The landscape system in UE5 has not been changed from that of Ue4 as far as I’m aware of.
Ergo, the benchmarks done for ue4 are still relevant even if ue5 is it’s own beast with a worse rendering engine performance.
Yet, if the components weren’t also made bigger the system would probably perform more evenly.
You have 2 options for 8km^2 maps.
One has incredibly large components, the other is increasing the size of the 4km^2 version.
They obviously perform differently.
You need to bench each in a worse case scenario.
(Corner of 4 components, in which the whole rest of the landscape components - fustrum culling - is visible).
Yes, but It’s not the only way.
Aside from being a logic issue too, it’s also a math problem you can solve. And there’s other implications you may need to do that for, like memory footprint.
Landscapes built with an Octree mesh system blow the sorry excuse unreal put togeter for landscapes out of the water.
Even the Voxel plug-ins do a better job at it really.
The only sort of downside (sort of. Because you can use procedural foliage and it’s better anyway) is that you cannot use the landscape grass Node unless you use the Landscape.
In 99.9% of all cases, the unreal landacape system is a fly trap that needs to be properly leveraged (for games).
- Create the landscape with layers and / no functionality. Limit to 4 layers per tile.
- paint and sculpt to taste.
- Bake the landscape down to mesh impostors.
- Move all the meshes out to a new world composition level.
- change all landscape meshes to use the same mater material instance, and provide functionality to the landscape:
5.a) Pys Mat based on a color texture (export layers from original landscape to generate pack file).
5.b) apply procedural meshes based on the same layers.
5.c) create a world height blend texture to color match all landscape tiles based on world position.
The list goes on. There’s a lot to doing thing right…