[USER=“69”]Just Krishna[/USER] Thanks for clarifying. I have to say i’m not the business guy at all, just seeing it from a very low point like reading news and certain reactions. I’m not against Unreal Studio, but it looks confusing for people who already use the substance plugin and source (i got an allegorithmic sub). Aside Datasmith, i don’t see a difference so you’re right, might just be for license reasons.
@Maximum-Dev
Regarding GI, we had some longer talks in our company two years ago because we were close to switch to Unity because another competitor used Unity’s GI solution and just looked better out of the box, even with less detailed textures and assets. We’ decided to stay with UE4, didn’t baked our maps and faked GI to get the “dynamic” we needed. Of course you can fake systems all day long, but in the end you’re loosing dev-time to create these fakes and probably run into other problems like performance and stability issues.
RTX might become viable in the next 5 years so it’s ok for developing and showing its capabilities. You’re right, the main concern here is about the tiny feature requests that are on the road map (not only on Trello but Forums as well) for a long time untouched that could open up so many fresh possibilities to keep up with other game engines. The big question: How is it possible for a handful of people to tell Epic that these tiny things are as much important “today” as some RTX feature in the unpredictable future.