Value of Hardware Unboxed benchmarking
- Thread starter Phantom88
- Start date
DegustatoR
Legend
Doesn't that mean that it's just using Nanite?
If it's UE4, then no. They must have done some engine customization, and maybe they use mesh shaders. Doubt it's a mistake.
we also know that they can make PSSR work, while other UE4 titles seem to have struggles getting the latest PSSR version on it.
I agree that this is likely a very customized version of UE4 for them. They have the talent and skills to make the changes required.
DegustatoR
Legend
I doubt that they've went and made their own Nanite out of nothing for UE4. It is highly more likely that they've backported Nanite. It is possible to do, we've seen UE4 games using TSR for example.
Where have you heard this game uses virtualized geometry? They use primitive shaders but that does not equate to virtualized geometry.
largely an assumption given by how they talk about the quantity of assets being streamed in via primitive and compute shaders. combined with the fact this game requires DX12U, it reads like they created a virtualized geometry solution to plug into UE4
How Final Fantasy VII Rebirth harnesses immersive PS5 technology
Richly detailed landscapes, redesigned character models, 3D audio, and more: Square Enix talks bringing the world beyond Midgar to PS5.
blog.playstation.com
I highly doubt there was any virtualized geometry system in use on PS5. Assuming that is the case, it's almost an impossibility they would have created one for PC. Square PC ports are notoriously boneheaded. It wouldn't be a surprise at all if they unnecessarily required DX12U. The only possibility that seems feasible would be an implementation of mesh shaders. The geometry on show certainly doesn't present in a way where that seems necessary however.largely an assumption given by how they talk about the quantity of assets being streamed in via primitive and compute shaders. combined with the fact this game requires DX12U, it reads like they created a virtualized geometry solution to plug into UE4
How Final Fantasy VII Rebirth harnesses immersive PS5 technology
Richly detailed landscapes, redesigned character models, 3D audio, and more: Square Enix talks bringing the world beyond Midgar to PS5.
That's pretty vague and open to interpretation. Indeed:largely an assumption given by how they talk about the quantity of assets being streamed in via primitive and compute shaders. combined with the fact this game requires DX12U, it reads like they created a virtualized geometry solution to plug into UE4
How Final Fantasy VII Rebirth harnesses immersive PS5 technology
Richly detailed landscapes, redesigned character models, 3D audio, and more: Square Enix talks bringing the world beyond Midgar to PS5.
That could just be a loading system similar to R&C. But then:
'loading assets in much finer increments' could be more virtualised. But maybe not to the extent of nanite. Or just less grouped models.
Yup, I noticed this in a lot of rt games. Once you see it, it's truly hard to unsee it.
DegustatoR
Legend
Yes, this is a worthy topic for a video because when games do reflections, lighting and shadows without RT there are no artifacts of any sort anywhere whatsoever.
Because one rendering method has shortcomings, the shortcomings of a different method shouldn't be considered?
From the intro, the video certainly isn't saying RT should be dropped in favour of non RT solutions, nor that alternative solutions are overall better. So I don't really understand your complaint. The main point is about RT noise, something unique to RT solutions.
Heck, he even talks about non-RT solutions having their own compromises at 3:30, so what really is your beef?
DegustatoR
Legend
The shortcomings of the "different method" is solely due to h/w performance.
The shortcomings of the method it is replacing are inherent to the method itself and are generally a lot more visible. Some people are just used to them to the point where they start considering them ground truth.
It's not unique to RT solutions at all. Any graphics which resolves into an ordered pixel grid will have various forms and amounts of noise. Texture MIPs and filtering were made to solve texturing noise. Antialiasing is solving discreet transformation noise. Screen space techniques like SSR and SSAO have loads of noise. Shadow maps are noisy as hell without LODs/cascades and filtering.
My beef is that the video is stupid because RT actually solves a lot of artifacts which we have without it. The noise is there with or without RT and unless there will be some way to render graphics without an ordered pixel grid there will always be some form of noise in it.
The ghosting and lag are the worst problems IMO. Those are the things that actually bother me when playing RT games. IDK if there's any way to solve that without much more powerful hardware.
Like edge shimmer and stepping? Requiring antialiasing to remove? Does that make discussion and videos about edge aliasing and antialiasing methods pointless?
It's not though. There are shimmering and blobbing artefacts that come with RT that some people find off-putting. This is a video talking about them and why they are there, and giving side by side comparisons with the non-RT methods so viewers can see for themselves which they prefer. There's a very obvious subjective, qualitative difference between methods. It's no different to showing side-by-side screen-space vs RT reflections and pointing out the smearing artefacts of screen-space solutions.
The video is no different to trillions of others out there over the decades looking at rendering tech and its pros and cons.
DegustatoR
Legend
No but it shows that the "problem" isn't anything new, and as I've said RT actually solves a lot of these issues.
These artifacts are substituting old rasterization artifacts which are a lot more "off-putting" generally, and the only reason why people think that they are not is because they are so used to them. In other words the video makes a wrong comparison as highlighting artifacts of RT rendering without highlighting the improvements said rendering brings over non-RT rendering (which is, you know, full of fakes and artifacts) is, again, misleading. Which is hardly surprising from HUB though.
I appreciate RT and use it when I can but it's completely valid to look at these comparisons and think the RT isn't worth losing half or more or your framerate. Especially when you're kind of trading old artifacts for new ones rather than eliminating them. That's not unreasonable at all.
DegustatoR
Legend
Generally when you lose half or more of framerate RT is transformative to the overall rendering to a point where some artifacts it has (mostly because it has to run on slow RT h/w mind you) are vastly outgunned by the sheer improvements it brings with it - which generally results in a removal of old artifacts. An example here would be any game with path tracing.
And vice versa when RT isn't bringing much in terms of improvements its performance impact is usually rather small and the artifacts it may have aren't any different from what you'd get without RT. An example: DATW where RT is a) cheap, b) doesn't have any artifacts at all and c) removes a lot of those as it substitutes SSAO and SSR.
Similar threads
