggestible people really are. Ain't no way in hell we getting games looking that good any time soon, not even on PC, not a chance in hell. Every fucking generation, shit has to stop. 

[BlackManINC]

OMG, look at this tech demo!!!!............................at 30 FPS

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

9 minutes ago, BlackManINC said:

Sure it was a tech demo, obviously, but would the average joe know that by looking at it? Nope, because Epic Games failed to mention it, which was intentional. The tech demo was sold as if those graphics are possible in a REAL game on the next gen consoles, and now sub Reddit is going fucking nuts over it. This is where it rubs me the wrong way, and all the people getting excited over it will be sorely disappointed in a few months. The eye opener for me was finding out the damn demo was running at sub par 30 fps, another thing they neglected to mention while they got everybody enamored over it. It tells me all I need to know. This is with nothing going on mind you, no NPC's, no A.I, no other players, yet 30 fps is the most they got out of it. So tell me, why is everyone getting so damn excited if 30 fps is the most they can hope for, even with NOTHING intensive going on beyond the visuals? I mean, it just tickles my ball sack at how easily suggestible people really are. Ain't no way in hell we getting games looking that good any time soon, not even on PC, not a chance in hell. Every fucking generation, shit has to stop. 

I've always watched engine tech demos knowing what they are about. I think that I don't often feel like they're aiming to trick people (games tech trailers can be less honest in that regard), but that it's for a certain audience, such as developers and tech enthusiasts, who understand what it being a tech demo means.

[BlackManINC]

8 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I've always watched engine tech demos knowing what they are about. I think that I don't often feel like they're aiming to trick people (games tech trailers can be less honest in that regard), but that it's for a certain audience, such as developers and tech enthusiasts, who understand what it being a tech demo means.

 Ohh, I don't know about that one, not this damn time for sure. Its quite obvious that the perception that this will run in any game any time soon on "next gen" hardware was 100% intentional. There is no other way for me to look at this baloney, and I'm tired of this shit. And Epic Games is a video game company so them being deceptive in a tech demo shouldn't be that much of a surprise to anyone. We know their reputation too well to be this gosh damn gullible for crying out loud. One would think people would wise up after the abuse we endured this generation, but sadly, humanity never fails to disappoint me. 

[RejZoR]

4 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Yeah, whatever dude...

[CarlBar]

27 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Yeah, whatever dude...

 If your unwilling to address someone's arguments, don't be surprised when they're dismissive.

[RejZoR]

14 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 If your unwilling to address someone's arguments, don't be surprised when they're dismissive.

Did you see the fucking block of quotes? What are you expecting me to double the amount of all of them by responding to each and one of them by quoting the quotes? Also he seems to be mixing up tessellation as a function with displacement mapping which is a separate function USING tessellation. Which aren't the same but one depends on the other. Displacement mapping doesn't work without tessellation but has no other relation to it otherwise. Tessellation is just a function where GPU can manipulate the amount of polygons in hardware, be it distance based or in some other way. It's not strict in how you use it. Meaning what he's saying that you can't possibly import peak detail model (which is how they always begin their life) and then use tessellation to chop it down to less polygons as it moves further away from viewport. And that was literally my complaint from the get go. Developers importing somewhat high detail models and then go bananas with tessellation pumping out millions of polygons on things that make no sense (like cuboid shaped objects that will look the same with 5 billion polygons or just 100. Engine cannot possibly know how something should look like with more polygons if all it has is low poly model. It can damn well know how to remove them though and not cause dramatic drop in visual quality. Only thing we got from tessellation in the past were games that ran like dog shit while still looking mediocre at best because literally everyone was using it wrong. And we needed what, 10 years for someone to finally have a fucking eureka moment and use the damn tessellation the way it should've been used 10 years ago... Meet Nanite. Also, using polygons the size of pixels is absolutely wasteful behavior. They are doing it again. I hope this was just for tech demo showcase and won't ever be used in real games, though experience with tessellation from old days tells me it'll probably happen again...

[KaitouX]

15 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

The specs I've seen put the PS5s graphics just below a 2060. By the time it releases, the 3xxx series will be out. Plus the console cards likely won't have the ancillary support for the other things that GPGPUs can do.

How would a RDNA2 GPU with the same amount of CUs of the RX5700 and higher clocks be slower than the RX5700/RTX2060?

[RejZoR]

You can't compare console graphics to PC graphics. One has games specifically tailored for the GPU found in every single console of that generation, meaning you know exactly what are the limits and what you can work with and optimize them specifically. That also includes rendering resolution which is on consoles still 1080p and then upscaled to 4K displays most of the time. So you know exactly what GPU can do, how much memory system has, how much memory GPU has and what is the output resolution. On PC, basically all o this are unknown variables that developers have to account for and they draw a line somewhere which is what "Minimum system specs" are usually for and Recommended is what you could say is "The console specs".

[cj09beira]

17 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

 

The specs I've seen put the PS5s graphics just below a 2060. By the time it releases, the 3xxx series will be out. Plus the console cards likely won't have the ancillary support for the other things that GPGPUs can do.

rx 5700 is a bit faster than a 2060 stock, the ps5 has the same amount of compute units, but at around 22% higher core clocks, plus whatever rdna 2 brings, its not 2060 like, it should be considerably faster

19 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

I'm sure your aware but there's rarely linear scaling with raw on board hardware. So thats probably overstating it a bit.

 

 

Absolutely, being able to store it in ram is very valuable. That said i think it' also important to note that as the player plays the game what needs to be buffered to account for what they could do is going to change and thats going to mean feeding the buffer new data from storage. So there is a point at which no amount of ram can compensate for slow storage.

depends on a bunch of other things in the design that we don't know about, but even at the same 2 shader engines the xbox should scale quite well, from 52 to 64 thats when scaling wouldn't be great, they could also do more shader engines but if it makes sense.

on the ps5 its harder to say how good it will scale we will have to wait and see

16 hours ago, StDragon said:

There's no doubt about it, consoles offer the best bang for the buck. Primarily for two reason.

• They're mass produced and often sold break-even or at a loss with game licensing profit making up the difference.
• They have a long lifespan to where the cost gets cheaper to manufacture later in its life-cycle (often going through multiple HW revisions along the way).

At a rumored $549 MSRP for the PS5, that's putting it out of reach for most; especially when people are financially hurting now. I doubt both Sony and Microsoft will do well in the holiday season. If anything, Nintendo would pick up market share (if they can keep the Switch in stock). So I totally get the rational behind the shared 16GB pool of RAM. But unless Sony will prevent memory paging, it could chew through the life of NAND flash. I'm not a game developer, so my assumption any kind of write-back paging is pure speculation on my part; maybe it doesn't. If so, the cost could be penny wise pound foolish.

 

I really hope for Sony's sake they engineer the PS5 to be RAM upgrade-able with something like an Expansion RAM pack like in the days of N64. If not, I'm thinking these next generation games are better suited for the PC due to more resources being available and not just raw CPU/GPU computation. Meaning, they might be stretching to reach that high bar. And FWIW, the Unreal Engine is top tier (best of the best). So what you're seeing in this demo is probably all that you will ever see in games. Still, it's darn impressive for what it is!

 

Just my 2 cents.

problem with consoles is that you are stuck with 50 dollar games, while on pc if you are patient you can get games pretty cheap 

expandable ram is impossible gddr memory is never made into dimms (not really sure why, guessing too many pins)

[an actual squirrel]

On 5/13/2020 at 8:44 PM, JZStudios said:

Anyways, as for my own curiosity and biases, UE4.25 has included first order ambisonic rendering and convoluted reverb, which is cool. I also finally got an explanation of what the difference is between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order ambisonics. It's basically just directional resolution, with 1 being lowest and 3 being highest. They also explain the differences between ambisonics, VSS, and HRTF, which agrees with me in my personal vendetta against @an actual squirrel about what binaural audio is.

I don't see how that had any information in it that supported your ideas.

 

My position has always been clear. There are audio formats with a lot of spatial information, like ambisonics, dolby atmos or other object based formats, and 7.1 surround sound, and to convey that information well over headphones requires headphone specific processing because otherwise headphones are just stereo devices. This, despite the prevailing internet forum wisdom being nonsense such as that it is ideal to have just a regular stereo audio mix and headphones with a good soundstage.

 

There is fundamentally only one technique to be able to convey that extra spatial information on headphones, which involves simulating the physical effects of head and ear shape and natural crosstalk. This cuts out the middleman of having sounds get their positional information from the position of speakers. The process has been referred to as hrtf/binaural/virtual surround sound. As I recall, this was the notion that you did not understand.

[IAmAndre]

11 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Still salty with Watchdogs (the worst offender I can remember), ain't you?

That's exactly what I had in mind!

[Doobeedoo]

It's looking very good. The texture and polygon tech will be quite a change in bringing assets and improving the pipeline. Excited to see games leverging this. The dem was 1440p 30fps but yeah still awesome with that light system and texture detail with no popins too. Can't wait to see more of this. 

[RejZoR]

Only reason why Doom 2006 and Doom Eternal for example run so good is because people working on engine actually did their job properly. They designed engine not to be wasteful which is why experience is so amazing while you can basically max it out on a mid range card of last generation! Unlike Crytek with their absurd amounts of polygons on things where it just makes absolutely no sense. And that was with their own frigging engine!

 

[straight_stewie]

7 hours ago, KaitouX said:

How would a RDNA2 GPU with the same amount of CUs of the RX5700 and higher clocks be slower than the RX5700/RTX2060?

5 hours ago, cj09beira said:

rx 5700 is a bit faster than a 2060 stock, the ps5 has the same amount of compute units, but at around 22% higher core clocks, plus whatever rdna 2 brings, its not 2060 like, it should be considerably faster

Ahhh. You are right. When I was looking at the FLOPS rating I accidentally read the half precision rating for the RTX card, and I assume that the FLOPS rating for the RDNA2 card is at full precision, as it's fairly standard to report GPU performance at full precision. I still wouldn't hold my breath, however, as that could be a bad assumption, and I could not find a single search result that labeled that performance claim as being for full precision.

 

Looking at it again, it should be much closer to the 2070/2070 Super range. I still very highly doubt that it has any of the other capabilities of the desktop graphics cards though.

[Commodus]

I've been around for enough console generations to recognize a certain pattern in the console-versus-PC debate:

 

1. Console premieres with impressive tech demo

2. PC diehards insist their rigs already are (or will soon be) capable of more through sheer brute force

3. First year or two of new console shows that optimization matters more, with some games looking better than PC titles

4. PCs eventually gain the upper hand, but the gap in real-world quality isn't as cavernous as they expected

 

The simple reality is that designing for a narrow, finely-tuned set of hardware gives consoles a significant if temporary advantage over PCs, at least in the short term, and the long-term shortfall isn't usually night-and-day.  PCs have lots of raw power and are very flexible, but a significant amount of that power gets wasted due to the limits on possible optimization.  Think about it: how long will it take before PC game developers can assume many players have NVMe SSDs?  Years?  You might see games that take better advantage of SSDs in the near term, but the things you saw in that UE5 demo will be considerably harder to achieve in a shipping PC game than in a PS5 or XSX release.

[Delicieuxz]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

I've been around for enough console generations to recognize a certain pattern in the console-versus-PC debate:

 

1. Console premieres with impressive tech demo

2. PC diehards insist their rigs already are (or will soon be) capable of more through sheer brute force

3. First year or two of new console shows that optimization matters more, with some games looking better than PC titles

4. PCs eventually gain the upper hand, but the gap in real-world quality isn't as cavernous as they expected

I would agree with that, if not for the FPS and resolution differences, as well as things like ray-tracing and Nvidia GameWorks and other processing-intensive features that don't appear on comparative console generations.

 

While some console games might present visual scenes that rival some of the best PC games available towards the middle and end of a console generation, they do it at lower resolution and far lower FPS than what a PC is capable of. Stuff like God of War and Uncharted 4 run at 1080p and 30 FPS. GoW and Uncharted 4 also feature smaller environments to maximize the available resource to be able to make those small environments as dense with detail as possible.

 

If a PC game targeted those specs, the visuals would be vastly beyond anything seen on consoles. But PC games are doing environments with as much or more detail overall (though perhaps not always as condensed) while at 1440p or 4k, with superior AA techniques applied and at higher intensities, sometimes much larger texture resolution scaling (if a game has that option), and potentially a lot of other graphical features.

[Commodus]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I would agree with that, if not for the FPS and resolution differences, as well as things like ray-tracing and Nvidia GameWorks and other processing-intensive features that don't appear on comparative console generations.

 

While some console games might present visual scenes that rival some of the best PC games available towards the middle and end of a console generation, they do it at lower resolution and far lower FPS than what a PC is capable of. Stuff like God of War and Uncharted 4 run at 1080p and 30 FPS. GoW and Uncharted 4 also feature smaller environments to maximize the available resource to be able to make those small environments as dense with detail as possible.

 

If a PC game targeted those specs, the visuals would be vastly beyond anything seen on consoles.

Oh, I don't doubt that resolutions and frame rates can be higher. But you're not really missing out on the core experience, and early on (I figure roughly the first year or two) PC gamers sometimes have to look on with a bit of envy.  And until late in the console cycle, getting those higher resolutions and frame rates can be prohibitively expensive for some.  Yeah, the rumored 3080 Ti might well outrun the PS5's GPU in most respects, but it'll likely cost twice as much as the entire PS5.