Unreal Engine 5, [UE5 Developer Availability 2022-04-05]

One other thing I disgree with is your concern about labor cost to rig up muscle deformers - any AAA game easily has the resources for character artists and riggers to do that, and we've seen mediocre end results with similar up front efforts in games before. The limit to shipping something film quality is still perf and storage, although I agree with your overall thrust that there is tons of room to improve the state of the art and let studios with budgets less than ~2 million per character do the same.
They spend 2 millions on character model plus rigging now? I'm shocked. That's 10 times more than i would have assumed.

But even with such budgets, it's still not 'easy' to improve, i'm sure.
Modeling the interior of a body is much more work than modeling just the surface. Like 10 or 100 times more.
But the larger problem is at first to develop a solution practical for realtime. To see if a potential method works, you need to create the muscle rig for it.
But we don't know yet which method might work, so we also don't know what the muscle rig should be.
Many open questions, e.g.: Can we model all or most muscles with straight lines, or do we need to simulate / fake how muscles slide over bones?
How do we model the volume of a muscle? It must be something very simple, so skin collision keeps cheap.
How do we model fascia connecting adjacent muscle strands, and do we even have to?
Do we need some form of simulation, or can we get away without it?

That's all open questions, and expensive methods from offline rendering are barely more worth than some inspiration.
So we need to try out a lot of options, and for each we need artwork, including the training time artists need to get used to the experimental method. Also artists need to optimize and figure out how to get the most out of it.
We rely on good feedback between devs and artists, bringing in personal bias and misconceptions.
Ideally, the dev researching the methods should be an artist too, to avoid this. But to get anatomy right, you need to be a very skilled artist.

I guess that's the primary reason why we have not seen any technological progress at all. The only news i remember was the introduction of dual quaternion skinning, which - contrary to some beliefs - does nothing towards better anatomy.
No wonder people now look at ML. Maybe that's the future standard. But the fact Epic used a muscular mans back to show it off, which is not even a typical failure case, does not make me too optimistic.
Till yet all progress came from the art side. They set up extra bones driven from simple procedural constraints, and within the last decade results became really pretty good. (Interestingly there is no presentations or talks about this topic - seems industry secrets built on decades of personal artist experiences.)
 
Skeletal rigs (by the nature of being manually laced and weighted per vert, and having triangular meshes rather than some kind of a magic computer raymarching equation) already offer much more precision and control as proxies -- Games are limited because it's expensive to deform the vertices at the volume we need at realtime framerates -- we need to do one of two things, either store the deformation beforehand (which costs storage and bandwidth) or animate a proxy and deform at runtime (which costs compute).
Also worth noting because I see this complaint all over the place... no one has a good solution for massive deformation and raytracing so... pick one :p
 
The ability to use magnitudes more triangles without any notable increase in processing or memory costs.

I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. Nanite is faster than standard rendering for the same massive level of detail. It’s certainly more taxing on memory and processing than current geometry workloads.
 
Any chance you know the SPF for this?
Comment link: youtube.com/watch?v=AShGmWyFamY&lc=Ugz6Kw9iNrFJ1CPujFR4AaABAg.9qcZS91_1Fw9qd7qrSKuVV
this was done on a 3060ti - and while it was pulling around 35 - 40 fps at realtime on 1080p - at 4k it was down to about 3-4fps. Still ridiculously fast compared to offline but yeah...

youtube.com/watch?v=AShGmWyFamY&lc=UgydUOr2A0ksa0_Az754AaABAg.9qckTouonF59qd7Rk_T5jL
this is pretty much vanilla lumen - hardware rt through...
 
Playing Desordre some more and the options menu had this setting for, I've turned it on and my game didn't crash but I couldn't see any visual change flickingUntitled.png it on and off.
 
I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. Nanite is faster than standard rendering for the same massive level of detail. It’s certainly more taxing on memory and processing than current geometry workloads.

Correct. At some point it was said that the relative performance cost of geometry processing with nanite on PS5 was equivalent to the legacy geometry processing of a typical UE4 game on PS4.
 
Is that good or bad?

Without nanite, and just bruteforcing more geo, they would still get fiedelity improvements over what PS4 could do on a PS5 game by simply having more raw power. But the fidelity increase using the nanite system is much more significant. It probably would not be viable to back-port nanite to ps4 though. The upfront complexity costs probably only make it a performance/efficency win when you are already near PS5 levels of performance and visual targets. (well, xbox series S makes the cut too aparently)
 
Back
Top