[HR][/HR]
All assets you need to build a photorealistic conifer forest.
High resolution models and textures of trees, rocks, debris, plants and more. All major assets with full sets of LODs, tweaked for maximum performance at highest photo realistic quality. The trees come as hero and painter versions, both have large distance LODs to create massive forests. All versions of the trees are ready to use with the painting tool. There is a large variation of fully setup foliage actors, ready for populating the forest with extra detailed plant, twig and rock assets. A fully paintable ground material with 5 different surface textures is also included. All materials a highly tweakable and can be customized easily with new textures to fit project specific needs.
[HR][/HR]
High resolution models and textures
Photorealistic quality
Automated foliage placement
Full set of LOD & Lightmap UVs
60 fps (1080p, GK110-GPU)
Hero trees + foliage painter versions
All assets are ready for displacement
Paintable ground material with wetness control
Ground cover detail meshes
All highly tweakable and easy customization
Fully dressed example forest map
[HR][/HR] Technical Specifications:
Physically-Based Rendering: Yes
Texture Size: the majority of assets use 4096x4096 base color, normal and utility textures
Collision: Yes (automatically generated)
Vertex Count: 14000/7000/3500/100 (trees) 3000-250 (medium assets), 1200-100 (plants)
LODs: 3-4 Levels of LOD
Number of Meshes: 67
Number of Materials and Material Instances: 74
Number of Textures: 136
Engine Compatibility: 4.11.x / 4.12.x / 4.13.x / 4.14.x
Intended Platform: PC / PS4 / XboxOne
Platforms Tested: PC + Oculus
Documentation Included: No
[HR][/HR]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS]You can get it right away from our website CONIFER FOREST PACK.
I love it! But to be completely honest, I am still skeptical about the performance. You say intended platforms include PS4 and XBOX ONE; have you tested it on those platforms and achieved 30fps (or 60fps)? Also, in your other thread you stated you achieved 60fps in a 2km x 2km scene with 300 trees. Did the scene only contain trees? I’ll PM you with more specific questions.
Just posting my private response, since I think it’s valuable to everyone having the same question:
**Q: **Do you think I could use this pack to create a 2km x 2km landscape and still have 30fps with minimal specs (8gb memory, gtx 760)?
**A: **I think it should be possible to get 30fps. You may need to reduce the texture size from 4k to 2k, since the GTX760 only got 2GB of memory.
You could also force the LODs on the trees to be level 2, which brings them from 12k down to 6k. If you go hardcore you could also start turn of detail textures on the materials, or set a more aggressive LOD distance for it.
Of course, been able to occlude some distance in the level with other assets, houses, rocks, variations in heights will also help.
As with static lighting, that will sure degrade the quality a little, unless you increase the lightmap size for the assets.
You then also want to use the Two Sided Sign switch for the Branch MASTER material and maybe to turn Tangent-space off.
So there lots of ways you can optimize the pack to your needs.
For example, just by switching Render quality from Epic to High gets you an extra 15 FPS in the example forest.
So in short, yes I think 2km x 2km forest on a GTX 760 at 30fps should be possible to achieve.
A) Performance is awful because all trees are Blueprints. Static meshes do much better.
B) We can’t add blueprints to foliage painter so it’s kinda useless if we’re not able to use the foliage painter. Landscapes aren’t usually that small as a demo scene. Can you convert them to static meshes?
please send an email to support@mawiunited.com
I’ll set you up with a collapsed version of one tree as a staticmesh for testing.
Update:
It’s Possible to have them converted as staticmesh, export the blueprint as FBX, re-import and reassign materials.
I have send out an asset for testing.
Thought this will have drawbacks:
Lightmap resolution on trees will not be sufficient
LODs will no longer work correctly
Plants can’t be painted onto tree bases anymore
Terrain needs to be even, or not to much at an angle
Just to note: the trees where not intended to be used with the foliage tool.
I was just wondering: Couldnt you just write a blueprint that consists of a collision box and turns all the forest-blueprints (which are inside the box) into static meshes (or even foliage-instanced meshes or what not)
You could run the blueprint once you are finished with the level design
this way, maybe you could get more optimization done as well
I did a comparison like this before for our own project but I just did another one using your tree.
The Static Mesh version you sent me didn’t have LODs so I have disabled LODs for the Blueprint version too to have correct comparison results.
There is ~12 FPS being lost for 1 tree. Sum up the rest of the meshes, that’s a lot of performance being wasted.
73 FPS is much better than 60 FPS (and the 13 FPS difference is per 1 of the trees, imagine five 13 FPS differences if I used five different trees from the package, that’s a ton). But the static meshes are not included. That’s what we’re talking about here. It would have been cool to have the trees as static meshes as well so we could A) Get better performance B) Use them with foliage painter to save time placing a lot of them
Also to reply more directly to your question
If you have already landed on 60 FPS with a small scene and 143 trees what about the rest of the game world then? by the time the game environment is finished you’ll be hitting maybe what… 5-10 FPS…?
I get that placing them as Blueprints might have been the only way to put together the modular pieces in engine but they could have also be merged before importing as well.
Comparing FPS is not very meaningful. The difference between 922 and 900 FPS is very small; the difference between 25 FPS and 3 FPS is huge.
Translate to “frame time” instead. If 143 instances of tree A take 15 ms, then you can assume another 143 instances of tree B would take another 15 ms, and you can calculate your final FPS based on adding up the different numbers (within reason – because of pipelining, some micro-benchmarks end up overlapping and costing less in real projects.)
This is pretty extreme, but I see your point. I mean, 73fps is obviously better than 60fps, but my point was that I find it unfair you are bashing the guy when he said the scene runs at 60fps. He was very transparent with this, and you knew that when you purchased the pack. To say the performance is awful is misleading to people, because it seems as though the pack is worse than advertised. The fact you were able to get 73fps means you’re getting a higher framerate than expected. Whammes also seems to be very responsive by sending you the static meshes within a couple hours of you asking for them. So far, all I see are pluses.
Also, getting 60fps in a small scene does not mean you get 5fps in a larger scene. Placing the trees in the level with intention will most certainly help (intention meaning intentionally trying to optimize the scene). I have not purchased this pack yet, but I certainly would not recommend placing these trees haphazardly with foliage painter. It certainly would take longer, but it would be worth the time and effort.
Then again, since I haven’t purchased the pack myself, I may be completely wrong. How many fps do you get on the demo forest?
*please pardon any typos, for I’ve typed this on my phone
@jwatte, 3ms… still sounds a lot for one of the trees. @phantom530, I’m not bashing, or trying to devalue his work. I wouldn’t have spent 90 euros on it if I didn’t like it.
I know he has mentioned he gets 60 FPS. I would have been happy if I was getting 60 because of the content, but it’s just because they are placed as blueprints and blueprints are not optimized to handle this kind of operation. It’s increasing draw calls for no gain. To include the trees and other things as static meshes is a simple fix and I think a 90 Euros pack deserves that fix.
Maybe 13 FPS or 3ms doesn’t seem like a big deal to you (for one of the trees) but outside here no AAA game development studio allows such performance loses going on.
I don’t want to get a refund. Assets look solid and worth much more than 90 Euros. I just want to keep our project optimized and I can’t do that without having static mesh version of these.
Edit: I’m not a native English speaker so my grammar and what I write is not quite how it should have been. If I have sounded angry so far I apologize for that. I’m not trying to devalue this package. I’m just asking for a little fix.
I presume that the blueprints place a static mesh instance, which you can use outside of a blueprint?
And once you have a static mesh, you can create a foliage type asset for that mesh.
And once you have a foliage type, you can paint it using the foliage tool.
I’m waiting to buy this as soon as it shows up on the marketplace (I need some good firs!) and this is what I plan to do.
Is there some part of this chain that doesn’t actually work out right? Are the trees procedurally constructed somehow?
No. It means different pieces are merged inside a blueprint and you drag/drop that blueprint in your level. You cannot add that blueprint to foliage tool and paint with it. I have not started using the trees yet because I don’t have the time to place trees 1 by 1 on a 16km landscape I’m working on.
That sound like the old procedural nature pack, which also generates tree spline based via blueprint. You can select the blueprint tree, then export with selected meshes to fbx and reimport. Then you have the mesh. That’s how we did it ages ago wit the nature pack and the trees we did ourselves in there. Then we switched to the $20 Speedtree subscription with all their monthly freebies. That’s much better. The Speedtree subscription does the job.
