Great Unreal 5 Game?

[Druid Duck]

So nobody's writing about performance issues so far, which is great since it runs on UE5.
I was expecting the ususal reports about stutters and the like, but none so far.

(Would be interesting to know what UE 5.x version this runs on.)

Also what are you guys spec's?
I'm on an i7-12K and RTX 3060, so I should be fine I'd say.

[Lister of Smeg]

I doubt you'll have any issues, the game runs fine on my Steam Deck at low settings - pretty much locked 40fps - and still looks good.

Maxed out settings on my main PC at 4k and I'm in the hundreds of FPS. PC spec:
Ryzen 7950X
RTX 4070 Ti Super

[Druid Duck]

Great to hear, Dungeon Frog

[mooner]

It runs on UE 5. Check the details in the properties of the .exe file.

[Lister of Smeg]

Originally posted by PlatanoSalesman:

This is a game that started development on UE3 and later transitioned to UE4. No UE5.

It's UE5. As mooner mentioned you can see it in the properties of the .exe and the devs also state as much in the FAQ.

It was on UE4 at one point, and yes, UE3 before that, but they transitioned over to UE5 after the 2020 development reset.

[it's a gabe]

I'm getting the impression that UE5 is going the same way as Unity where anything that runs on the latter that's bad and/or is plagued by performance issues is immediately used as an example of how awful the engine is as a whole. Meanwhile, there are a plethora of great games running on Unity that perform beautifully.

UE5 has games running on it that honestly, I wouldn't know they did had I not just googled a list to better inform myself. I think the games defined by their performance issues aren't really a result of them running on UE5, but rather the developers being uncapable of optimising them properly. Routine just happens to be well optimised, though there are some instances where performance tanks on the Steam Deck. No biggie as they have stated they'll be working on optimising it for the Deck, so it makes sense it would mostly run well, but not entirely.

[Kein Zantezuken]

So nobody's writing about performance issues so far, which is great since it runs on UE5.

This is because the game was migrated from UE4 and uses classic UE setup:
* no Nanite bullsht - although it is enabled (0.2-0.5ms pointless perf. cost), there aren't any meshes that use it and the game uses classic LOD setup
* it uses default/classic Global Illumination mode - no Lumen bullsht
* it does not use VirtualShadows bullsht either
* the levels are relatively small and are loaded akin to HL

The biggest hog is some usual post-process/shading pass, if you lower that and lower shadows to like 3/4 scalability level you can run native res with TAA at 60+ fps.

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by Kein Zantezuken:

So nobody's writing about performance issues so far, which is great since it runs on UE5.

This is because the game was migrated from UE4 and uses classic UE setup:
* no Nanite bullsht - although it is enabled (0.2-0.5ms pointless perf. cost), there aren't any meshes that use it and the game uses classic LOD setup
* it uses default/classic Global Illumination mode - no Lumen bullsht
* it does not use VirtualShadows bullsht either
* the levels are relatively small and are loaded akin to HL

The biggest hog is some usual post-process/shading pass, if you lower that and lower shadows to like 3/4 scalability level you can run native res with TAA at 60+ fps.

Which only proves as usual that the TOOLS are a bigger problem than the actual engine. Namely, the Nanite and Lumen suites were simply not refined enough yet for modern hardware to manage it, and the current defaults as UE5 tends to use them have them set up so poorly that devs have to actively work BACKWARDS to remove them and/or "turn off" aspects of them that are currently too demanding for even modern hardware. And that the engine itself is perfectly capable of performing well when it isn't hampered by a bunch of movie level tech that's used more for tech demos and film than actual games. I mean, it's not like this game even looks bad despite not using the full suite of Nanite and Lumen.

[Druid Duck]

Originally posted by Kein Zantezuken:

So nobody's writing about performance issues so far, which is great since it runs on UE5.

This is because the game was migrated from UE4 and uses classic UE setup:
* no Nanite bullsht - although it is enabled (0.2-0.5ms pointless perf. cost), there aren't any meshes that use it and the game uses classic LOD setup
* it uses default/classic Global Illumination mode - no Lumen bullsht
* it does not use VirtualShadows bullsht either
* the levels are relatively small and are loaded akin to HL

The biggest hog is some usual post-process/shading pass, if you lower that and lower shadows to like 3/4 scalability level you can run native res with TAA at 60+ fps.

Thank you for clarifying, it makes a lot of sense now when it's not using lumen. So classic, baked lightmaps.
And I would agree that lumen is more suited for movies than games. At least for now and the nearer future.

I do wonder though, is the performance of VirtualShadowMaps so bad?
Given that they're written so even a GTX 1050 should be able to run them (according to epic's documentation).

[fourfourtwo79]

UE5 has quite "heavy" features enabled as default. Apparently, it's not as easy as Nanite+Lumen on/off, as there's a lot of dependencies. It seems tricky to keep track of it all. Naturally, if you disable them outright...

https://medium.com/@raphaelhorion/unreal-engine-5-is-not-just-a-performance-problem-it-is-a-ux-problem-1e3bdf86cac4

The biggest step forward would not be a new rendering technique, but better UX. Engines should give developers, even non-technical ones, a clear view of which features are active, which dependencies remain hidden, and what each of them costs. Games already display VRAM or GPU usage in real time. Engines could do the same at the feature level: if you enable Lumen or Virtual Shadow Maps, you should also see which systems are tied to them and how much performance they consume.

PS: A 3060 is mighty fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9UqyqnzwdM&

[Druid Duck]

Thanks a lot @fourfourtwo79 for the (video) link.

interesting read, I didnt't know that VirtualshadowMaps consume so much VRAM. But I guess that's why they're called virtual...

I'm gonna get this game after some more options for camera, post processing and key rebindings have been added. Hope the devs don't dumb the game down though.

[PizzaSHARK]

Originally posted by j9kN.:

So nobody's writing about performance issues so far, which is great since it runs on UE5.
I was expecting the ususal reports about stutters and the like, but none so far.

(Would be interesting to know what UE 5.x version this runs on.)

Also what are you guys spec's?
I'm on an i7-12K and RTX 3060, so I should be fine I'd say.

i7-12700k and Arc A750, 1080p. Runs at around 90fps unlocked, and maybe 65% GPU locked to 60fps. Game doesn't really need higher than 60fps, so I was fine making the tradeoff to keep maximum fidelity. A750 is roughly equivalent to 3060, but Intel drivers are probably less effective than Nvidia so you might get a little extra power.

Either way, game runs perfectly fine. No stuttering or other issues that usually plague UE5 games.

[HiccupJul]

Apparently it stays mostly above 60fps (at least in the initial area) at 1080 on GTX 1650 (my GPU) if you set shadows and effects (or one of those at least) to medium: https://youtu.be/kOm5jQtvYW4?t=5483 (not my video)

So I guess those are probably a good thing for devs to focus on for optimisation. Also seems like CPU is not used much? So maybe system requirements can be lowered for that too?

[Iggy Wolf]

It seems like the game automatically upscales your resolution. Because in the config file, the resolution factor is set to 0, and setting it to 100% causes my FPS to drop from locked 120 to between 80 and 90. Not too bad, but obviously indicative that at true 100% native, the FPS wouldn't be nearly as high if they weren't already upscaling it by default.

[HiccupJul]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

It seems like the game automatically upscales your resolution. Because in the config file, the resolution factor is set to 0, and setting it to 100% causes my FPS to drop from locked 120 to between 80 and 90. Not too bad, but obviously indicative that at true 100% native, the FPS wouldn't be nearly as high if they weren't already upscaling it by default.

So that means that no-matter what GPU you use and what resolution you set in the in-game settings, the internal resolution is fixed? I guess at least in this case, it fits the game's style.

But I wonder what the internal resolution is used exactly.

[Wild Child]

Dang, I thought it was like unreal 3 or something.