Epic upping the ante again...

Friendly conversations, and everything that doesn't fit into the other forums.
23 posts Page 1 of 3
Mitovo
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:46 pm
by Mitovo » Wed May 13, 2020 6:45 pm
Every time I think "how can 3D graphics/engine tech possibly get more realistic?", Epic shows up with an answer...

Increased detail in assets, while reducing the process of creating them... Sure, why not lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC5KtatMcUw
Duion
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
 
by Duion » Wed May 13, 2020 10:44 pm
While it looks impressive, it is not exactly the answer how to make things more realistic, you cannot just up the polygon count and think things become more realistic. In fact that demo looks in no way realistic, it is overall too fancy, shiny etc and the game mechanics are all over the top.

Reminds me of those "unlimited detail engine" promo videos from Euclideon, which after all those years still has not produced any games. All those demos always look so amazing, yet in reality we still don't get games that look like that.
marauder2k9
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:36 am
by marauder2k9 » Thu May 14, 2020 2:51 am
Yeah while this is impressive its really only useful for certain set pieces such as whats shown in the video. I don't think this would work too well for something more fast paced. Also if you look closely you can see a lot of pop in on the statues when they are in shadow. If this is basing polygon counts on ray traced lighting which it very well may be, anything in shadow is going to look pretty bad if you don't use conventional methods to model and texture the geometry
Mitovo
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:46 pm
by Mitovo » Thu May 14, 2020 5:50 am
Yeah while this is impressive its really only useful for certain set pieces such as whats shown in the video. I don't think this would work too well for something more fast paced. Also if you look closely you can see a lot of pop in on the statues when they are in shadow. If this is basing polygon counts on ray traced lighting which it very well may be, anything in shadow is going to look pretty bad if you don't use conventional methods to model and texture the geometry
Focusing on the numbers, while it's what they push as "what it can do", is missing the bigger point made, I think. It's not "what the tech can do in a controlled situation". It's more "what the tech is doing, period" and the implications that has for designers and developers working with it.

Of course it's unlikely that any game is going to have scenes with over a billion triangles in a single frame. Except maybe in scripted cutscenes/cinematics. Even then, it just doesn't sound practical to throw more at the engine/hardware than is necessary. I doubut artists are going to start modeling stuff with 1 million polys, when a fraction of that will do, "because they can".

As an analogy... My video card (2070 Super) hits 200+ FPS on a number of games without vsync. However, my monitor only handles 60 fps sync'd. So, since I always play with vsync on (because screen tear haunts my dreams), anything over 60 FPS is wasted. However, I know I still have that unused horsepower available to hit 60fps in more demanding games where it's needed. Otherwise, while 200+ FPS sounds really impressive, it's not very practical in a typical gaming scenario. At least not for me.

That's how I look at this tech demo, and tech demos in general. Sure you're not going to start seeing games with billions of tris in a single scene, but the technology is there to make it possible, in the right circumstances. The net result is that games are still going to have the potential to look a lot better than the previoust tech, and at a comparable performance.

I mean, look at the tech demo for Unreal 4 when that was released. No UE4 game, that I'm aware of, ever pushed its graphics as far as what's in that demo, either. Same goes for UE3's tech demo. But the technology demonstrated in each was/is used in games made with its respective engine. And besides, all else being equal, would you argue that games made with each generation of the tech weren't a notable improvement over previous versions (visually, etc)? I wouldn't, personally.

The real take-away of this video, at least for me, is how it removes several steps from the asset pipeline for artists. Being able to put full detailed models into a scene without having to worry about manually creating LODs, or having to generate normal maps or displacement maps shouldn't be understated. If you've ever gone through the process of baking normal maps, and setting up LODs on even less detailed objects, the process can be pretty tedious and time consuming. So, UE4 providing all that detail and LOD in real time is a big deal.

The radiosity lighting that updates dynamically as the environment changes, and does so realistically, based on surface type, etc, is also a huge improvement that eliminates the need for a lot of the manual lighting placement that was previously required to simulate similar effects.

The flocking system they describe for particles is also really cool. That a bunch of bats flew off out of that cave and realistically avoided the environment and each other, without an animator having to manually set those interactions up, is also a huge deal.

And so on.

In other words, it's not just how cool the tech looks. It's also the benefits it provides to those using it.

Sure, they're pushing these huge numbers in the demo (because people love big numbers). But to me, the real exciting stuff was the technology behind the scenes, and how much it frees up designers/artists/modelers, while improving the quality of the end result.

These are all things that add up to an engine that is going to power some pretty awesome gaming experiences in the years to come.

Personally, I'm really impressed and excited for this.

Of course, mileage may vary :p.

As a quick aside. Back when I first saw 'Advent Children', I wondered if or when we'd ever see real-time graphics tech capable of that level of fidelity. I'd say the answer is very much yes at this point.
Duion
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
 
by Duion » Thu May 14, 2020 10:03 am
It all sounds good in theory, but in reality it is always a little different. For example the supposed benefit for artists in making asset creation easier which is not really the case, yes in theory it saves you work, but in reality it first increases your work. Those big engines and tools come with big libraries of professionally created assets, that the "artist" just places into the scene. Have you ever tried to create a photoscanned 3D art asset? It takes hundreds of photos and lots of work of exporting and importing, rendering etc for such an asset to be finished, it is far easier to just take a photo and slap it as a texture on a flat face of a low poly model, looks amazingly realistic unless you get close or it gets dynamic.

Yes in theory it looks and sounds nice, but the question is how much of that do we get in reality?

Do you remember the new Unreal Tournament? It was supposed the new big deal and they had amazing looking demos, it was supposed to be open source and build by the community, but recently it was cancelled, because it failed so hard. Why did it fail? Because the users could not reproduce the good quality, you had like a handful of maps that looked as good as the demo created by professional artists from Epic and then you had everything else, that looked so bad, some levels even looked worse than Unreal Tournament from the year 1999.

Even our Torque3D demos from 2009 or whatever still look better than almost any game that was produced with the engine until now, that is the difference between theory and reality.

If you up the tech it also becomes harder for artists to compete, because you raise the entry barrier.
Mitovo
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:46 pm
by Mitovo » Thu May 14, 2020 1:40 pm
Do you remember the new Unreal Tournament? It was supposed the new big deal and they had amazing looking demos, it was supposed to be open source and build by the community, but recently it was cancelled, because it failed so hard. Why did it fail? Because the users could not reproduce the good quality, you had like a handful of maps that looked as good as the demo created by professional artists from Epic and then you had everything else, that looked so bad, some levels even looked worse than Unreal Tournament from the year 1999.
Incorrect.
UT4 didn't "fail so hard". It was put on hold indefinitely when team members working on it were shifted over to Fortnite after that game blew up. 'cause, you know.. Money. This did not happen recently. It happened in 2018.

As for your "version".. Citation Needed. Unless you can link to an official statement citing "poor results from community contributors" as their reason for halting it, this is just you "inventing facts" to fit your narrative. It's fake news.

You know, this thing called "search engines" exist. They make fact checking very quick and easy. So, you should probably stop making stuff up.

Regarding the rest of your hyperbole, okay sure.. whatever you say, Din.
Even our Torque3D demos from 2009 or whatever still look better than almost any game that was produced with the engine until now, that is the difference between theory and reality.
Highly subjective and not at all surprising, considering the source. I half expected you to say T3D looks better than the UE5 demo.
From a few of the maps I played on, personally, I would strongly disagree with you. But, you know.. opinions.

I just hope you're not referring to the still early in-dev maps for your comparison. It's not exactly a compliment to T3D if you are.
If you up the tech it also becomes harder for artists to compete, because you raise the entry barrier.
Another silly and poorly thought out argument.

You mean like what's happened with literally every new version of the engine since Unreal Engine 1? Or IdTech? Or any other engine with major numbered releases for that matter?
Yeah, of course that happens. Every new engine introduces new or otherwise increases existing requirements for asset production. You know what else happens? Artists adapt, learn the new skills and rise to the new requirements. New tools are created to assist in the creation process. People make it happen.

Also, because UE5 can handle so much more detail in real time, does not mean suddenly all assets are going to become that much more detailed. If an asset designed for UE4 is adequately detailed for something in UE5, there's no reason for them to make it more complex. Difference is, unlike UE4, they won't have to worry about LODs, Normal Maps, etc which would effectively reduce the time to get those assets done and into the engine, not increase it.
Last edited by Mitovo on Thu May 14, 2020 2:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Duion
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
 
by Duion » Thu May 14, 2020 2:21 pm
I do not need an "official statement" from an "official source" to tell me what is real, I can see reality with my own eyes. Of course UT4 failed, because I saw it with my own eyes, I played it a few times myself and the player count was always close to zero, maybe around 5-20 at halfway good times and regarding the community contributions, they almost all sucked, I tested almost all of the community made levels and with a few exceptions none of them even came close to the demo material put out by Epic.

You know, I can do and see things for real, I do not need an authority to tell me what reality is because I cannot do and see things for real like other people.

Regarding things supposedly getting easier for artists, I am an artist, I do art for real and I can tell you that things have not changed for a long time before all this fancy new inventions recently. Did you use Unreal Engine? A hell of a beast to learn and use. I used Cry Engine before and it was really easy to use and understand, at least the art part, you could get something done within a few days with no prior experience and since Torque is modeled after Cry Engine it shares a large part of the ease of use. And now you come as a probably non creator and try to tell me how everything is getting better and easier, while in reality everything is getting harder and more complicated. Things only get easier for people using proprietary software and use pre-made content from their fancy libraries of fancy stuff, but for people who do things for real from the start up, things get harder.
Mitovo
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:46 pm
by Mitovo » Thu May 14, 2020 2:33 pm
I do not need an "official statement" from an "official source" to tell me what is real, I can see reality with my own eyes. Of course UT4 failed, because I saw it with my own eyes, I played it a few times myself and the player count was always close to zero, maybe around 5-20 at halfway good times and regarding the community contributions, they almost all sucked, I tested almost all of the community made levels and with a few exceptions none of them even came close to the demo material put out by Epic.
As I figured. You can't provide a source, because none exists. You're making up your own facts, as usual.
Color me shocked.

You know, I can do and see things for real, I do not need an authority to tell me what reality is because I cannot do and see things for real like other people.
The degree of shameless, arrogant self-delusion in this statement is amazing.
Sums you up perfectly, though.

Translated: "I see things, and then invent my own reality of why they are to fit my personal narrative, which I then assert as fact... because I say so".
Regarding things supposedly getting easier for artists, I am an artist, I do art for real and I can tell you that things have not changed for a long time before all this fancy new inventions recently. Did you use Unreal Engine? A hell of a beast to learn and use. I used Cry Engine before and it was really easy to use and understand, at least the art part, you could get something done within a few days with no prior experience and since Torque is modeled after Cry Engine it shares a large part of the ease of use. And now you come as a probably non creator and try to tell me how everything is getting better and easier, while in reality everything is getting harder and more complicated. Things only get easier for people using proprietary software and use pre-made content from their fancy libraries of fancy stuff, but for people who do things for real from the start up, things get harder.
Oh wow, really? You've used Unreal Engine? No way! I bet you're the only person outside Epic Games who's done that! I can totally see now why you're qualified to overrule Epic's official reason for halting UT4. Obviously you're right, and they're clueless. Clearly.

I will never doubt you again, Din. In my book, your word is as God's from now on.

You used Unreal Engine. Wow. Incredible.
Duion
Posts: 1622
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:51 am
 
by Duion » Thu May 14, 2020 2:57 pm
I'm the source and I exist where is the problem? You could also others who have played UT4, but it is hard to find them, if I was not cancelled and I had not deleted it, I could log in right now and show you, but you could have be your own source before, since to see something with your own eyes for real is a better proof than any source. Apart from all that, the fact that it was cancelled should be proof enough that it has failed. On top of that it was only officially recently cancelled, but in reality the development was pretty much halted right when it was released, since it was never developed much further than the demo you saw initially, so it was pretty much stuck in alpha forever.

But whatever you are obviously not able to understand the concept of reality and it is probably futile to debate with you.
Happenstance
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 9:08 pm
by Happenstance » Thu May 14, 2020 9:15 pm
Certainly impressive! I haven't watched the full presentation yet but did they offer any details on how they intend to keep file sizes in check? I'm hearing about thousands of models with millions of triangles and 8k+ textures everywhere and it seems to me that a full AAA game could take up hundreds of gigs worth of HD space. Downloading games that size, even at fiber speeds, would be annoying and 1TB HDs seem small by comparison.
23 posts Page 1 of 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests