[Blocked Image: https://media.vlipsy.com/vlips/UdOEOawi/preview.jpg]
22 minutes ago, ┌HP┘ said:
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.[Blocked Image: https://media.vlipsy.com/vlips/UdOEOawi/preview.jpg]
Game over
Not yet... they really need to study what valve did with the in-editor modeling and UV'ing tools of source2. UE4 modeling system (Brush editor) is still too primitive and clunky.
They need to sit down with people that actually make games, and ask them how their workflow is, and act on it. All of what we see up there on that video is absolutely fantastic, and it's one step closer to a one shop application for game development (the animation stuff is amazing, for instance) but they really need to work on their brush editing mode too, it'd give the chance for people who find Maya, Max or Blender still too daunting to delve into, the ability to at least do some modeling in UE5, and actually be shippable, not just treated as a function to blockout temp geo.
I don't think they're too worried about brushes dawg
3 hours ago, ┌HP┘ said: Not yet... they really need to study what valve did with the in-editor modeling and UV'ing tools of source2. UE4 modeling system (Brush editor) is still too primitive and clunky.
They need to sit down with people that actually make games, and ask them how their workflow is, and act on it. All of what we see up there on that video is absolutely fantastic, and it's one step closer to a one shop application for game development (the animation stuff is amazing, for instance) but they really need to work on their brush editing mode too, it'd give the chance for people who find Maya, Max or Blender still too daunting to delve into, the ability to at least do some modeling in UE5, and actually be shippable, not just treated as a function to blockout temp geo.
100% agree. Neither Unity or Unreal get this right. Unity at least has probuilder but even to this day hammer is still way better.
I sometimes think my feelings are antiquated but I still see frustrated designers to this day that wish they had the ability to prototype quickly without involving an artist.
Quote from FMPONE5 hours ago, FMPONE said: Game over
More like Start New Game 
Excited to try this some point in the future! Glad to see you can port UE4 projects to it.
+ 1 about brush modeling. I tried a few options for Unity and none of them work as well as Hammer. They are either a bit laggy, or just weird in general (liek in ProBuilder I keep losing the pivots and weird shit like that). And there's also other really stupid shit, like you can snap translate and scale, but not rotation with ProGrids! (And Unity default rotation snap gives me fractional numbers sometimes).
It's hard to believe how they spend so much time and work into huge esoteric features, while basic things like those are either overlooked or non-existent
No one cares about well designed video games anymore fellas, the new resident evil is literally a cut scene. Come on, this thing can render an endless desert with sixty trillion polygons.
As far as Source 2, I’m having a lot of fun but if you’re not render-farming and making playable levels for it you *do* have to render them for fifteen hours. So there is a massive technology gap.
UE5 might hassle the designers but every other discipline was already working with outside programs so…
tldr Should they steal the brush tools and hotspot stuff? Yes of course. I can’t argue with their priorities though, they solved some big fucking problems and the performance looks totally legit
Quote from FMPONE2 hours ago, FMPONE said: No one cares about well designed video games anymore fellas
Yep. Sadly the golden age of gaming was over 10 years ago at this point.
Game engines are marketed to gamers just as much as games these days. Pretty shit sells, who cares if the game is actually a pile of shit design wise.
I don't know how many times I tried doing a blockout for an environment in UE4 and saying fuck this, and loading up 3dsmax. And that was for art that was never going to be used for gameplay.
They added a new modeling system in 4.25, its not the best, but an improvement over the horrible brush system. What I miss the most though is a proper prefab system or a way to have several levels open at the same time
Am really interested to see how collisions are being handled in these insanely detailed worlds. A multiplayer game with lots of players doing collision tests against this kind of geometry must be expensive as fuck. Or they have just offloaded modelling time onto making collisions instead...
Quote from Vilham1 hour ago, Vilham said: Am really interested to see how collisions are being handled in these insanely detailed worlds. A multiplayer game with lots of players doing collision tests against this kind of geometry must be expensive as fuck. Or they have just offloaded modelling time onto making collisions instead...
Good question. I don't see why collision couldn't be "LODable", just like the render geo is with Nanite, it's just triangles.
1 hour ago, ┌HP┘ said: Good question. I don't see why collision couldn't be "LODable", just like the render geo is with Nanite, it's just triangles.
True, which is fine for something like a single player game. Collisions generally need to be loaded in on the server at all times and is something that is tested against constantly to let the server be authoritative (assuming you don't want loads of hacking). So super complex player collisions will decrease server performance and therefore increase costs on servers (I actually think this is why the art style in games like overwatch is so good, the map effectively can be super simple in terms of collisions but still looks really good).
So I assume the player collision in these maps need to be way simpler than what is shown and the more detailed the world the more effort needs to go into authoring those collisions to maintain accuracy between collisions and visuals. Maybe their auto collision are massively improved? They aren't great in UE4, most of the time anything more complex than a cube needs a complex collision authoring for it. Or maybe they have some kind of new way of testing complex player collisions cheaply.
If not and we just have super complex geometry and super simple collisions (even with IK systems) we are going to end up with the visual fidelity not being matched by the fidelity of player movement. Going to look jank.
Quote from FMPONE6 hours ago, FMPONE said: tldr Should they steal the brush tools and hotspot stuff? Yes of course. I can’t argue with their priorities though, they solved some big fucking problems and the performance looks totally legit
When it actually ships in a stable version.
An acquaintance has already downloaded it and said: “200gb drive, you need 32gb ram min, runs at 15fps”
~
I'm wondering is this gonna impact the Artist market, in the sense will we see lots of cinema FX people move to games, so more competition, or will lots more jobs be needed anyway to not make a difference.
Some mentions of collision and the likes here under proxy mesh category. That is the complex collision mesh, for a multiplayer game you probably want to author the collision by hand as usual.
https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.0/en-US/Rend…eatures/Nanite/
Tested it out for 3 minutes. The UI is a big upgrade. Still no magnetic pin connections in node editors, guess marketplace will still be the way to go if you don´t want to practice hitscan when making materials or scripting 
I doubt collision is going to change. It's still going to be a bunch of convex primitives attached to the geo.
Collision LODing is an interesting idea but we kind of already do it today by broad and narrow phase collision tests. Usually when you do a collision lookup with a raycast you first test against an AABB (a bounding box) and only if that broad phase passes do you attempt to do a convex hull test. Then finally, if you are crazy a third per-poly test.
For the sake of argument, if you DID really want to do a per-poly collision test on nanite level ultra-high resolution geo there are data structures that make it relatively fast. They can essentially split the high poly mesh into regions and throw out a bunch of the regions based on where the ray hits. In fact I believe Unity already does this for their per-poly collision tests because one of the build steps is to make a collision representation of a per-poly collision mesh. I'm guessing they did this because so many people kept enabling per-poly collision because they were lazy and didn't understand the implications then wonder why their CPU performance is so bad.
With these optimizations, one of the bigger issues becomes needing a lot of memory to store all the structure in a way that can be quickly looked up.
Yeah, if they aren't making any improvements to how collisions are handled then their marketing is just that. Nanite sounds great for people making nice looking scenes. If anything making games is going to be MORE complex for the overall team as it removes a constraint that tied collisions and render together previously. Now you either have uber high res complex geometry with simple collisions which is just going to look bad in motion and gameplay (which doesn't add any more work) or this new visual fidelity is going to require you to author more complex collisions to match these unconstrained visuals (which is what most people will want to do to prevent their games looking jank).
And disk space required for games will be measured in Terabytes, lol.
It's already way out of control let alone when triangle count or texture resolution stop being limiting factors.
looks like it is doing a pretty good job at that though[Blocked Image: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/613362242548793354/847462434234171392/unknown.png]
Authoring collision for large cliff meshes and rocks is such a pain in the ass, especially for the battlefield games where you can go prone and shit, couldn't be too detailed because performance, and if it were too simple you either intersect with the geo and see through it or hide inside it or you would be floating above it. Remote QA didn't understand any of it and would create an endless amount of jiras. Tried countless automated solution, but they are garbage besides giving you a starting point
So I've been playing with UE5 and I must say Lumen is one of the most exciting things I've seen in a game engine in possibly decades. Such a workflow game-changer. Runs amazing on my mobile 2000 series nvidia card. I'm gonna test it on a 970 this weekend.
Truly impressive implementation. It's rare you see stuff like this that takes such an unique/interesting approach to global illumination/reflection.
Looks like the day I never have to bake is finally coming!
Yeah I'm pretty hyped for Lumen. Fully dynamic cheapish lighting is amazing.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
