Unreal Engine 5 runs better than older versions, why isn't the case here?

[Fedoteh]

It's weird, they posted something talking about nanite and lumen and other techs that came to alleviate graphical processors (and they do, see how well the Matrix demo runs on a PS5). How is it possible that the game runs like ♥♥♥♥ on medium, 2k, DLSS on performance, with a 5950x, 32GB of RAM, and a freaking RTX 3090?

WTF?

[Tzunny]

Bcs interns...

[ImNotFine]

im on 1080p and i still cant run ♥♥♥♥. i found turning down global illumination helps

[SinergyX]

Because the game itself still runs on 10 year old poorly optimized code, slapping on some mods and packs from the UE5 beauty pack doesnt magicly fix this. People say its 'fully rewritten', yet the animations, the mechanics, movement, collision, everything is still ASE.

Its the same wonky WW2 diesel truck just refitted with a spanky new F150 raptor bodykit. Clunky gears, pisspoor horsepower, no working suspension.. but hey, it looks like a brand new F150 right?

I have no idea if they even got the compotent developers to optimize this game, surely not on the level current 'near UE5 looking' games doing atm (spiderman 2 etc). And this is just 'clean game', now imaging the game with massive bases, tons of dino's, boatload of players.. and i saw the server already kicking around with ~250ms ping?

[8-Bit Ears]

Have you played any UE5 games? They all need high end hardware

[Ave]

becuase they sold their soul to nitrado for $4mil and had to release before the end of the month or pay it all back instantly.

[clinT keatzwooD]

Ah yes.. the matrix demo on ps5, with a ♥♥♥♥-ton of complex software based lumen calculations based on a massive amount of vegetation @ 4k TSR and 120 fps :)
Can`t we just say the UE5 isn`t it and never was and move on?

[ImNotFine]

Originally posted by 8-Bit Ears:

Have you played any UE5 games? They all need high end hardware

i apolgise in advance for the game im about to name but fortnite is ue5 and runs fine. its just a lack of optimisation and the fact that most ue5 games at the moment are glorified tech demos that are actively trying to push the engine to its limit. this game's just poorly optimised. if i cant run 60 fps on the lowest settings then its probably the game and not the engine.

[Dioltari]

Ave got it on the nose I think. Someone was saying there are people reporting that ASA fried their GPU, but i havent found the discussions anywhere yet, but as it is, it wouldnt surprise me.

[Kiwibom]

It technically does but only in a particular case. If ASE would be exactly like ASA (1 to 1 copy) it would run much better on UE5 than UE4. That is why people say UE5 has better performance than UE4.

Now performance here shouldn't be a suprise at all unless you lived under a rock during the past 2 years (for the few UE5 based games that have released).

[Bravo]

Playing on the lowest settings and I still get like 5 FPS.

[Emnily]

Originally posted by Fedoteh:

lumen

Dat is the answer, download some UE project, put it on UE5, activate lumen, -30-50% fps instantly, it another feature like rtx "to look good, but for the cost of everything"

[Shadow_xO]

This is the issue with Unreal and everyone wanting to make a game. They think because they don't have to worry about the additional work artist put in to make a final, PLAYABLE, game, its easy. Using Nanite and lumens because it looks cool should NEVER, be the reason for using it especially if you can't optimize your game or don't know the uses for it.

1. Since the release of Nanite and lumens, no one cares about optimizing the assets because they think Nanite will optimize it for them and lumens will make it look pretty. That is not the case. There's still optimization that needs to be handled before and after importing an asset. One rock asset can be 1 million polygons/tris. Now imagine that 1 million poly rock being used on an open world level and constantly rendered with a small cull distance. All for the one rock megascan asset they found and thought was cool. Lumens is just a fancy more expensive way of lighting your game. Not required non what so ever, but given to a lighting artist who knows how to use it, it can be optimized and used correctly. In this game's case...it eats up way to much from the CPU. (Megascan: Taking an object and taking multiple pictures of it at various angles to create a 3D asset. Pretty cool process. Very fun to do)

2. Materials and textures are very expensive and can bring down an entire game without the user even knowing it. Imagine using 4-8k textures on an entire game including small rocks and other assets that the player can barely see. Now multiply that 4-8k texture for every instance in the game. You might as well call your PC a toaster oven at this point. Not to mention transparency for foliage, water, and other assets that you can see through. i.e. glass.

3.VFX...the bane of every game production...Niagra is very amazing. Love it in every sense. Big problem though...constantly being used on every inch of the map. Falling leaves, dust, rain, snow fall, WATER (my god the water...), and etc. And of course, none of it is optimized.

IMPORTANT: Optimization is the huge reason why games have to delay for release dates. Let this game be a glimpse of what studios deal with when people complain about why the game is being delayed. Optimization is how performance is established, understanding what systems can work with the game, and how to get the game to run on the other systems. Including older gens.

3. Every game wan't to be a AAA standard and be the most polished looking game ever. You can't do that by just using UE5 tech. The artist who use it on a daily basis also understand the proper workflow for optimization which every dev using ue5 cares little about because they think Nanite will reduce the work. It does but only when used correctly. And as predicted, future small indie games are going to look nice but be unplayable for awhile. Unless the studios put more focus into the optimization work flows, we are going to see more unplayable Early Access games.

[Fedoteh]

Originally posted by 8-Bit Ears:

Have you played any UE5 games? They all need high end hardware

Yes, and that's exactly what I'm complaining about. Did you even read the post? 5950x paired with an RTX 3090 doesn't look "high end" to you?

We're talking 25 fps on a system like mine. Makes no sense. Please move on this thread because you're lacking some brain cells, clearly.

[Zewtastic]

UR is good at making pretty pictures, not immersive, interactive worlds. That takes a lot better engine like Unity.

[Fedoteh]

Originally posted by Shadow_xO:

This is the issue with Unreal and everyone wanting to make a game. They think because they don't have to worry about the additional work artist put in to make a final, PLAYABLE, game, its easy. Using Nanite and lumens because it looks cool should NEVER, be the reason for using it especially if you can't optimize your game or don't know the uses for it.

1. Since the release of Nanite and lumens, no one cares about optimizing the assets because they think Nanite will optimize it for them and lumens will make it look pretty. That is not the case. There's still optimization that needs to be handled before and after importing an asset. One rock asset can be 1 million polygons/tris. Now imagine that 1 million poly rock being used on an open world level and constantly rendered with a small cull distance. All for the one rock megascan asset they found and thought was cool. Lumens is just a fancy more expensive way of lighting your game. Not required non what so ever, but given to a lighting artist who knows how to use it, it can be optimized and used correctly. In this game's case...it eats up way to much from the CPU. (Megascan: Taking an object and taking multiple pictures of it at various angles to create a 3D asset. Pretty cool process. Very fun to do)

2. Materials and textures are very expensive and can bring down an entire game without the user even knowing it. Imagine using 4-8k textures on an entire game including small rocks and other assets that the player can barely see. Now multiply that 4-8k texture for every instance in the game. You might as well call your PC a toaster oven at this point. Not to mention transparency for foliage, water, and other assets that you can see through. i.e. glass.

3.VFX...the bane of every game production...Niagra is very amazing. Love it in every sense. Big problem though...constantly being used on every inch of the map. Falling leaves, dust, rain, snow fall, WATER (my god the water...), and etc. And of course, none of it is optimized.

IMPORTANT: Optimization is the huge reason why games have to delay for release dates. Let this game be a glimpse of what studios deal with when people complain about why the game is being delayed. Optimization is how performance is established, understanding what systems can work with the game, and how to get the game to run on the other systems. Including older gens.

3. Every game wan't to be a AAA standard and be the most polished looking game ever. You can't do that by just using UE5 tech. The artist who use it on a daily basis also understand the proper workflow for optimization which every dev using ue5 cares little about because they think Nanite will reduce the work. It does but only when used correctly. And as predicted, future small indie games are going to look nice but be unplayable for awhile. Unless the studios put more focus into the optimization work flows, we are going to see more unplayable Early Access games.

Good answer. My post is rhetorical, I understand what's going on and it's pretty simple: Devs are incompetent. But you put it in good words. I guess they went for all the buzzwords without using their brains with optimization, at all... Bummer, I was hyped.