Kite demo - Am I doing something wrong or... it isn't any impressive?

So I downloaded that 5GB thing and launched the demo. FPS rate was very bad. And that’s fair, because it all looks next-g… wait. 16K textures of stones? Well, I only saw some pixelated stones, bad tree models and suddenly popping grass, making it look like a cardboard imitation of a landscape. Cheap chromatic abberation and blur effects were only a horrible icing on this stale cake. What clogs RAM, GPU and CPU power so strongly if nothing is really impressive? Maybe grass that is the strongest point of this all demo… But then again, many open-world games look better than this and they don’t need such tremendous PC config, though they have many animations, water physics (water there is kind of flat, like from 2005) and AI. They also have bigger worlds! Am I doing something wrong? Or there are some settings that will make it truly next-gen?
To be fair, lighting there is nice, but I’m under impression that it’s just an ugly model of landscape that was lighted with an advanced technology.

What GPU are you using?

Just thinking out loud.

I’m using GTX 770, so it’s around minimal requirements. I expected very stuttering, but at least beautiful graphics.

So you are implying that I’m trolling, or what?

My guess is that it’s defaulting to a lower scalability level, GTX 770 isn’t that bad though if it’s the 2GB version it could be an issue

No. I didn’t mean you are trolling. That’d be an insult and I don’t do that. :slight_smile:
You just disliked every single piece of it with your first post in this community.
I was specifically worried it might be a new account from… but it’s Mod’s job not me so welcome to the UE4 forums. :slight_smile:

I already had an account created for UT4, so I initially didn’t know it was my first post (more like 3rd) :P.
Unreal Engine 4 is my favorite out of modern game engines so I just got disappointed that free roam wasn’t as impressive as the demo shown few months ago, and I thought it might have been something about lower graphical settings.
Maybe better not to even start with Unigine, but I must admit that world feels more consistent in it.

You have to remember it is an FMV essentially. It was not designed as a “game” merely as a movie. Invariably this also means that if you are not using it on a similarly powerful rendering machine you’ll see graphical downgrades.

Like I wish I could use the absolutely stunning grass / flowers they have, but alas it just KILLS performance in a game setting.


Curious to compare notes. Overall, the scenic panoramas look great from a distance (infinite-picture postcard territory). The resolutions on the deer are nice and the animations and TOD are solid. But once I zoom-in closer, right up to the scenery containing terrain / flowers / rocks etc, everything lacks clarity. Its as if the scene isn’t lit properly because its just not crisp. The detail isn’t there, almost like the LODs were reversed or looking at downscaled video etc.

Play-in-editor: I’m getting 20-22FPS peak. Often its in the red at 16-19 or lower near water. Can someone with min-spec hardware concur, or better yet someone with a 980 confirm if GPU is the key limiting factor here…? [BTW: I’m running the demo in its own window on a 40-inch screen and usually get glorious detail using other UDK / Unty / UE4 projects]… Cheers!

It looks glorious here. Went close to the water on ground level and I’m getting 43 FPS, at worst its ~35 and at best, flying at high altitude it gets up to 94 FPS (1080p). Running on an overclocked Titan X. Here’s the resource usage for the cinematic, running from editor (minimized) in standalone window at 1080p and 2x SSAA, at avg. ~20 FPS min. 13, max. 29 FPS. Without SSAA it stays locked at 30. I’m referring to screen percentage 200% as 2x SSAA.