Is UE4 indicative of the sacrifices devs will have to make on consoles next gen?
- Thread starter datadigi
- Start date
Bagel seed
Veteran
Any pixel counters want to give it a go if doable? The video seems quite blurry to me... could it be running at 720p and/or with heavy FXAA?
Such a terrible, terrible compromise, isn't it?
A little more seriousness: notice the lack of soft surfaces, almost everything is rigid and hard but not too clearly reflective. The art was nicely tailored to get the most out of the results.
Seriously impressive stuff nonetheless.
A little more seriousness: notice the lack of soft surfaces, almost everything is rigid and hard but not too clearly reflective. The art was nicely tailored to get the most out of the results.
Seriously impressive stuff nonetheless.
I've a serious concern about future gaming quality having seen that. Virtual cameras have been getting worse and worse in quality. First we had lens-flare. Then we had vignetting. Now I see our old virtual lenses are getting scratched and mucky, and no-one's invented a suitable virtual lens cleaning cloth to clean the much off. As real optical technology improves to eliminate such shortcomings, it appears the digital world inherits the older optics. The way things are headed, within a generation or two we'll only have pinhole cameras to view out photorealistic virtual worlds with. 
anexanhume
Veteran
I imagine ps4 should be able to come very close if not equal in years' time given better resource access and optimization.
We've been doing that stuff for a while now and it usually helps a lot - it just needs to be subtle so that it's hard to notice but the 'feel' is there.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've watched this carefully trying to spot the use of their SVOGI, but couldn't find any scene were you can point at and empirically say "this is only possible with it". There are a bunch of reflective surfaces indeed, but they look to be using Screen Space Reflections much like those of KZ4, as in 0:40 the silhouette of the guy in the left blocks the left side of the round tunnel, and consequently its reflection on the ground gets incorectly blocked as well. Now I can't tell if that "hole" in the screen space reflection is being lit only by the direct lights and maybe some baked cubemaps (plese no) or if their world space GI in Voxel Space is kicking in and filling that gap with their lower frequency specular reflections that are not preferrable but better than nothing (plese, this). I wish I could get a playable demo in my hands so I could spin the camera around in funky places so I could test this shit out. I'll keep my fingers crossed hoping for their Voxel Cone Tracing to still be there, because I desperatly want to use it myself when they release the free UDK. Although only god nows when that will be...
Bagel seed
Veteran
Rein says another version of the vid (official one) is coming in a few minutes with hopefully better quality.
arijoytunir
Regular
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aCbJS8tqp3I
ue4 elemental on ps4 ! ( " Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI) lighting system hasn't made the cut" )
ue4 elemental on ps4 ! ( " Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI) lighting system hasn't made the cut" )
Last edited by a moderator:
Downgraded textures, lightning, and few framerate drops...
If Tim Sweeney doesn't get his ass in gear and adapts to the PS4 GPU architecture I don't think UE4 is going to impress on it.
PS. his continued marriage to NVIDIA still makes me think Microsoft might go with them though, why continue to develop a mainly console oriented engine on an architecture which going forward would be mainly PC centric if not?
PS. his continued marriage to NVIDIA still makes me think Microsoft might go with them though, why continue to develop a mainly console oriented engine on an architecture which going forward would be mainly PC centric if not?
Bagel seed
Veteran
Yup, quite downgraded. Indirect lighting looks completely missing, and shadows reduced too.
Infiltrator 1080p direct feed and more details here:
Download Link: http://international.download.nvidi...EpicGamesUnrealEngine4InfiltratorDemo1080.mov
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/ar...80-powered-unreal-engine-4-tech-demo-unveiled
Last edited by a moderator:
With low-level optimization if PS4 is 60~70% more efficient than GPU of PC, is it possible that PS4 achieves the same performance of GTX 680?
Weird differences. At the very beggining, the pilars seem to show a very strong reflection of the hanging cloth, which is a dynamic object, but it is so strong it makes me think it's something elese, like a lit candle, but I see no lightsource there. First demo didn't have that, but reversely, there was strong reflection of the blue light coming from that cave on the nearby wall, this one is now missing on ps4. All that could be consequences of the different sun position on both demos.
The other funny difference is the opening door sequence. Both demos had wrong lighting in that sequence, in the first showing, that part was really dark, and kept so even after the door opened, wich should have brightened up the inside environment. On ps4, that whole section is lit by the outside, but even when the door is closed! That is the kind of out of place lighting that always jumps at me on evey Gears of War game, but it's somewhat uderstandable with UE3's very stactic lighting model. With UE4's big push for dynamic lighting and no baking, this is somewhat odd. The ps4 version suffers the most as this artifacts causes the door to have all sorts of out of place specular reflections on the borders of its geometric details, the kind of thing I can't believe most artists didn't notice, and I don't understand why they would neglect that, but they did. The ss specular occlusion proposed by Tri-Ace would be perfect for that particular scene, but the engine does not support that apparently.
Lava scene still displays the whole body of lava casting light into the scene. Evidence of Voxel Lighting? Maybe, but they could have found another way to do that... At around 1:10 there was very strong parallax on the streaming lava on the first showing, but this is either missing or much more suttle on ps4.
The latter shot is the one where the omission of cloud shadows is the most obvious, the most clear and non-subjective compromise of the ps4 conversion. You can't just say this was an artistic choice, the clouds are not dimmer, they are completely absent.
This last lava close up has vey different lighting on both versions too: the ps4 seems to have a rather obvious point light atatched to the tip of the lava stream (watch its specular highlight) which disapears after the lava goes under the pillar (did it go inside with the lava? haha) That was handled completely differently on the first demo.
The outside mountains are completely different too. Aside from the the whole cracks openingn and ice monster awakening thing that simply didn't exist last year, they have other rock formations and somewhat cartoony looking pine trees now.
Overall I'd say this latter demonstration looks less organic and "CGey" than the before. The general look of lighting is sharper and less smooth now, which creates better contrast, but seems more artificial. This is the kind of demo I use to hate. As it shows a good end result, but what I wanna do is be able to point at very speciffic things and say "this is tessellation" "this is sprite based depth of field" "this shadows use variance shadow mapping rather than pcf filtering" and so on, but it is clearly designed to not do that. The focus is on the overall look and feel of stuff. But on something this "directed" the general look and feel is meaningless, and not very representative of what real gameplay could produce.
The other funny difference is the opening door sequence. Both demos had wrong lighting in that sequence, in the first showing, that part was really dark, and kept so even after the door opened, wich should have brightened up the inside environment. On ps4, that whole section is lit by the outside, but even when the door is closed! That is the kind of out of place lighting that always jumps at me on evey Gears of War game, but it's somewhat uderstandable with UE3's very stactic lighting model. With UE4's big push for dynamic lighting and no baking, this is somewhat odd. The ps4 version suffers the most as this artifacts causes the door to have all sorts of out of place specular reflections on the borders of its geometric details, the kind of thing I can't believe most artists didn't notice, and I don't understand why they would neglect that, but they did. The ss specular occlusion proposed by Tri-Ace would be perfect for that particular scene, but the engine does not support that apparently.
Lava scene still displays the whole body of lava casting light into the scene. Evidence of Voxel Lighting? Maybe, but they could have found another way to do that... At around 1:10 there was very strong parallax on the streaming lava on the first showing, but this is either missing or much more suttle on ps4.
The latter shot is the one where the omission of cloud shadows is the most obvious, the most clear and non-subjective compromise of the ps4 conversion. You can't just say this was an artistic choice, the clouds are not dimmer, they are completely absent.
This last lava close up has vey different lighting on both versions too: the ps4 seems to have a rather obvious point light atatched to the tip of the lava stream (watch its specular highlight) which disapears after the lava goes under the pillar (did it go inside with the lava? haha) That was handled completely differently on the first demo.
The outside mountains are completely different too. Aside from the the whole cracks openingn and ice monster awakening thing that simply didn't exist last year, they have other rock formations and somewhat cartoony looking pine trees now.
Overall I'd say this latter demonstration looks less organic and "CGey" than the before. The general look of lighting is sharper and less smooth now, which creates better contrast, but seems more artificial. This is the kind of demo I use to hate. As it shows a good end result, but what I wanna do is be able to point at very speciffic things and say "this is tessellation" "this is sprite based depth of field" "this shadows use variance shadow mapping rather than pcf filtering" and so on, but it is clearly designed to not do that. The focus is on the overall look and feel of stuff. But on something this "directed" the general look and feel is meaningless, and not very representative of what real gameplay could produce.
"-High-quality temporal anti-aliasing, eliminating jagged edges and temporal aliasing"
Sounds like TXAA, thats why its blurry and means that it can be easily scaled down, because TXAA is expensive.
-
No, thats why demo is quite downgraded.
Sounds like TXAA, thats why its blurry and means that it can be easily scaled down, because TXAA is expensive.
-
No, thats why demo is quite downgraded.
For now guys. Gamers seem to have short memory. Compare any of the first demos of UE3 with the last gears games. Those engines only get better with time.
