Players don’t give a sht about those techs;
Just look at the millions playing pokemon go right now…
Players don’t give a sht about those techs;
By expending sufficient effort, one can adapt to the loss of, or otherwise implement any feature they so desire.
I was expecting an answer that’d help the OP, rather than a philosophic answer.
So people go expend your sufficient effort if you don’t have a good dynamic GI for your open world games.
[MENTION=434]BrUnO XaVIeR[/MENTION], Correct. Most gamers don't go into the graphical tech. But that doesn't address what this thread is asking.
The point is, that working with a more difficult toolset may cost you more in the long run, than simply implementing the one missing feature you require.
That’s sad coming from you, last time I checked Nvidia is not bankrupt …
I love good graphics;
But I also know players don’t care about it or how much it costs to make good graphics.
That’s not enough reason to justify the lack of good graphics. If you put the same pokemon go out there with better graphics of course people like that better.
Yes it does, as, with sufficient effort, you can compensate for missing features, add them from a third party or create them yourself.
Remember - you have full access to the UE4 source code and several of the missing features can be added via plugins alreadye.g. Enlighten, trueSky
You just need time, inclination and/or money.
You want to make a game for the players or for yourself?!
My young brother has access to modern consoles and access to my highend workstation and the best of current gen can provide in graphics. Still, he enjoys his time playing mobiles that look just like Tibia. Isometric browser based MMOs and mobile 2D games.
He is just an example out of many players that I observe how they behave…
This generation is not impressed by graphics because realism is ‘common’ for them. Only older gamers care more about it because we couldn’t have such graphics on previous consoles and the first realtime 3D graphics boom on game impressed us.
Teenagers have no ****ing clue what led to today’s graphics and computing as a whole, I would say! I’m happy I was old enough in the early '90s to see everything evolve to where we are now!!!
If you put the “Become a programmer”, “become a producer”, “become a mathematics expert” etc. in the to-do list of an artist then yeah… Maybe after a decade he can implement all he wanted on his own and then finally start the project.
It wouldn’t take that long - but besides, your entire argument is that it would take one unknowledgeable person too long to achieve, and disregards the fact that working with inferior tools is also a waste of time when better tools are available. You’re going to lose time somewhere, so pick one. The person implementing it wouldn’t have to work from scratch or roll their own either; there’s experimental propogation volumes in the editor, older builds with SVOGI still intact, a 3rd party plugin in development here on the forums, Nvidia’s custom branch, or ready-to-roll professional solutions like Enlighten.
If you’re unwilling to use inferior tools, unwilling to implement your own solution, unwilling to adopt a 3rd party solution, and unwilling to compensate someone for doing it for you, then I guess you’re stuck - but it isn’t like the options, requiring effort on your part, are not there.
Do you see how he is asking about the feature already being there not the ability to put it together from plugins, unofficial, third party sources?
I think I have answered his question pretty clear. Whether he wants to put every single feature together in UE4 or just switch to CE and start building his jungle is up to him.
He’s asking how they stack up, and that is the answer. CE already has the features, but lacks the tools, UE has the tools, but lacks the features. The features aren’t entirely absent though, there are options.
In rendering capabilities, the title says.
Yea, I think CE in my case will be better suited to the task at hand. I don’t mind the extra work if it means better quality. I admit that I am biased. I started out with CE before I ever switched to UE4. The major pull for UE4 was Blueprints. To me building assets and dressing a scene is both fun and rewarding, but programming is just downright boring and time consuming if you aren’t familiar with the API. So the ability to just drag and drop your logic in place is enticing. All in all UE4 is very impressive and to be quite honest innovative in there processes and software design, but I personally am interested in CE rendering abilities.
I don’t want to take the time to develop or incorporate third party plugins into UE4 when CE already does such a fantastic job.
In UE4 are other restrictions too with the source code of the engine and royalties and you can’t use in combat etc and the same that say Cryengine, you can’t give the source code or the editor to other users that are not registered users, about “serious games” if you don’t even know what is that why comment about it ?
No Lumberyard is not Cryengine V, is based in the 3.9 version more or less and got shader changes etc.
Exactly that is what the people think when come to use UE4 too.
Basically the half or more are request made here more than 2 years ago, but I don’t see real changes in the 2 years and now other engines added more and more content, include to that list the GSC modeling tool, that in Cryengine now got a amount of tools close to a modeling toolbox.
Now Epic Games is busy making Fortnite, Paragon, Unreal Engine 4, Unreal Tournament 4…
Yes epic make multiplataform games. this is the main diferencia with unity y cry. they eat as they plant.
To OP, Cryengine work for triple A, daynight cycle, big word games, so yes, you need use cryengine. For the other 98 % of games use unreal.
Cryengine supports consoles, VR too…so does Unity.