And that wasn’t at full screen yet.
What card do you have ? GTX1080 ?
They’re different companies.
Crytek tend to create an engine that works incredibly well right out of the box i.e dynamic GI as you mentioned, when enabling it in a forest you might notice a ~10 FPS difference in most cases if not less, because the engine was built for real time purpose. “Real Time All The Time”. They believe creating such tech is more valuable than many other useless features. But the engine isn’t as open as UE4 and lacks in many other aspects as a result.
Epic on the other side, tends to create tons of features just for the sake of having them. They might not work as they should, might stop receiving support/updates pretty quickly i.e volumetric lighting is not receiving updates anymore despite having room for improvements. Epic tends to use workarounds and tricks to improve performance instead of optimizing the engine from ground up i.e they’d try to not use more than just a few dynamic lights and if they do use ~10 dynamic lights, they try to cull them pretty quickly, but in one crysis level you can have like 3000 dynamic lights (crysis 3 for reference). Epic believes having a bit of everything helps their business best and the rest of it doesn’t matter. But UE4 is more open compared to cryengine and that’s one major reason people prefer this engine over that one. We’re using UE4 for the same reason, it’s easy to use and some of it’s tools make life easier, but like I said, a lot of it’s features, it’s dynamic lighting, it’s open world support, generally many art related features just hit us in the face every now and then i.e you can’t really call an engine AAA engine if you still don’t support local Image Based Lighting in 2018, but hey, it is what it is.
You’re not going to be able to change neither crytek nor epic, not their engines. UE4 is built for static lighting, and dynamic lighting is more of a small DLC if that makes sense. And the answer to “Why they don’t work on a real time GI solution instead of RTX” is, they don’t want a real time GI solution. Part of it is because the engine like I said, was built for static lighting and it’s already struggling with handling 10 dynamic lights, you can’t add the cost of dynamic GI to that.
Why did I write all this? 
GTX 970 OCed.
Well that’s kinda sad. I hope UE5 will be built with dynamic rendering in mind. At this point I wouldn’t mind using static lighting in my project, but I have so many assets that creating a lightmap for them and reimporting them all would be a major waste of time. Maybe VXGI 2.0’s performance will be improved with updates.
10ms on GTX970 isn’t that bad actually. Obviously, nVidia wants to sell their new cards, so they won’t be making solutions that will run on what is now 4 years old hardware. GTX 1080Ti for example is about 150% faster. That’s 2.5 GTX970s. So what’s 10ms on GTX970 is 3-4ms on GTX1080Ti and may be around 2ms on their next generations of cards. While even 2ms may still be considerable amount for games, realtime GI is an incredibly useful addition when it comes to cinematic and visualization purposes.
Visualization, VFX and cinematic people are perfectly fine with 24FPS. Realtime GI removes a LOT of roadblocks. For example without it, it’s pretty much impossible to create interior visualization with daytime timelapse.
Thats maybe true but what about cryengines SVOTI? SVOTI is just not that performance hungry as VXGI, the solution is not to get bigger and better cards for VXGI, they simply need to improve VXGI. I’m not a programmer and i understand that dynamic GI is a very large high end topic, not easy to handle but cryteks SVOTI shows that there are ways to realize it.
I think that SVOTI is faster because it’s a bit lower detail/quality than VXGI. That being said, I don’t disagree it would be great to have faster, more usable realtime GI like Cryengine has, at the expense of some GI quality. I would love to have that.
What I wrote was just my thoughts on the reason why VXGI performs the way it does. nVidia is not looking at a present, on the cards they have already sold. They are looking in the future, at their future products they yet have to manufacture and sell, and they want to use their software research to maximize the value and profit they make out of their hardware sales in the future.
For viz, it’s wonderful. For gaming, can’t demand everyone to be equipped with a +1000$ card, to be able to see GI in a $60 game.
Taking a few steps back and looking at this again, I don’t think nvidia’s intention was to present VXGI for game use either, we just thought it is something they’re working on for games, we thought wrong. They’re not working on these features for gaming market, same as Epic with their RTX.
And thats the sad part about all this, no matter how amazing RTX or VXGI is, it’s not for games at all. It’s like all this copmanys are loosing focus on game developemnt “tools”.
RTX is meant for the developer. I have 3 computers together networked… all i7 taking 8 hours to build lighting for my level… im salivating over here for rtx…the idea of instantly seeing what my lighting will look like instead of waiting over night and praying it looks good… is just what i need as a developer…
Maybe one day it will be for more mainstream games, but for now its an important development feature… Will save thousands of man hours.
Vxgi 2.0 work kepler ???
Running the “Setup.bat” gives me this:
Checking dependencies (excluding Mac, Android, Linux)…
Updating dependencies: 17% (0/234), 0.4/2.0 MiB | 0.06 MiB/s…
Failed to download ‘http://cdn.unrealengine.com/dependencies/UnrealEngine-3806814-f624a67e47784f4686bc261b5bcef57e/496b0bf214a47703db4b9b53062e5aa79e8bec2f’: The specified path, file name, or both are too long. The fully qualified file name must be less than 260 characters, and the directory name must be less than 248 characters. (PathTooLongException)
Press any key to continue . . .
Anybody know what to do about that…?
Put your engine folder in a shorter path.
Did you try the gpu lightmass ? https://forums.unrealengine.com/development-discussion/rendering/1460002-luoshuang-s-gpulightmass
GPU Lightmass is great, much faster than the traditional Lightmass. And the quality is better. But it’s not updated for 4.20 yet and looks like we’ll have to wait untill 4.21 or even longer.
“For 4.20, unfortunately no…
We are targeting future releases to give you a fully functional, vender agnostic and bug-free (especially darken corners, jagged edges and incorrect bounces, etc.) version to use.”
Would it be possible to implement voxel based global illumination like in Cryengine ?
Thee is VGI in Armory engine
Try to guess what VXGI is?
Is that really the case though? Or is it that the games market isn’t ready yet for mainstream dynamic GI, but people refuse to acknowledge it?
Hardware simply isn’t at the level it needs to be yet to deliver this on a widespread level, and therefore it’s not worth focusing on. DGI is still bleeding edge tech, and games which implement it have bespoke solutions that are massively tailored to that project. Unreal has to power hundreds of thousands of projects - but the advantage is that we DO have the source code available so we CAN tailor it.
If folks want to design games around Dynamic GI and/or other bleeding-edge tech, hire a rendering engineer.