Nanite is for virtual production. So the marketing was for the film industry lol.
“For this demo, we used the cinematic qixel assets which would only be used in film”
A lot of these technologies are not entirely bad
And obviously it looks good in that demo. But the demo runs at a high resolution(not easily attainable for a lot of people ) and at 30fps. Same situation with the Matrix demo.
The biggest thing bringing those project to 30fps is the Nanite meshes hands down. The lack of hand made optimization. WE KNOW we can get an amazing looking 30fps game with UE5. And UE5 has gotten major performance improvement since.
But no common sense innovations have been set on the roadmap for UE5.
There are several reasons why a studio wouldn’t want there game running 30fps.
-
30fps is less responsive and slide show-ish when many other titles offer 60fps.
-
Especially true if gameplay is dependent on input timing and combos. hand–eye coordination and reaction time
-
The motion clearity with 30fps is absolutely HORRID. With content below 60fps, most screens will jutter the last 2 FRAMES on your current motion. Especially if it’s fast moving 30fps content. (So like an action game?..wait how many of those are there? Oh darn, a lot. )
I don’t want to hear this elitist crap like “buy a better(vastly more expensive) TV or monitor.”
“If you don’t like 30fps then upgrade($$$) you’re GPU.”
That is NOT innovation!?
You’re telling me with a 6 billion dollar revenue from FN sales… you can’t pay for more programmers, computer graphic consultants, and veteran engine programmers?
It’s like no UE5 engine programmer even reads SIGGRAPH papers and presentations!?