Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
They simply can't afford to render too far or performance would tank badly.
I suggested a sort of mode that you could basically cut part of the world out and have it fully rendered for photos and such. Would be nice.
really... hmm, I do know they lied about a recent movie that was made with Unity...
...this would not exactly surprise me.
How far out from the camera would cripple your PC?
I feel like I can see plenty far, but i wish it uncovered the map out to what I can see. Different topic there.
I understand the need for the optimization but it did make me sad to see.
You should look at UE5 engine and get back to me about that comment.
In terms of player movement being smooth and lagless and pop-in, which is what this thread is about, it seems one of the worst with pop in being probably the worst I have seen in modern gaming.
It may depend on the game and what the devs have to sacrifice for optimization and how they choose to optimize but I have found Unreal to be getting worse and worse in terms of player "feel" even if it may superficially look prettier. To me it fails where it counts.
If you only meant to say that render distance is an issue for games, then, yep! It is. :-)