only shows that you haven’t done your homework. If you would have you would know that the UE4 has global illumination it’s just a pre-computed one and in combination with other features like real-time reflections and spec lighting it looks much better than in the Cryengine. And from what i know the CE didn’t even has PBR yet.
What about the ‘real-time’ though? Games are not static renders.
It’s real-time, it’s just not dynamic. There are certain cases where dynamic GI is needed, like if you are using large pieces of a level that are moving you can’t use static lighting. And while you can use dynamic lighting you’d want to have as good of lighting as you can. It would also be convenient to not have to build lighting. There’s also situations where you need to save on memory like on the PS3 it doesn’t have much memory so it’s better to use the CPU to render lighting than it is to use baked lighting.
Honestly…and I dont want to fuel the Engine war here but :D…Cryengine WAS ahead of UE until UE4 came with PBR and voxel lighting. Just graphically…I am not talking about workflow here^^ Then Epic dropped voxel lighting and switched back to lightmass and Cryengine got updated with PBR for Ryse. I would say that…when you just compare the rendering features…now that UE dropped the voxels, Cryengine is ahead again, because they have dynamic GI + PBR now (and also other things like SSDO which is WAY ahead of SSAO).
BUT…Epic is not stupid. They do their homework. They just focus on crossplatform/mobile first and make sure everything runs perfectly together and then they start worrying about fancy ****.
There are other dynamic GI solutions, but Lionhead needed something quickly for the new fable game, so THEY developed the LPV for UE4, but my guess is that Epic is working on something newer and more advanced than the LPVs. They just need some more time for it 
Valid points and nice to hear that the CE now has PBR. But at the end it all comes down to the flexibility of the engine, is why the UE3 was so dominant last-gen and will probably be the reason why the UE4 will “dominate” again. Rewriting half of the engine to fit the needs of the game cost a lot of money and requires a lot of man power, not to mention all those small little hick ups you have in the content pipeline.
Anyway we should really end engine war, it already goes on for too long! 
And since we have full source access anyone who want dynamic GI can implement a solution.
Word! 
Thats exactly what I think as well! Just wanted to clear some things up from an objective point of view^^ (and as a guy who is just interested in rendering features and shiny things and…you know ^_^)
The difference between CryEngine and UE is that UE takes more time fine tuning their tech so it runs better.
CryEngine is very unoptimized compared to UE and UE4 can pull off the same visual quality as CryEngine with better performance so i don’t mind waiting for real-time GI which should probably be implemented in full within the next 2-3 months.
The CryEngine guys just like to be first-to-market with something rather than optimizing it and releasing more stable versions of it.
So right now, if you want to use LPV, can you not use static lighting with it? I read that you have to turn force no precomputed lighting on, which would then make using lightmass for indoor stuff impossible right?
It’s one or the other - LPVs won’t work with statically baked lighting.
Basically UE4 is not good for outdoor scenes?
For me it’s not a big deal what - dynamic or static - GI is.
I think it’d be even better if actual GI (doesn’t matter, static or dynamic) would cast indirect dynamic shadows onto everything. For some games like UT I think it’s not that important to have a heavy Time-of-Day dynamic GI - arenas are fine even with static Tod & static (but better-quality) GI. For some movable actors (like flying rocket or gun muzzle flash) illuminating the scene for a limited time I guess the quality isn’t really matters, so even simple cubemapped GI would do the trick.
BUT
In my opinion shadows are vital. Shadows from whenever static or dynamic GI, it’d be just spectacular if they would actually BE there.
It works. You can still bake indirect shadows from skylight.
Can lighting be influenced with a texture? Like can I somehow have a texture emit light?
It is supposed to be able to but it doesn’t work.
Great, works for me. And it’s not too bad either…
Looking forward to see the ‘real’ implementation some day!
is just a mockup scene to test shadows, but with more then 10 million vertices(no LOD´s) it´s still chunking along even in the editor at 40-100 fps.
According to Epic, the ability to emit light from textures has been removed, might be related to the PBR material system but it’s just a guess. But inside the main material node the option for emissive light is there so who knows maybe it will come back one day.
Well 40fps for 10mln vertices is quite good, to be honest.
Shadows is whole different. Mainly because they have set radius and you can’t set any ratio for shadows that is based on object size/distance from camera.
I tried to set “Dynamic Shadow Distance” at 2million in a large level test, it helped up to 3-400m, but then no shadows 
The size of the terrain is huge though (4096x4096) and size at 4096 too, impressive terrain engine I must say.
I got working, but it crashes A LOT.