Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
13 
Report this post
Unfortunately we are just at a jump in graphics tech right now that will shift more cards towards obsolescence as raytracing solutions become more commonplace than typical rasterization. This isn't the first time this has happened in game tech.
It even runs on 980gtx, but textures are stuck on "oh so blurry" even on high settings. What type of the smart*** system is it?
We are continuously working on patches to improve optimization for a better gaming experience.
If your entire understanding of raytracing is just "moar real-er" then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of RT and how it can be used stylistically.
I do wonder about the decision to up the spec requirements in a game like this. Is the industry just operating off the standard that consumers no longer use lower end hardware, to brazenly make the choice to make games like top down shooters more intensive than say, Vermintide?
The new console generation is finally settling in and the baseline for graphics is rising. This happens pretty much every time a new gen launches.
Saying "a game like this" is pretty unfair. Implying stylistic games can't (or shouldn't) be graphically demanding is silly.
The graphic requirements are honestly quite low, a listed minimum of a 1050ti is more than generous in the present, even if that is at 1080p@30.
An RTX 2060 and RX 5700? Mid range 5 years ago. Again, pretty fair. I know not everyone religiously upgrades their computer and this is an unfortunate time for them. We seem to be at a little bit of a spring board hardware demand wise.
It's not really fair for a game dev to have to sacrifice their artistic vision to accommodate hardware that old.
Granted, everything I'm saying doesn't absolve guilt from games that have released in horrid technical states this year.
From what I've seen, nothing in the game looks like it requires RT to look this good.
There was a game that tried to use RT functionally, e.g. it was required for the main game mechanic. It lived for about a year and moved out of Steam as a freeware abandoned game. It was about 4 years ago, the game is called Stay in the Light.
I think it would be very fair for a game dev to provide options to make the game look 10% less shiny, if it increases performance by 50% or more, because it would basically increase potential player base by even more, probably by at least 100%.
A method of calculation for lights and shadows does not constrain the ability to light scenes stylistically. That's the equivalent of saying movies like Suspiria who use gels to color the scenes in specific ways can't be stylistic because they're constrained by physics.
Absolutely ridiculous take and shows you know nothing about art direction.
That is subjective. As someone who works with Unreal for a living I heavily disagree.
Irrelevant. If you are somehow trying to imply the presence of RT equates to the success of a game you're in a losing battle. Control was hugely successful and was one of the initial poster childs for RT. It's implementation is still warmly received. Metro Last Light as well.
Pulling random statistics from nothing is not supporting your case.
Creating what is effectively two different lighting setups is not feasible for many studios this size. If they decided to take a calculated risk by potentially alienating 5+ year old hardware, that's their perogative. Would it be nice? Sure. Is it required? No.
Again, I feel confident saying any current gen console would be able to run this title fine.
If your PC isn't at least equivalent to current consoles performance wise you should expect to fall further and further down the totem pole. That's just how tech progresses as they're now the bar for a vast majority of studios.
Just to reiterate, games that are optimized poorly like Jedi Survivor do not fall into this category. There is a difference between graphically demanding and poorly optimized. Sometimes they're both, sometimes they're just one or the other.
That's not subjective. A lot of the time there is too little visible difference between "RT" and "no RT", and a lot of people prefer playing without it. While technically you can call it "subjective", it means that in a lot of cases objectively you have to try hard to find the differences.
Presence of RT is not the problem. A requirement is. Control and Metro did not require RT.
My example is about absence of the success. Presence of RT does not mean success or failure, but it means game dev made a specific choice. A choice that may or may not look correct to the player base.
These statistics are not random.
1. A game that tries to look realistic does look better with RT, but not by much.
2. A game that doesn't try to look realistic does look better with RT too, but it's much easier to make it look equally good by other means.
3. RT (Lumen included) rarely costs less than 50% fps. Example https://www.reddit.com/r/unrealengine/comments/11u404a/lumen_off_vs_lumen_on/
4. Assuming that increasing baseline performance by 50% will allow 100% more potential PCs to play the game is only mild. You can see Steam hardware surveys to compare how many people use specific GPUs.
Can you tell how many people exactly should there be for a dev team to be able to consider such an implementation? So I could compare it to size of dev teams of other similar looking games.
True. Conversely, what should stop me from providing my opinion on how graphics should have been implemented? That's my prerogative. Nobody is required to follow it because I don't have such a power.
Do you consider Switch and Steam Deck current gen consoles?
That's not how tech progresses. That's how many people involved with the industry want it to progress. The day where a game with RT requirement becomes a norm has not come 4 years ago, and I don't know if it will come during next 4 years either.
There are tangible benefits to RT that are impossible with rasterized lighting. This is not opinion, this is objective fact.
Making a game makes you a game developer. Pleasing some random on the Internet by optimizing for hardware that was barely mid tier 5+ years ago is not the sole requirement, nor should it be expected.
The fact they claim support for the 1050ti alone is impressive. The 1660ti should be able to play the game fine if this holds true.
"That's not subjective."
"While technically you can call it "subjective"..."
Are you serious?
Anyway, just because the benefits of RT are not tangible to you does not mean the feelings of others are invalidated.
As someone who has seen the difference first hand in projects I've worked on between deferred rendering with lumen and forward rendering with traditional rasterization, they are extremely different levels of quality.
Can you get close with rasterization? Absolutely, but the time commitment is MASSIVE and still will never reach feature parity.
I mean the player is absolutely allowed to look at it that way even if they're incorrect.
1.) Subjective, depends massively on implementation
2.) This is objectively incorrect. If you're pretending traditional rasterization methods that are even somewhat close to the poorest of RT implementation are easy to do you're impressively ignorant on the topic.
3.) This post isn't even slightly indicative of any real world testing scenario. If they're comparing in editor there's already a significant performance penalty versus an actual build of the game.
There's no indication if he's using the software or hardware version of Lumen.
There is no indication of the performance optimization of the assets in his scene. Are they optimized for real time rendering on consumer hardware? Are they using Nanite? Does he have LODs enabled?
This is a terrible source.
4.) This math is so terrible I'm not even going to bother.
There is no magic number in game development. It all depends on time and talent of the individuals. You can't just "turn off" RT and have an acceptable result. You may have to rework entire material / texture workflows in order to make the jump on top of the rebuilding the lighting for rasterization.
Because their risk is calculated on the market and a technical understanding. Yours, from what you've said throughout this thread, is backed by very little real world experience in the field.
No one in their right mind would consider the Switch a current gen console. It was barely a previous gen console considering it had the processing power of the 7th generation.
The Steam Deck isn't a console, it's a handheld PC. Though, funnily enough, it does have RT dedicated hardware and can run games at playable framerates with it. Do what you will with that information.
Yes, that's quite literally how tech progresses whether you approve or not. Consumer GPUs with RT dedicated hardware have been on the market for 5 years. The ability to use RT at a playable level has been present since 2018. Entry level cards nowadays have the hardware for it.
It is becoming the norm and the current generation of consoles prove it.
The benefits are there. They should not matter when it comes to art/style.
By that logic, downloading an asset pack and pressing "Compile" makes you a game developer.
No need to please me. My assumption is based on a fact that if you look at other games with similar style/gameplay/budget you won't see enough examples with similar system requirements. This means there are, in fact, some expectations.
I'm serious. When someone says "this doesn't look much better" or "this looks much better" you can call it subjective. But since there are always many cases of people saying they can't see much difference, it's a fact that RT can look not impressive enough for people to try their best in order to find the difference at all.
I never said they are not tangible to me.
So massive that, apparently, no dev team of similar size is able to create a game that looks half as good, am I getting it right?
And why do I need to know much about RT? I'm a customer. I see how the game looks and how it compares to other games. When I know other games that look similarly good do not require RT, I say this game could also perfectly do without it.
I don't think you, as an UE dev, need good sources to know how RT impacts performance.
It's not terrible when you can do it yourself. Go to survey page, check the %% of people owning GPUs like 1050Ti and better, then check the Intel GPU numbers. Compare.
But you somehow were able to calculate and understand that the size of this dev team is not enough.
True. Yet, still, it's being done by many other people.
Feedback from players should not be judged by how much real world experience they have in any field.
This game is going to be released on Switch in 2024, according to reports. Does this mean there will be huge optimizations or developers are ready to sacrifice their artistic vision in order to let the game work at 30 fps? For now Steam Deck, with its "RT dedicated hardware", can't hit 30 fps here.
In my opinion, as long as games can perform and look adequately without RT, it will remain a gimmick. If after 5 years having a total of ~180 games that support this feature in some form is enough for you to consider this as how "tech progresses", then maybe it's just your opinion too.
Incorrect.
Hitting compile on an asset pack isn't a game.
Again, it comes down to implementation. Some games utilize RT well, some don't. Here are some titles whose RT implementation have been very well received.
Cyberpunk
Control
Metro Exodus
Guardians of the Galaxy
Dying Light 2
Minecraft
Some games only have real time reflections. Others do full on global illumination. You will see a significant difference in the latter rather than the former
You said they were minimal or can't be seen at all in several places.
Never said that. Plenty of teams have. But when it comes to developmental resources, it's all a balancing act. Potentially they decided that by using RT they were able to focus resources elsewhere they deemed were necessary to reach launch in a specific state. We don't know.
Going from confidently claiming things about the game development process to saying you're just a consumer is a big jump. I also agree the game would probably do fine without RT, just like games have for the past 20 years.
No, I don't. But, if you are going to say you understand the impact of RT you should have a good source. RT does significantly impact performance and I even said so in my very first comment in this thread.
The most common GPU according to the Steam Hardware Survey is an RTX 3060, a GPU with RT dedicated hardware.
Intel numbers can be misleading because most systems running Intel processors have an iGPU. That being said... all of Intel's dGPUs have RT dedicated hardware too.
Not that they weren't enough, that it's not reasonable to say a team this size should have two completely different lighting setups to accommodate outdated hardware. Again, a 1050ti as a minimum is very reasonable for this level of fidelity.
I'd be very curious to see how many indie games who were primarily developing for UE5's Lumen also have a non Lumen branch.
If they are brazenly making claims about the technical aspects of the game they should.
Not sure, that's their decision. Fortnite has a non Lumen branch for mobile and Switch, maybe they are planning on spending the extra development time to make that work. If the launch date is a nebulous 2024 they have a decent amount of time.
Though it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to halt the release of other versions of the game for a mobile version.
I'm not surprised the Steam Deck is having trouble with this game. I said it has RT dedicated hardware, I never said it performed well.
180 games since 2018 is quite a lot. Especially considering the RT capable consoles didn't launch until Q4 2020 and a global pandemic significantly slowed game production.
And ticking the RT checkbox in a specific build of specific engine (later versions of which may have different implementation of the same tech) that was not developed by you, is a game, apparently?
None of those games use UE as far as I cal tell. Also, implying that RT is a part of art/design of Minecraft? Being a gimmick, it's not surprising that it's only used when (a) developers want to bring something new to an already established project or (b) developers aim to bring more realism into detailed environments as an extra effort.
Those are not the same. The cost of RT makes you want to be extra careful with how you measure its tangibility, is all.
This is different from what you said previously about "impossible for teams of this size". At least now you admit that we don't really know.
I stand corrected about the numbers in hardware survey. Still, it's obvious that shipping a game with marginally better base performance should not only noticeably increase the player base but also improve experience for players with specs near the minimum requirements.
And here I thought that developers should first create a base gaming experience, and the last thing to do is to accommodate hi-end hardware with costly features like RT.
By the way, 1050Ti is roughly equivalent to Steam Deck. It would seem it's meant to provide exactly 30 fps, and it's always a pity when someone assumes such level of fidelity is acceptable.
Do developers automatically want to use Lumen when they choose UE5 for their project? What happens to their shipped projects when UE5's Lumen gets updated with new features that improve experience or performance?
I think it's enough to have someone with your experience to agree with me when I said that a game like this could do well without RT.
You mean Steam Deck doesn't perform well? Or the game?
PhysX scores ~800 since around 2007, with roughly the same amount of games released per year. But it only jumped two-fold in 2019. I know PhysX is vastly different from RT in many ways, but the reception is almost the same - it costed enough for many people to consider disabling it, and it's been argued that providing an effective alternative would cost too much for the developers. We are left with some games like Mirror's Edge from 2009 that have no proper physics effects implemented outside of PhysX mode, and with no performance improvements for CPUs that evolved quite a lot since then.