Was the switch to Unreal Engine 5 so necessary?

[kirbybao]

Judging by the videos and screenshots earlier on UE4 the game looked exactly the same as it does now, but what about performance? On my old pc the game ran at 60fps. On a gtx 650 ti even though it is a very old and weak video card. Yes in the big factory there were performance issues. But now it's basically impossible to play on such a pc. That's why my friend with the old pc can't play with me now. Now my pc is already powerful and I have no performance problems with the game on ultra, but would not be on UE4 performance is even better? If you take a very large factory, which in a certain place gives for example 55-60 fps on UE4, how much it became to give after the transition to UE5. Yes, there is global illumination but it is very stressful to the pc and need only for screenshots and doesn't look good without DLSS or anti-aliasing.

[Jack-o-Lantern]

Consider also that it may be a necessity if you plan to have a game that is maintained and not just "release and forget". Don't know exactly Unreal support for it's old engines, but Just before release was probably the only chance to upgrade it.

[Kage Goomba]

In simple terms - UE4's engine just couldn't handle a lot of things in the game that caused headaches - UE5 opened a lot of doors and allowed for future improvements as such - it was a massive undertaking/effort from what I recall.

UE4 was actually worse compared to what we have today.

Like it or not - games demand better hardware as time marches on.
Surprisingly tho - quite a few players do fine on "older cards" playing this game.

[Eifelyeti]

I complained rather bitterly on the switch from UE4 to UE5. on why my (tbh "ancient" ) hardware could no longer run SF smoothly at 1080p/60fps.
(after an upgrade to rather recent hardware - it's like "aww, shucks, it's running on ultra 1080p/60fps, system load is less than 25-30% overall)
and objectively, IF u want to build large structures in SF, U won't run into "too many UObjects" errors anytime soon. - that was a major issue with UE4.

[Grandaddypurple]

There have been several performance improvements in the game and UE5 was one of them.
On my first playthrough 5 years ago I made a 11k pure iron ingot setup that made my pc run at 23 fps. I tested it on the same PC after the UE5 switch and it was 50fps

[Khirareq]

They did a 40 minute video about it. Not sure if it will satisfy your concerns though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY__x2dq7Sk

[Huren Ogeko]

I think there was a whole lot that looked different after the update to unreal5. whether or not it looked better or worle is up to the individual but they were not in any way the same

Then there was alot of non-visual stuff like that grid partitioning thing that made the game run better and incrementally load things based on smaller chunks rather then how it did it in the older system.

I only wish they used more of the unreal5 features like the lighting system...where we have now is just a half implemented experimental feature. but redoing all the things they would need to redo to make that and other things work well would have set the game back by years.

[Doc✪Hollywood]

Originally posted by kirbybao:

Was the switch to Unreal Engine 5 so necessary?

Yes. ABSOLUTELY!

I wish every other existing factory game would do this step as well!!!!

[Doc✪Hollywood]

I can't play resp. I have no desire to play Foundry, Techtonica, etc. with blocky, cartoony graphics for kiddies - just so that the game will run on every outdated console to make a few more bucks. I hope this backfires plenty. Part of Satisfactory's key to success is it's stunning graphics.

[RadioIesbian Fluid]

a gtx 650 ti is over 12 years old at this point, and back when it launched it was a bottom tier card.
Game devs cannot cater to such old hardware, new engine has new features. sides, even nvidia stopped supporting the 650 Ti back in 2021.
Sorry to say but its time to upgrade to a new pc. 12 years is a commendable lifespan, but its past due.

[Eifelyeti]

Originally posted by Gordon✪Gekko:

Originally posted by kirbybao:

Was the switch to Unreal Engine 5 so necessary?

Yes. ABSOLUTELY!

auto saves only taking fractions of a second nowadays instead of freezing your client for a minute or so on "big" worlds. ...among other things....the RDNA3 texture polish is kinda nice but mere cosmetics...me thinks

[Doc✪Hollywood]

Originally posted by RadioIesbian Fluid:

Game devs cannot cater to such old hardware

A good game should push all hardware to it's limit and beyond. That's how the wheel of better hardware and better looking games keeps spinning.

I find it absolutely correct if an actual game isn't playable on it's highest settings and maybe only the next hardware cycle is allowing to do so.

1000x better than a PC game that has only console-graphics quality, which could be played at max settings with 8 year old equipment.

Originally posted by stk:

auto saves only taking fractions of a second nowadays instead of freezing your client for a minute or so on "big" worlds.

Here too: Autosaves are barely noticable on my computer. I am very happy with it.

[Ryzilynt]

Yes

[Slatepaws]

For stuff other than visual's not after what taa and up-scaling does..

[Wolfie_]

Originally posted by kirbybao:

Was the switch to Unreal Engine 5 so necessary?

Considering Epic stopped releasing updates for UE4 back in August of 2021, from CSS's perspective, they'd be taking a big risk continuing on a gaming engine that would no longer receive updates (and eventually be dropped from support altogether) for a title which at that time was still in Early Access. So, making the move before full release was likely the best option.

Also, if go back and watch some of CSS's videos recorded around the upgrade to UE5, they did talk about some of the features / benefits the newer engine provided.

[Ryzilynt]

People would create threads like "ded engine - Lame"

You understand.