I DID the TEST.
And Epic Games keeps promoting Nanite like it’s to God’s gift to rendering meshes.
If FN and City Sample perform the same, that is a clear sign of a LACK of scene specific optimization.
Nanite should not be the way we “Optimize meshes”.
Hands down there is a smarter way.
(Working on the 5.3 LOD vs Nanite test)
EDIT:
A new test
With Nanite-10.4k triangles
And without Nanite, and very bad 5 LODs levels-3.5m tris.(That is a lot more than my other test). Both test where done with a 10,000 tris mesh.
What do the test results mean?
Yes, for high poly meshes scaled down to a reasonable size, Nanite will render faster.
But, if you were to optimize the mesh better, like baking in it’s detail, and creating hand made/more intelligent LODs(Not just crappy ones like I used in the test that half triangle count).
We would have much better performance than just slapping down Nanite.
And that is why Nanite is going to kick gamers in the face unless we innovate further about how we optimize meshes.
(In the original Nanite vs LOD test, I worked pretty hard on the LODs to make sure they stayed under 1m tris)
Like I’ve said before. Really feel like this is a job for AI. And I’m talking about this is for 100% static, environment meshes. Not moving objects. It’s almost the same workflow Nanite offers but benefits more people.
I see this as the answer so clearly to the problems developers face with time and money on LOD work but this also solves the problems gamers are having with such poor rasterization performance due to Nanites over-use/head.
The… performance overhead of Nanite? Are you crazy?
@Altrue Just noticed you are an engine contributor. Read my Nanite post. I am not some random single developer who knows this to be the truth. You are wrong about Nanite and you guys need to STOP revolving features around it.