I would hold off on lumen until its actually production ready before literally wasting time to make it work.
Sure, it may be several years before its ready.
That’s kind of my point.
Unless you specifically need some feature, just stay away from everything that epic advertises. Its usually underperforming trash, or just downright broken.
The things that work, in fact, are usually not epic’s… Like Loushang GPU Light Mass for instance. And once epic takes over they get worse, don’t they?
Anyway. 60fps without lumen.
Are you frame locked? - do you need to be?
If not, remove the limits and remove fps smoothing settings and all the other garbage.
Baseline with as littles as possible, even tear off the default post process and the eye adjustment. In an ideal world, you should have 60fps steady at 4k in a final publish (In pie that should easily mean above 80fps).
Except yea, you will likely need to pay some good people to optimize a custom source build to get that kind of performance…
If its even possible using ue5.
Rememeber, the graphics pipeline was altered to make lumen possible and to work with the BS they dubbed Nanite, so there is a reasonable expectation that decent performance just isnt and won’t be possible.
Particularly not when the epic developers respond to “low fps” (or performance in case of chaos too) reports with “scale down to 1080p, its fine”, or “well then just don’t have 1000 cubes all simulate”…
The best thing to check what ue5 is doing performance wise is to test the same (or similar) scene in a different engine.
Same tris, same drawcall count, same number of lights, etc.
My personal experience:
When ue4.27 gives you 60fps at 4k CryEngine gives you 120fps.
Ergo, don’t use Ue4.
If you insist you may be able to properly optimize ue5 to have a somwhat ok performance.
It’s just way easier to adjust your expectations to 30fps “if even”. I think we all agree with that .