(post deleted by author)
This thread is the very definition of beating a dead horse.
2 Likes
How about you compile a list of these titles along with quotes from the devs specifically saying that Nanite is their issue, and up-to-date as in latest engine versions.
Without some type of proof theyāre just words.
1 Like
Very impressive! It really really does remind me of the roads around where I live; tons of trees, scruddy grass, not too many houses around.
I like it.
EDIT: itās a solid-take on a base-engine. You could use it for making the Tony Goldblumās BattleFour Field.5 game we all want. Check the Vigilante assetsā¦
1 Like
Thatās funny - I really liked it for exactly the same reasons! Plus itās got a very realistic look going on - impressive alright!
1 Like
@JustinDarlington
Here take a look at this post.
(The one i replied to)
This and a few posts below are some benchmarks and tips/Tricks to improve performance.
Will take a look at the thread you mentioned later that day 
Multiple things here.
you keep using the same arguments over and over again, even though i and multiple other people debunked them multiple times.
With proof.
I would even go so far to say that you did not provide any valid evidence at this point, while multiple people proved you wrong.
I am not interested in being part of your Main post. I am rather trying to stop you from spreading uninformed misinformation.
My scenario was the best benchmark you had in this thread so far. It was a full, detailed game with over 200 individual meshes and VR rendering (which is by default more demanding than normal rendering.)
It was by far a limited benchmark.
We used TAA purely as a style choice, to achieve a clean and ādreamyā image. We could have had it removed anytime due to the use of upscalers.
Also lets be real for a second.
TAA and Upscaler issues donāt matter for the average consumerā¦
Thats why i donāt get why you are opposing them so fiercelyā¦
Ask an average gamer who is not a graphics nerd or a journalist.
They will not even notice small frame inconsistencies caused by these techniques.
All they care about is a clear Image and a high framerate. Which both can achieve.
We ran multiple playtests on the gamescom with non VR Games, where we asked other players, if they noticed anything weird about the graphics. (Because we had the same oppinion as you)
The only people criticising TAA and upscalers were other developers.
The average player was saying: āThe image looks very clean, like a camera recordingā. (TAA)
They did not even notice upscalers.
We as developer live in a bubble. We see the problems caused by these techniques and blow them up way too much.
TAA has issues, but they donāt matter for the average consumer.
And on the contrary both of these techniques excell at their task.
TAA produces a smooth image and upscalers improve the performance drastically.
So please get your oppinions from your customers and not from other developers. Because at the end, the customers opinions are what matter.
2 Likes
TAA is a SOFT option.
So its optional. Glad we cleared that up
Epic has been pushing this stuff through workflow manipulation.
No they havnāt. The documentation is easy to read, and its easy to switch off TAA. Every game dev on the planet knows there are different AA algorithms with different trade offs and that they donāt have to use the one Unreal has on by default.
DLSS and TAA are different things. BOTH are optional. DLSS is NOT required at all but if you are upset that AI is going to play an increasingly important role in Graphics and CompSci in general in the future, I have good news and bad news for you. The bad news is that GPUs cannot shrink in size indefinitely, nor can they grow in core counts indefinitely. AI will be increasingly important to squeeze performance out of cards. The good news is there are very smart people working on these problems for you, so relax bud. Sit back, code your game, ignore the features that you donāt like, because they donāt impact you, and use the features you do like that engineers with Phds and decades of experience are building for you.
5 Likes
Very interesting and amazing for VR. Iāve been building a large open world with loads of Nanite foliage and other geometry. My goal was to push some boundaries in how much foliage I could have on screen to recreate the look of my home state of GA. So definitely different in scope. Your results are impressive!
You can see in this shot what I mean by pushing that boundary with foliage and even more inside the forest. Nanite allowed me to increase the density of my foliage greatly:
2 Likes
this guy in the video keeps mentioning at the end of the video he will include a link of cvarsā¦ never didā¦ never gave us that linkā¦
Just because most people are unaware of something doesnāt make it wrong.
Popular ignorance doesnāt equal truth.
Experience doesnāt make you right, it just makes you experienced at being wrong.
Still just words - no proof - whereās the compiled list of titles in the latest versions where the devs have specifically stated their issues are Nanite?
5 Likes
I live in New England and this could very-easily be any road in the surrounding towns. Moreso towards the coast/Cape given the gnarlyness of the pine-tree (they get stunted from salty-air).
Obviously a game, but thereās no drop in the illusion. VERY well done.
1 Like
Thank you for your kind words!
The main difference between your scene and mine is, that you have a forest vegetation which adds a lot more overdraw than my scene.
We have a landscape, a layer of grass foliage and maybe a tree/bush. But behind those are mostly rocks and hard surfaces. We specifically designed the level like this, so we can minimize overdraws with leafs.
Also our level is shaped like a bowl because it is an arena the player can play in. So there is not much draw distance, the number of meshes is limited and the mountains are acting like a hard border, not only for the player, but also for mesh culling.
Your scene has layers and layers of vegetation so it is actually really impressive on your part, that you managed to reach such high frame rates!
What helps with that, is, if you introduce hills or cliffs inside the forest. Like this:
But ofc, i donāt know if these type of structures match your home stateās landscapes
Just keep in mind, good level design is a key part of performance.
One note on the side though, your saturation is way too strong. Your image looks too green, to the point of it being Unreal (pun intended ^^)
3 Likes
They just forgot the link in the video descriptionā¦
Thatās awesome! Adding more mountains/cliffs to remove some overdraw is something Iāve been looking into. Thatās definitely a pro tip [GG]. Itās finding that balance to capture your original idea plus performance thatās really challenging. Youāve done this extremely well it seems! Your scene is stunning! 
For me, this boiled down to configuring nanite and lumen systems through CVARās. I also ended up altering some elements of the engine to allow me to utilize nanite more efficiently with RVTās and landscape splines. And then optimizing any materials that were taking a long time in the nanite rasterizer.
GOOD! I DID MY JOB LOL! 
I originally matched IRL colors but found it boring. I just find general realism boring period. I love the more stylized look of the colors. But I do understand what youāre saying and hope to clean it up more. A clean stylized/realism is what Iām aiming for
1 Like
Remember that Nanite helps cull Nanite, so even though your landscape is/might-be Nanite and more expensive up-front, it can help claw back through culling (and hopefully preventing overdraw),
1 Like
Yes and the weird thing about it is, that the higher the poly count, the more efficient nanite can cluster cull and prevent overdraw. So more details = higher performance.
This is a mistake that was continously done in this thread, where people just enabled nanite on traditional optimized meshes with large triangles and then complained about overdraw.
Yes, Nanite can not efficiently cull a mesh when the mesh has only 50 triangles
2 Likes
A new update just dropped with unreal engine 5.5. @JustinDarlington
They introduced a new feature called āMegalightsā, which basically removes the shadow cost of lights if you have a Raytracing GPU.
This disables Virtual Shadow Maps and completely replaces the system.
Also they did some big improvements to the nanite render pipeline.
I would definitely recommend upgrading your project!
As a comparison here are the old benchmarks from 5.4
5.8ms per Frame, Nanite VisBuffer at around 1.8ms and Light cost at around 1.6-2.2ms, depending on where you are at the scene.
Now here are the new profiler stats. Just updated the Project and enabled Megalights, no other modifications done.
Nanite is now around 1.2ms and the lights are calculated as one Pass in the RaytracingScene for a cost of 0.3ms.
We can now generate the whole image at 4.4ms, which gives a framerate of ~230FPS on 2k resolution. All while having incredible mesh detail, ultra dense foliage and over 40 real time lights in the scene.
That is just incredible IMO.
Sadly i can not test it rn on my VR headset as it is currently not available.
But definitely looking forward to my next game projects
EDIT: Btw, just like nanite it seems that Megalight scales with screen resolution and not with amount of lights. I did some tests with 4k Rendering and a few hundred lights.
Only when increasing the resolution, the light cost went up. On 4k its around 2.1ms, which is still much faster than VSM.
Using Upscalers 75% it is 1.5ms . So again, upscalers exponentially improve performance here
6 Likes
I guess they listed to the OP! Good thing we have this thread to kick 'em in the pants.
Thanks for the updated results, the video looks amazing.