that you don't know ! Unless you have actual numbers, perception can be deceiving,
latest example is cloud in FFVII rebirth, it has twice de polycount as Cloud in FFVIIR, but at glance it does not show.
Unreal Engine 5, [UE5 Developer Availability 2022-04-05]
- Thread starter mpg1
- Start date
latest example is cloud in FFVII rebirth, it has twice de polycount as Cloud in FFVIIR, but at glance it does not show.
davis.anthony
Veteran
Unless they have modelled all the foliage out of actual geometry using mesh shaders or something similar to Nanite (The haven't AFAIK) then that's a hard disagreement.
cheapchips
Veteran
I think it looks great. It's a really nice example of what modern engines can deliver geometry wise. A nice forest should look more detailed than a back alley in Detroit!
The rocks in the first shot show the limitations of these approaches vs Nanite though.
It was probably in the DF Avatar interview where they talked about ground detail not being a focus as it's more often obscured by foliage. It's the right trade off for their overall approach. With a Nanite like system they wouldn't be making it though. The game would look better when up close to objects. Hopefully something to look forward to in future open world first person games.
davis.anthony
Veteran
Except we know how Nanite works, so we can say it's pushing more geometry than Avatar.
We should be more particular on that word. What are people talking about in particular? Drawing more geometry, or processing more detailed models? And what exactly is being compared to what ends? To show more Nanite geometry doe not equate to more perceivable geometric detail??
Would really help if the arguments were being clarified alongside the evidence. I can see Exhibit A but I don't know what it's telling me!
This is a nonsense methodology. The goal of the geometry rendering pipeline in either alan wake or ue5 is to render a lot of triangles on screen in a small number of milliseconds. Nanite renders vastly more triangles at a similar speed, it makes no sense to compare some settings based delta based on two entirely different projects rendering entirely different amounts of content.
Mesh shaders aren't a magic "Go Faster" button, they're a set of tools that allow good perf with fine grained culling, which puts certain restrictons on the format/data of your meshes.
You've misunderstood me.
I was not comparing two different projects. I was using the same project with the exact same content displayed and compared r.Nanite.MeshShader 1 and 0.
According to Epic, the usage of mesh shader is automated and it will be automatically utilized for geometry bigger than a pixel.
When you did this, how many fragments did each triangle cover? I think the mesh shader should only kick in if the triangles are sufficiently large, which is the case where a mesh shader would be faster than nanite software rasterization. Also, if the scene weren't sufficiently complicated, mesh shaders probably doesn't win over the traditional vertex pipeline. I think the wins for mesh shading is normally fine-grained culling, and things like that. I think the content in the scene is probably going to dictate performance differences, and mesh shading is likely more of an edge case when using nanite.
I don't misunderstand you -- why do you expect this to significantly improve your frame time?
That is great
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
They use software rasterizers to clusters which have polygons up to lenght of 32 pixels.
Page 88
If exagerated density is the price we have to pay to get that lighting quality and volumetrics, that's a worthy trade-off to me.
Honestly looks pretty good to me. If something is burning that's producing that black smoke, it's going to be dense. Just maybe unrealistic to be burning something like that in a barrel, unless it's crude oil or something lol.
Similar threads
- Locked
