NEW(3/22/2024) UE5.5+ feedback: Please Invest In Actual PERFORMANCE Innovations Beyond Frame Smearing For Actual GAMES.

It seems the direction Epic is heading is to make Unreal a modeling, animation, video editor tool.

Thatā€™s false. You might argue that they canā€™t achieve the right balance, but saying that donā€™t care is blatantly false.

Correct, but the engine is only 2 years old and likely the development started in UE4, so itā€™s way too early to make these kind of statement.

Thatā€™s because those games were in-between generations. Besides, Cyberpunk 2077 in Path Tracing mode is clearly a step beyond anything ever done and it can only run on high-end GPUs. Thatā€™s a glimpse of what it can be achieved with a mature engine. It took almost 10 years for the team to develop the RED Engine to that level.

Sure, just add 1-2 years to the whole development of the project, who cares, right?
Plus, LODs will always be visible in terms of pop-ins, no matter how skilled you are. Especially for vegetation. Oh, they also take up more space than Nanite models. Ops!
The ā€œno issuesā€ part is quite baffling if you actually followed the game world in the last years, especially AAA games.

2 Likes

Definitely. But heā€™s here to complain, not to see the positive things made by the dev.

Thatā€™s false. You might argue that they canā€™t achieve the right balance, but saying that donā€™t care is blatantly false.

There are thousands of shaders and cheap techniques already been done before but major studio(including Epic Games) with the right budget to implement fail to invest in bringing those better technologies.

Instead the offer an unstable engine that requires ugly and blurry temporal visuals to those unstable issues and allow big companies like Bandai Namco to produce crap.

Why would big greedy studioā€™s invest in developing smart/faster techniques when TSR and DLSS are "freeā€™ performance fixers?
Also why the hell are you responding/quoting to me? I recall you ā€œBlockingā€ me?

Sure, just add 1-2 years to the whole development of the project, who cares, right?

GAMERS care. CUSTOMERS CARE.

People who spent $400+ for reasonable standard of 60fps care!

Plus, LODs will always be visible in terms of pop-ins, no matter how skilled you

WE WILL ALWAYS have pop in because of skeletal meshes and shadows pop as I already stated in the MAIN POST.
Pop is also mitigated with transitional effects but now everything is temporally dither and smeared!

Nanitesā€™ features like no draw calls, no pop in, smaller disk size have 0% value when the game runs like DOG crap.

I donā€™t care if a game is path traced, 100mb, with 0 pop in anyplace,
It looks and becomes unplayable crap on when itā€™s being upscaled from 540p even though its rendering on efficient hardware beyond next gen consoles

The more I learn about UE, the more DISGUSTED I am with itā€™s obvious issues.
It would be dang near worthless without all the plugin, company, and basic asset support.

THE ONLY reason Iā€™m using this engine, is to FIX it with a public fork so other major companies and studios can utilize the other things I mentioned while not using a disgustingly over dithered engine.

Look up games using UE5 and people are disgusted with UE5 performance.
YT Benchmarkers are showing how unacceptable UE5 is.

EDIT DAY LATERā€”
Glad to see two more votes on this feedback thread.

That is definitely not my experience with Chaos Vehicle.

This thread has reached 2nd most voted feedback to Epic Games and UE5 within only 177 days.

Big thanks to all who voted.

As for Epic Games, you guys need to STOP providing an engine that promotes blurry temporal graphics because of performance issues(which can stem from a lack of performance enhancing workflows). Use common sense based features, meaning do not strive for %100 accuracy if it means it can only run on 40 series gpus with upscaling and frame gen bullcrap.

Stop thinking companies are going to invest in custom solutions for their games, because if they were going to create a in ā€œcustom solutionsā€. They would use a proprietary engine.

Several games, I was personally waiting for are using UE5 look horrible due to the blurry temporal templates you offer and I know they wonā€™t even run well because you forced Nanite revolved workflows.

At least I care about my game, and Iā€™m using UE because I canā€™t afford to build a proprietary engine, but it is disgusting how much things depend on TAA. Iā€™ve had to jump through so many ridiculous holes to get UE5 to look stable without TAA.

Itā€™s funny to see how popular this thread is, if youā€™re complaining so much why use Unreal Engine 5 in the first place ? You scream about Nanite, disable it, stop complaining about it and let the devs that use it, use it as they want. UE5 is built with the future in mind and the big features of it are clearly not meant for 10yo hardware.

Itā€™s funny (actually hilarious) to read your complaint repeated over and over again, I think you need to breath.

Anyways just to say, if you complain about one specific UE5 feature, why use it ?

Oh also, Epic Games is forcing NO ONE to use UE5 features, theyā€™re promoting the great improvements they worked on for a next-gen engine, and the next-gen games are using the next-gen features for next-gen hardware.

6 Likes

if youā€™re complaining so much why use Unreal Engine 5 in the first place

There are so many problems with the way you see the point of this thread.

UE5 is has an advantage only acquirable by time and long term support. I already explained why UE has to fixed because it affects several titles, not just mine.

For better or worse. Unreal surpasses any public game engine due to years of documentation, years of optimizations, a huge library of free assets, plugins, and itā€™s easy to find UE experts to hire(If you are a big budget studio) due to its massive popularity.ā€“Main post

You scream about Nanite, disable it, stop complaining about it

Two things: 1# You clearly didnā€™t read the main post as it explains Epic is forcing people to use Nanite if developers want to use other features such as VSMā€™s.

2# They are also lying about Naniteā€™s performance which again affects OTHER STUDIOS. Meshes start off with high detail, and companies promote Nanite like itā€™s not ā€œnext gen detailā€ when itā€™s not: Itā€™s called not optimizing meshes for affordable GPUs+more triangles=more aliasing problems which promote MORE blurry upscaler dependency .

UE5 is built with the future in mind and the big features of it are clearly not meant for 10yo hardware.

Iā€™m not talking about GTX cards/equivalents, when I say affordable, I mean GPUs as in $300-400(which is a lot in this economy) which have released within the last 4 YEARS.

Itā€™s funny (actually hilarious

Iā€™m glad games turning into mush during basic gameplay and only 4090 owners can achieve bearable visual quality in modern games is ā€œactually hilariousā€ for you.
Not everyone wants mushy games.

Thatā€™s his whole personality. Heā€™s a complainer, he doesnā€™t create anything, heā€™s just here for the attention. I muted him but sometimes I enjoy reading his tantrums.

Even gamers are OK with using upscalers at this point. They are a tool that can help to have better graphics running on lower hardware, thereā€™s no point in NOT using them.

5 Likes

even gamers are OK with using upscalers at this point

That is a LIE, just because some are doesnā€™t mean this downgraded crap should become standardize.

They are a tool that can help to have better graphics running on lower hardware, thereā€™s no point in NOT using them.

Yes there IS a point. They look like crap during basic gameplay vs actually lowering the resolution independently(+more performance) without temporal framed blurring.
They never look better during actual gameplay. You just continue ignore public data provided by me and plenty of others.

@vfXander comments summarize accurately:
ā€œItā€™s okay because other big companies do it, stop complaining, everything is greatā€

Even tho it clearly NOT. Other companies simple get away with it because the own massively popular, exclusive Ipā€™s. You are appealing to crap standard wielded by customer stronghold.

Epic is forcing people to use Nanite if developers want to use other features such as VSMā€™s.

Well no, itā€™s the same thing again, youā€™re not forced to use VSMs nor Nanite, but if you want to use VSM yes you need Nanite, and you can enable Nanite on lower poly meshes without any performance issues (in my experience).

I already explained why UE has to fixed because it affects several titles, not just mine.

I follow a lot of UE5 games and yes they are terribly optimized, the upscaler is crap but thatā€™s not coming from UE5. Unreal Engine is not just a game-engine, and its also not a simple game engine, recent games feel rushed becaused not a lot of UE5 games are out yet (except indie horror games surprisingly), so my guess is that AAA studios are completely skipping optimization just to release games fast before UE5 becomes a standard. I think weā€™ll see better games in the future after the first rush, but itā€™s defintelty not an issue on the UE side (just my opinion)

2# They are also lying about Naniteā€™s performance

That one is interesting, Epic never lied about the Nanite perfs, they said itā€™s a new feature to allow near infinite amount of polygons rendered on screen optimized by the system and also reduce draw calls, and theyā€™re right, Nanite is incredible and allows super high quality models which removes the need for a normal map (which in my experience is more expansive than Nanite). Of course itā€™s going to be less performant than traditional LODs, no matter the number of triangles since the system is the same, and honestly for 1ms I wonā€™t complainā€¦

Itā€™s called not optimizing meshes for affordable GPUs

Again, affordable GPUs can easily handle Lumen and Nanite with reasonable performance, I had a 3060 laptop and was able to run UE5 with no issues (except the massive tech demos). And also next-gen hardware is affordable if you look at Nvidiaā€™s 3060 or 4060, or AMD which is even cheaper. But again UE5 is a next-gen engine and studios that choose to use UE5 probably donā€™t care about an old 1080. Gamers will have to switch to a newer GPU at some point, I believe thereā€™s a slow transition in hardware happening if you look at Steamā€™s database.

Not everyone wants mushy games.

And not everyone wants ugly 300 poly models and baked lighting, itā€™s time to evolve. Thereā€™s always going to be two sides fighting but the truth is that UE5 is meant for the future, and their current formula suits a lot of developers, so if a minority doesnā€™t like it the engine will move on without them.

3 Likes

so if a minority doesnā€™t like it the engine will move on without them.

I donā€™t see it as a minority issue, I think itā€™s a serious problem that games and studios are saying ā€œgames can only look good with smeary frame blenders onā€

Saying a game looks good Path Tracing while turning into mush is an oxymoron.
Epic is not the only ones doing this, but they are definitely giving more strength to this horrible future of games.

And not everyone wants ugly 300 poly models and baked lighting, itā€™s time to evolve

The thing is, you are over simplifying the problem. Youā€™re acting like 300 polys or 5 million poly meshes are the only choice when that exact exaggeration is what is causing the problem.
Itā€™s about overdraw.

That is efficient and reasonable, with assets using a logical poly count, RT effects like RT AO and Shadows become way more reasonable. Nanite is not the answer to the investment issues of common sense based assets.

and baked lighting, itā€™s time to evolve

We are devolving, MGSV and 8 year old game with a highly dynamic world comprised mostly of static objects(like most games today) had interpolated baked lighting for every hour of the day and dynamic objects were lit similarly to UEā€™s volumetric lightmaps(which btw, doesnā€™t have interpolation available)

UEā€™s newest designs were made for lazy, cheap studios. I donā€™t have a problem with trying to archive that but they shouldnā€™t make workflows that HURT and deprive gamers of BASIC standards like clarity during gameplay, reasonable input lag and 60fps.


Separate issue: You said this:

And also next-gen hardware is affordable if you look at Nvidiaā€™s 3060 or 4060 or AMD which is even cheaper. But again UE5 is a next-gen engine and studios that choose to use UE5 probably donā€™t care about an old 1080.

When my last post literally said this:

Iā€™m not talking about GTX cards/equivalents, when I say affordable, I mean GPUs as in $300-400(which is a lot in this economy) which have released within the last 4 YEARS.

Released 4 years ago, not GTX cards, around $300-400: Same exact cards you mentioned.

1 Like

Saying a game looks good while Path Tracing while turning into mush is an oxymoron.

Alright well, the only games Iā€™ve seen using Path Tracing are insanely good quality and I donā€™t see what mush youā€™re talking about, Iā€™m specifically talking about Alan Wake 2 and the new Cyberpunk.

Epic is not the only ones doing this, but they are deffenienyl giving more strength to this horrible future of games.

I feel like you are just hating the technology, it has issues YES, but the issues you are pointing are irrelevant.

We have enough GPU power to go over 300 poly and not enough for 5 million and/or Nanite pretending to solve the 5 million tris

But we have enough power for over a billion, Nanite is not pretending to solve over 5M polygons, it does solve it, and I donā€™t see whatā€™s wrong with it.

We need basic logic on each asset, if itā€™s small, it shouldnā€™t need 5 millions tris, we need to compute just enough geometric detail and let textures/shaders take on the rest.

Again, Nanite does just that, it renders only whatā€™s needed, of course a pebble doesnā€™t need a million tris but with Nanite it can have enough geometry to avoid using OLD, DEPRECATED texturing and expansive shaders.

UEā€™s newest designs were made for lazy, cheap studios.

I guess that proves my point, youā€™re just a hater, UEā€™s newest designs are meant for films, virtual production, and new generation games, the studios that use them are studios that chose the future instead of looking at the past, I donā€™t think AAA studios are moving to Unreal just because they are lazy, itā€™s economically a better choice, the technologies available are great and improve the visual fidelity as well as developement time, having easier tools is not laziness, itā€™s evolution.

but they shouldnā€™t make workflows that HURT and deprive gamers of BASIC standards like clarity during gameplay, reasonable input lag and 60fps.

I donā€™t see whatā€™s hurting gamers with UE workflows, games can clearly achieve 60 fps and relatively good input lag as shown in Fortnite, and the UE5 games I know are mostly non-competitive cinematic games, and they run well using some of the big features of UE5.

Currently, UE5 is perfectly able of providing 60 fps with reasonable upscaling and relatively unnoticable blurriness on ā€œcheapā€ hardware, and I only see it imroving in the future.

I honestly donā€™t know what to say, thereā€™s no right or wrong here, UE5 is mostly production ready and Iā€™ve been using it for production since the very first Early Access. The technologies available (Lumen, Nanite, VSM and TSR) are working fine and can provide a 60 fps experience with some tweaking, and yes there are some issues, Nanite on masked materials is quite expansive and VSM are also very expansive with something like a time of day system, but on my current hardware (RTX 4070), Iā€™m not noticing a huge fps or ms impact. There is room for improvement, but saying itā€™s ā€œpretendingā€ to handle billions of tris at 60 fps is just refusing the truth.

I donā€™t know what you expect with your complaints but honestly I donā€™t care, I originally just replied for fun because reading the entire thing was funny, but I only see it looping over and over again and I donā€™t want to be a part of this threadā€™s ā€œsucessā€

Iā€™m using UE5 how it is, and I have no issues with it currently, so Iā€™ll leave you and all the other people that complain about the engine talk about how wrong we are.

5 Likes

Alright well, the only games Iā€™ve seen using Path Tracing are insanely good quality and I donā€™t see what mush youā€™re talking about, Iā€™m specifically talking about Alan Wake 2 and the new Cyberpunk.

Iā€™m saying no matter how ā€œgoodā€ a game looks, it pointless for it to look like mush.

I feel like you are just hating the technology, it has issues YES, but the issues you are pointing are irrelevant.

Temporal smearing, insane noise, lumen flickering are not pointless issues. You are just complacent with the crap standards.

But we have enough power for over a billion, Nanite is not pretending to solve over 5M polygons, it does solve it, and I donā€™t see whatā€™s wrong with it.

NO, Nanite is not some magical wand. I guess this proves my point. You ignore the both the Nanite test thread and 60fps UE5 games monitoring thread.

I guess that proves my point, youā€™re just a hater

The whole way Epic makes money with is by attracting large studios ran by companies that are focus on maximum returns and I said I had nothing against Epic Games logical advertisement of easy workflows. It doesnā€™tā€™ matter if Epic designed UE5 workflows to save money and speed up development, it does and and gamers are paying for it.

I donā€™t see whatā€™s hurting gamers with UE workflows, , games can clearly achieve 60 fps and relatively good input lag as shown in Fortnite

60fps is pointless when it looks like mush and 30fps with amazing visuals is pointless for a game that needs interactivity. WE not need to sacrifice both when we already HAD Both.

I donā€™t want to be a part of this threadā€™s ā€œsucessā€

No gamer or passionate developer will ever thank your complacency with extreme issues in modern games. Nothing about this thread is offensive or funny. I will proudly be a part of this thread if it pushes for BETTER engine that gamers can benefit from. You clearly do not care if that happens.

EDIT: This thread got 3 more votes in one day, it is people like you guys who vote that get us a better tomorrow for games. The people who vote, who take action are 10 times more powerful than any negative and lazy comment that comes around to troll the mission and basic logical sense this thread stands for.

1 Like

Iā€™m gonna reply one last time because I need to set things clear, Iā€™m a firm believer that Unreal Engine 5 is an awesome engine for what I do with it and what I play that uses the engine. I donā€™t care about haters or ā€œreviewersā€ that try to prove me wrong with data that has no real evidence of anything going wrong. I am comfortable with how the industry is going and Iā€™m looking towards the future instead of looking back. Iā€™m no professional, and I donā€™t care about provinding data, if it works, great, if people donā€™t like that it works, donā€™t care, Iā€™m out of this thread.

3 Likes

Deleted comment, meant to post here:

It is true that chaos is not very performant. But i hope they will fix this in the future. I cannot get stable 240 hz chaos ticks with 20 cars in my project. its just the amount of rigid bodies and worst case in my ā€œsimpleā€ game i have 20+ rigid bodies at the same time in my game world, either cars or smackable objects. I need the high hz for the tire and suspension simulation. it is not even nearly possible to simulate soft tire in this engine in the current state. but futureversions may make some dreams come true.

Iā€™m hearing rumors about thread parallelization and bindless resource support coming to UE5.4 possibly giving UE some performance boost. If we do get a finally get big performance improvement, this will be a big win for the threads goal.

Innovations that would benefit developers and players would to have optional visibility rendering for opaque objects(since that does help performance) without any Naniteā€™s admitted overhead: Nanite performance is not better than LODS [TEST RESULTS]. Fix your documentation Epic. You're ruining games. - #36 by TheKJ

Straight from the creator of Nanite.

The primary reason to use lower resolution Nanite meshes is to save on disk space. The performance of lower poly meshes may not be intuitive or like you are used to. Commonly that wonā€™t improve perf. Sometimes it can even be slower. YMMV.

  • ^^From Brian Karis himself, from this comment.

  • Self accumulating effects that donā€™t need TAA accumulation to resolve properly.

  • Better, much more intelligent LOD-detail baking workflows that use the full GPU and CPU,

  • Aggressive caching and systems that would benefit most game scenarios(such as mainy static objects that make up the scene).

  • Updated AA methods and maybe even checkerboard rendering from here

There are plenty of plugins that slow down or remove ticking of actors that are too far or not visible. Tick Optimization Toolkit, for example.

Meanwhile, Robocop: Rogue City came out, it uses both Nanite and Lumenā€¦ and it looks and performs great. And this is from a small studio.
Weird, right?

1 Like