I think it’s working for you too. Try putting some boxes and columns inside your room and you will see some shadows.
In the video and in the scene shown by Prizmlzm, probably they are viewing that “edge shadow” because of a less quality configuration of GPULM. If you set a high preset for it, you won’t see that “hard” shadow.
I have no idea where you’re going wrong - as I said, I downloaded your project and just ran a lighting build and it worked just fine for me.
Could be you’ve changed something in UE or GPULM configs that has permanently effected your light builds. Maybe consider uninstalling and reinstalling both of them.
No dude, sorry I worded that badly. It doesn’t follow your SkyLight rotation settings - you’d still have to add some extra code to build in the rotation (not sure how you’d code it to follow your SkyLight though). The code I showed there is just the basic formula to get the Cubemap image to project more accurately and not look like it’s wrapped around the inside of a smaller sphere (even though it is). I could explain it it more, but it’s best just to try it to see what I mean.
USE ONLY Production Quality. Otherwise will have serious problems with shadows (bending problems). Using lower types of quality with GPULM is completely pointless.
Hey @PrizmIzm
Mystery is solved.
I’ve uninstalled and re-installed UE4, latest version. Applied Luoshs’ GPULM and run your modified project.
I rendered it at preview quality and it worked!
I took it to Extreme quality with fireflies at 10 and the light was gone (!!?!!!?!!???!!!)
I took back the fireflies to 10000 and the light from HDRI was back as it was.
So:
Light from HDRI + fireflies at 10 = not happening as the light from HDRI just disappears.
No idea but if we want HDRI light we’ll have fireflies…! So for now we’ll skip HDRI light unless mighty can do something about it!
1: GPULM quality (Preview/…/Extereme) changes only the NumPrimary and NumSecondary config values. In Extreme to the insane values.
So better just put manually 128/64 and it will be fine for most cases
2: You always should use PRODUCTION quality drop-down selection in UE4. Otherwise some direct light ( direct rays from any source) will give you bad shading at bending/curved areas.
3: beware of putting lights at very reflective elements or creating very small light sources from emmissive meshes - you will get then many white splotches on the walls
4: I have used many many HDRI and never got the fireflies. Consider to use better HDRI or check your SkyLight configuration (esp. the Intensity value ).
5: Most of World Settings are no longer utilized for GPULM. Only one parameter GPULM is using for the baking: Indirect Lighting Bounces and of course parameters for VLM. Rest is ignored.
As already mentioned (more or less), I think it’s due to the GPULM quality; that’s why you get “light gone” when making it at extreme. I also think it’s a very normal behaviour with that kind of HDRi, as the sky is very shinny too. I would say: More quality = more accurate bounces = softer shadows. Low quality = very few bounces = hard shadows with lot of artifacts.
To get that hard shadow with decent quality you would need a more concretrated light source, like this one:
Is it possible to redirect users with AMD cards to standard CPU lightmass calculation, and users with NVIDIA cards to CUDA based GPU lightmass calculation? I’m not sure how this implementation reacts to users with AMD cards.
I’m planning to bring this feature to our project, but I’m not sure what’s going to happen for people with AMD cards. I want both of these users to use Unreal Engine without any problem.
GPULM is purely a local tool in your local engine installation, so AMD users should simply not use the tool, and keep the regular Lightmass instead. if AMD users build, they’ll build with Lightmass ; if Nvidia users build with GPULM installed, they’ll use that instead. Outputs of both tools are compatible (though GPULM is obviously better).
They’re going to implement their own solution based on Raytrace technologies. It will be a LOT more faster than the actual GPU Lightmass solution based on brute force.
If you’re an Epic Dev (studio working with UE4), you have access to the code and you can implement it by yourself. Otherwise, you will need to wait the next unreal version to get this new lightmass solution.
Hello , great work with this, very much appreciated!
I would like to ask about compatibility with rect lights, are there any plans for integrating that in the near future?
For anyone not keeping up with the thread, GPU Lightmass is no longer being developed by . Also, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t use that user name anymore. His new user name is YujiangW
Hi,
I am using the GPU baking function quite often. Due to the change to an Nvidia RTX GPU I have a bunch of questions. I would be very gratefull, if someone can comment or answer them:
Will there be a GPU baking version for 4.23 ? I use 4.23 (preview) now, because twosided foliage will be rendered with shadows and ao now in raytracing mode.
Does raytracing GI for example “revolution” the way of baking lightmaps? I have not really a clue, but it seems it could speed up this process somehow a lot.
When will be the GPU baking officially implemented in the UE4 engine?
thanx a lot and greetings,
Ronald
p.s. the post above mine explains almost everything i asked. Reading makes smarter i guess. ;-(
After working on 3D visualisations for a while I have recently worked on an Unrel VR project and I feel quite amazed about the results.
I was not able to use the GPULightmass yet as my graphic card was not in the list.
As I want to buy a new computer to improve my workflow it would be great if anyone can give any info about those graphic cards that are in the list for using the GPULightmass.
