I’ve been trying to get Nanite to work with the assets from Quixel bridge but the quality seems really subpar. I’m wondering if I’m doing something wrong. I’ve tried turning nanite on/off on the assets and when I turn it off the asset still looks terrible but it shows it has 2 million polygons in the content browser. Once I enable Nanite, the content browser reports that it has 2000 polygons. I have the 8K textures and maps applied to the material.
Is this an issue with UE5 or are assets really just that low quality?
Did you select Nanite quality before downloading the asset in Bridge? Other than that, I would think maybe they are still working on processing their assets, or it could be a faulty one (might be worth reporting it to Quixel). I’ve come across the same problem with some of the assets, specifically the Nordic Beach ones. Also, the polygon count you see when you activate Nanite is for the proxy mesh and not the one Nanite is actually using.
It is interesting you are seeing this, when I go close to the rocks in the UE5 EA demo “Vallye of the Ancient” this is the same sort of low quality I see in the assets (only up close though)
From a distance and where they are probably supposed to be viewed from they look amazing… up close they look (as my son put it)… 90’s quality LOL.
And this was on a 3090RTX, i9 with 64Gb ram (and high speed M.2 drive)
I think there is probably a lot of optimization and quality improvements to happen yet as it is only the first EA release.
It’s a bit odd honestly. The promise of mega scans and photogrametry assets is much better detail. Combine that with nanite and things should be taking a leap forward in graphical quality and yet traditional assets from years ago look far crisper and better up close and far away.
At the moment it seems like we’re throwing all kinds of amazing technology to handle assets that really are just really badly optimized rather than being genuinely high quality.
Have you guys figured out a solution for this?
When I first started making my scene, the nanite meshes from megascans were excellent quality.
now some look terrible up close, while others look fine, even when they’re from the same collection.
its a pretty basic scene, and I’m a beginner so I’m not doing anything advanced - but also I’m a beginner so IDK what I might have messed up.
I seem to have the same issue. To be fair I’m new to this and have no idea what I’m doing, but I just wanted to let you know I’m also seeing very low-quality Quixel assets.
I’m assuming that “production lighting” is build > lighting quality > production?
I just gave that a try, and rebuilt lighting (and pretty much everything else, for good measure), and the problem still persists. As you can see in my previous screenshots, the nanite LOD issue seems to only affect certain meshes in the scene - one mesh will have very high quality mesh and texture, but the mesh right next to it will have terrible quality texture and very low poly. It doesn’t seem to be an issue with the mesh itself since other people have mentioned that dropping in another instance of the same mesh may not have the same issue.
I don’t see how it could be a lighting issue, since its affecting both texture and geometry, but nanite+lumen is pretty sophisticated so as a beginner there is lots I don’t see lol.
do you have any other suggestions that could remind UE that these are nanite meshes and not just low-quality static meshes?
I am also experiencing this issue after the 5.0 update- all of my nanite meshes on one map have become a very low quality. Is there a place to make edits to a map’s nanite settings? Perhaps this could be an issue of the engine automatically implementing artificially low settings
So glad it’s not just me. Having this same problem. Some people suggested changing to dx12 mode for Windows. I’m on Mac unfortunately so that won’t work for me. Hoping Epic addresses this.
25/05/22 - this just started happening yesterday for me. I’ve been downloading and placing Quixel assets in a very simple scene using Bridge and see two very different results for similar assets, both full nanite res, and what appears to be textures set to 128 square. Having checked previous comments (thanks to all) I have: RHI set to DX12 with SM6, checked res is set to nanite in Bridge before download, built lighting as production, also r.ForceLOD 0 and r.Raytracing.NormalBias 1.5 in console. Also yelled a lot
UE is 5.0.1-19764885+++UE5+Release-5.0 Bridge is 2022.0.3 and up to date. Any further suggestions really appreciated!
If your r.streaming.poolsize is set too low. If you’re using 8k textures you’ll probably run out of memory quick without increasing that.
If textures got imported as Virtual Textures (they will say VT), while your master material is setup for non-virtual. There will also be an error in the material. You can open them and uncheck streaming virtual texture.
If it’s the mesh showing as low poly, then DX12 is probably not enabled, which is required for Nanite, so it’s showing proxy meshes instead.
@Astaraa - thank you, the first two of those solved this. Setting the textures to non-virtual exposed a low poolsize, so that needed fixing too. I hope UE and Quixel are able to smooth this process out a little at some point. Although it doesn’t appear to be a major problem - once somebody shows you the solution! - it is a bit of a hassle and reduces productivity. Thanks again though, I now know what to look for in future.
Yes, you can go into the master material, and change each texture to a virtual texture. Then Virtual options will show up under Sampler Type. Change Color to Virtual Color, Normal to Virtual Normal, etc.
But I wouldn’t do it unless you need the memory.
VT costs more GPU in exchange for saving memory.
It’s a bug that there’s no way to stop Quixel from importing VT if we have VT enabled.
As someone said VT isn’t a replacement, but an option that allows us to do other things, like use huge textures.
