Put it way if you make an upgrade, you can spend $400 US on current PC just replace CPU and graphics card with some RAM.
you are getting a 10 million dollar Engine after all whats $400 bucks.
Thank you for your answer. I’ve some doubts about game engine. Does Nvidia PhysX sucks on Ati? Can I develop on ATI for both ATIs and Nvidias? Is UScript slow as many say?
PhysX is CPU based in UE4.
That means it runs all operations on the CPU, it does not matter what video card you use as the video card does not run the simulation. Even if you have a nVidia card, UE4 does not use it for PhysX. So don’t worry about that point, it is irrelevant in UE4 (your game will work the same on both ATI or NVIDIA). 
Other programs that use PhysX are GPU based, but not UE4.
Also UScript is not used in UE4, they have switched to visual scripting through Blueprints, which compile down into machine code. It is not as fast a raw C++ code, but the difference is so small you most likely will never see the difference.
Thank you. But, how can I know if my game will be suitable for “home PCs” and not “extreme gaming PCs”. Have I to avoid physically bades shading, particoular lights etc?
Keep in mind UDK is sold as is, meaning it’s no longer being actively developed. UE4 is the fully supported engine with the better licensing deal in most cases.
As as for the tech issues you are reading about, you have to know more than is likely knowable about how things were built, what was intended and what went wrong. Both are easy/cheap to get hold of so grab them both and test out what your trying to produce and make a decision from there. All the forum claims about performance etc is likely to be based on specific set up and expectation gaps and may not be relevant to you at all.
You can scale the editor and your game to any level of performance.
Tappy Chicken is a 2d game created with UE4 that can run on almost any computer out there, total size of 15mb to download. The fact the engine can produce a game so small and light on resources should tell you a lot about how well you can adjust the performance to your own needs.
UE4 can do everything UDK can do, faster better and simpler. You can make games for any target audience, it is as simple as changing the editor from high to medium to low. Plus with UE4 you are future proofing yourself, UDK is no longer developed, UE4 is in active development and will be for the foreseeable future.
UDK documentation contains very nice functions such as “drop flag”, “spawn” etc. In UE4, are these functions avalaible or have I to build them from scratch?
UE4 is the successor to UDK, meaning that UE4 was built upon a similar framework.
There is not much you can’t do in UE4 that was possible in UDK, but in reverse there is a lot that UDK can not do in comparison to UE4.
Yes both of those are in UE4, Please have a look at the documentation if you need more examples.
All I can do is recommend you to give it a try, UE4 can do anything UE3 (UDK = UE3) can do and much more.
Today’s average PC will be today’s high end PC in the 2+ years it will take you to finish the game. It will take you 1 year alone to learn the engine and related apps. Quit wasting time, get UE4 and start learning!
Hey friend you are discouraging me!
So, if Unreal Engine 4 has a beautiful documentation and I need 1+ year to learn, how many centuries do I need to learn CryENGINE that has got an horrible documentation? 
I think at point UE4 is better.
Talking about other softwares to work with, CryENGINE community told me only Maya and 3DS are suitable for that engine. UE4 natively supports FBX. Can I export high-quality 3D contents from other softwares such as Cinema4D, MODO?
CryENGINE supports FBX only as static meshes. In UE4 can I import FBX as skeletal animations, and use them as high-performance actors in my game?
Dealing with texture, do I need Photoshop? Can I use other software?
Is UI built-in in UE4? Or do I have to use Adobe Flash Professional?
I seriously feel doubtful and undecided. UDK and UE4 have got Pros and Cons.
UDK
Pros:
-Plenty of written books (www.packtpub)
-Plenty of official and unofficial documentation
Cons:
-UnrealScript is 20x slower than C++
UE4
Pros:
-Many people say it’s easy to use
-Blueprint allow me a fast development
-Linux+Mac support too
Cons:
-Many people say Blueprint are 20x slower too
-I’m not an english native speaker and I don’t understand 100% of the official Youtube tutorials.
-Api documentatiom is untidy.
Can I use C++, by learning in the Wiki?
Thank you
To learn C++ you can
-follow the C++ tutorials in the wiki
-the C++ series on youtube: ?v=vtcWrcscXos&list=PLZlv_N0_O1gb5xvsc7VM7pfoRAKLuIcFi&index=1
-take a look at the existing scripts -> shooter game,…
-the documentation: .unrealengine/latest/INT/Programming/index.html
I personally recommend you to learn the C++ basics before you start programming in the UE4 -> you can find many good tutorials on youtube.
I think he is confusing UDK (UE3) and UE4, people new to game design might not realize they are seperate…
I have no idea why he added a link to an essay writing website though, that makes no sense
@ - UDK is Unreal Engine version 3, many of the concepts and tutorials for UDK are still relevant to Unreal Engine 4. Because UE4 has only really been available for 8 months, there aren’t as many tutorials yet, however that is changing every day, there are many user tutorials on youtube as well in other languages.
Basically it comes down to :
UE4 is the future, UDK/UE3 is for games that don’t need as much performance, and will have less people working in it in the future. If you are interested in making games (or going into the games industry) I would recommend UE4, it will be the engine used in university and colleges from now on. The documentation is actually really good here, there are also tutorials built into the engine to help you, and we are here to help you! If you ever have any problems just ask on the forums.
It was a type of spam. Just deleted his post 
Learning wise one could be a 10 year pro but will still need to learn new stuff. It is the nature of development of everything mistakes will be made. WD40 for example the 40 in the name is how many times it took to get the formula right.
When it comes to video games the buzz word is “iteration” where the ideal is to learn a solution with in the context of the problem that does not require one to learn all of the in and outs of a given application.
Performance wise there is a big difference between the development of a game verse the performance of a game as delivered where on the development side of things the more “resources” you have at your disposal the faster it is in getting the job done.
On the other hand if the concern is as to the performance of the game as a deliverable Valve has some very useful servery information.
://store.steampowered/hwsurvey
As a summary it’s clear that the bulk of the market is crying out for next generation games along with UE4’s focus on performance tuning of CPU and GPU resource requirements where video games using UE4 will out preform last generation games using the same hardware.
In my opinion is where I believe the difference between UDK and UE4 lies as the ideal would be to let the engine as a software solution handle the need for performance tuning and scaling on the client side rather than the developer having to be “overly” concerned by over optimizing as to the ideals of NextGen game development.
Better still.
Client side optimization should be a core plug-n-play , that’s already being done by all current AAA titles, and should be one last thing the developer has to worry about as to distribution to the largest market possible which is clear to me the “direction” UE4 is heading as compared to the limitations of UDK although a much more developed engine.
Well I have a question on , do you believe UE4 is that much better looking to warrant the performance trade off? Personally, bar improvements in lightmass and post, there isn’t much in it. Also UE3 had a decent FR path, where UE4 excels most is usability and for an Indie that’s a prime requirement. Don’t get me wrong, UE4 is better all round but UE3 is still better in some areas…
I would say the ease of use, PBR materials, C++ source code, blueprints, etc, are all bigger reasons to use UE4, with the better graphics being the cherry on top.
PBR is just shader stuff, C++ or anything is better than what UE3 used, BP’s is a welcome improvement on Kismet… So of course I agree, I wasn’t a fan of UDK or Unreal 3 personally. UE4 is hitting the home run, but UE3 still had it’s pro’s as said a decent FR path and it was a lot lighter on it’s feet. I suppose UE4 will be optimised over time, baking static lighting would always be the best way to go in terms of performance. Just a difficult thing to pull off in sandbox games, especially if someone mutters the word TOD.
A tricky question as there will always be two sides to the same coin.
Are you talking development or are you talking client side?
If you analyze Valves stats it’s clear client side gamers as a majority will always migrate via hardware upgrades as to advancement in technology long before improvements in game design in general is even made available. That’s to say you should be more focused on what should be available as an educated guess as to what will happen four years from now rather than whats available today.
Development side there will always be trade offs and decisions that needs to be made and performance is a case of cause and effect that can be solved on the development side of things via investment in resources necessary to complete the task.
Observation wise I just upgrade from 16 gigs to 32 gigs and noticed a marked improvement in performance as to lightmap compiling times that as a client is not a necessary upgrade.
In general our group did not decide to move development of our design to UE4 because of performance improvements but because of the modular design of yet just another game engine that adds a lot more unrestricted options as part of the overall development process.
That’s not to say performance is not an but a top down modular approach means you can defer the “issue” to when it matters and not waste a lot of time as to bottom up fit-to-finsh requirements.
I agree, but as a commercial developer I always get the feeling I start cutting off portions of the market if requirements keep exceeding. Sure we are on the precipice of a new engine and tech, as time goes by the engine will be better optimised and hardware will improve.
I’d be very interested to see how Fable legends fair, whilst I gather it’s a smaller game than ours the premise is the same and probably sets the bar of quality… Some of the demo’s I’ve sent out (Epic’s and our own) have not faired very well to be honest, whereas our CryEngine demos with a scene much larger and intricate run fluid. I didn’t spend that much time with UE3 or UDK so I never got the to fully test it. All I can go by is games made in UE3 on PC like mass effect etc.