Its also filed with flat out BS.
You could potentially achieve the same thing by re-writing over half the engine.
I mean, if you get to that point… maybe creating your own camera primitive with its own pre-render custom pipeline would be the best / more sound solution.
The rendering side has quite a lot to it.
Increasing the FOV past what is possible means changing nearly everything about how the engine works natively - fustrum culling to boot since it is linked to FOV.
But all of this for what?
To make the end users throw up and get motion sick?
In VR, maybe, this could make sense. Eventually the Head Gear will get to a point where the screens aren’t just in front of your eye in order to allow some peripheral vision.
On the other hand, things are already prone enough to motion sickness as it is. Adding more stimulai is probably counterproductive.
If it wasn’t, you can totally bet that Oculus, Sony, everyone and their grandma would have jumped in with both feet on that bandwagon…
Also consider the rendering cost increase with something like foliage.
You go from 90fov to 160/170. That’s nearly double.
Currently, on a 1080ti you can barely get 16k tris to run at over 60fps 4k for vsync.
The performance increasing fov to 110 already drops quite significantly (and let’s blame the card over the engine on that, it’s essentially a dinosaur by now).
If you also add in the fact that you have to re-do all the math in order to render the scene “right” (which is probably the only realistic part the article bring to light), who knows what performance may end up at…
Could also very well be that after implementing their plugin you have to revert just because of the pefromance drop…
would have been nice to see a demo unreal level in the article to spin up and get some stats from.
Still, notice how they didn’t exactly release any stats at all and rather warn the render that (heavy paraphrased) “cost is unknown”…