You know in Unity you can bevel edges with the shader. Oh yeah…
I don’t know what just happened, but i switched to my tv as a monitor that does 1920x1080… Not only is it more resolution… but somehow the fps went up. im now getting like 40-50fps with lumen… and 60 fps with lumen disabled… wtf???
Previously if i looked off at the sky it would give me a massive fps dip , but now that dip is non existant as well… any idea what thats about?
i prefer actual curvature 
for the vert colors.
1 Like
r.screenpercentage ups the fps on the 980 to like 70-80 fps in this scene if i lower it to 50 or 75… problem is it has massive artifacts with the borders of nanite and non nanite geometry like the outline of my character as i move around. The artifacts are there for 1920x1080 as well but less. Any ideas about what those are?
In fact r.screenpercetage seems ot make everything look like its the same exact maxed out resolution… just adds massive artifacts to any movement when i lower it… any idea what that is?
about the tv that was 1920x1080… frame rate boost because its native 1280x720… lower then the monitor… even though it says 1920… basically thats where the weird additional boost came from.
Well everyone i setup the menu system ProMainMenuV3 from the unreal market.
So far testing… i got this sucker running at the 1680x1050 at like 70-80 fps with global illumination set to high using lumen… with nanite running and lumen… its quite impressive what epic has been able to do… this is all on the GTX 980 computer. Kind of in disbeleif here that it runs this well! I’d try higher resolution but i dont have an extra monitor at higher resolution to hook up to that pc at the moment.
Well, first off, look at this. <— Nanite is a horrible perf wise for dynamic scenes.
(scenes with Lumen and VSMs).
Nanite might render a bigger scene faster than optimized LODs. But literally everything else like VSMs, and Lumen will spike your scene by 1.5ms just by enabling Nanite in your scene.
-
Nanite renders meshes faster–One step foward.
-
VSM’s and Lumen (the most important features for photorealism) spike 6x times the the poly render savings Nanite provided you.-Two (really Four or Five) step backwards.
If you want a photorealistic scene, with Lumen, and VSMs that will be performant via 60fps on all current gen gpu venders(below 40 series):
Then look no further for detail my friend.
Use this bump offset node with optimized poly meshes with LODs.
Far cheaper than Nanite. (BP link has video explaining the origins)
It’s not real parallax occlusion (which raises the actual texture, causing the GPU to work harder, It may even spike VSM’s and Lumen like Nanite).
According to the UE documentation. It’s very cheap. And I think for most games, Its a perfect middle ground for peft and wow factor detail wise.
Epic should have used this (with realistic, sensible LODs) over Nanite for their Lumen mode.
1 Like
Like i said i got my scene running a gtx 980… the first dx12 card available. And yes it uses lumen and virtual shadow maps.
I think your forgetting the added benefit of nanite of not really having to worry about draw calls anymore… not to mention the extremely cheap vertex shader allowing you to do crazy stuff in your materials for faster .
Perhaps your not adjusting lumen settings and just running it all on high quality. It looks the same at lower quality settings.
This entire thread it my response to you’re comment.
Now with the 5.3 update that includes nanite tesselation, which performs better, displacement with nanite tesselation or parallax occlusion mapping?
Since the nanite tessellation is physical geometry, you are going to get better/proper lighting and none of that parallax-projection-plane stuttering (since it’s not geo, just an approximation).
Nanite tessellation is just-better; go with that.
This, at least, LOOKS impressive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PPiVMvIAAY (the circuit board is pretty impressive)
1 Like
nanite tesselation, which performs better
NANITE performs WORSE than simply optimizing your scene.
And stupidly, we are limited to Nanite when comes to certain features.
1 Like
stop being a debbie downer. Nanite is awesome. Not having to worry about draw calls is awesome. No need to do instanced static meshes… everything gets culled properly… just drag and drop and it works great.
We are trying to figure out now if nanite tesselation is faster then parallax. No one cares about your opinion on how good nanite is overall.
Not sure you even realize that we are talking about a new subject. nanite TESSSELATION… new feature. As in bringing back the old tesselation via materials.
1 Like
just drag and drop and it works great.
No, Its hurting gamers and raster performance because developers with your mindset are slapping on Nanite instead of optimizing the meshes with LODs.
Actually LOOK and READ the data I and others have already showed.
DATA is not bias.
LODs via baking in detail and managing your scenes draw call will allow you and your players better perf.
I get that Nanite saves time, but it’s also a kick in the face gamers.
We need something better that can benefit players and developers.
1 Like
I totally agree. Nanite is becoming a real pain in the butt on the marketplace, for instance.
Some vendors are more careful, and offer both formats. But most just think clicking that checkbox makes good assets.
Sure, there are cases where you might need high poly models, but it’s not yet time to jump into the Nanite abyss without a care…
You’re basically cutting about 70% of your potential players out of the equation.
1 Like
I find it sad how much people flip their **** when anyone mentions Nanite isn’t God’s gift to optimizing and rendering.
What is with peoples insanity with Nanite?
Like look at this post: Reddit - Dive into anything
I’ll quote my Edit:
EDIT: I went to bed with this post at the TOP with 80 upvotes and with positive and agreeing comments.
I wake up the next morning, this is downvoted to hell, with personal insults, unrelated content from my profile. Then and complete ignorance and insanity when I show Nanite has WORSE performance vs optimizing .
The ignorance and blatant engine developer agenda this post received was atrocious.
Downvoted to 15 as of this edit.
I’ll let this be a lesson for anyone reading.
People come up with all these excuses that don’t matter.
When you actually test Pre-Nanite day scenes with properly optimized with LODs and actually game ready base meshes. And then slap on Nanite on that same scene, anyone can watch the perf drop. Why the heck did I have to show it to people?
People act like my test aren’t good enough. When the fact is, it is. Because it raises initial concern, enough concern to prompt them to do better test, one that would satisfy them. Why the heck am I designated the “test dude” now?
But nobody wants to be legit anymore when it comes to making their game worth buying for people.
Just elitist market or who people who don’t care about temporal upscaling motion artifacts.
1 Like
Trouble is, there’s a lot of people who just want to put everything that’s absolutely bleeding edge into their product, thinking it’s going to make it better.
They want the biggest landscape you can possibly have ( why can’t it be even bigger?! ), with a totally realistic ocean, ideally on a totally real planet in a totally real universe, where you can really fly from one planet to another, everything has to be Nanite with Lumen, with super anti-aliasing, and metahumans wandering everywhere, no doubt able to hold conversations, using AI… ( and so on, to infinity ).
If someone’s’ going to make a crap game, having the largest landscape possible with the most high poly meshes, amazing lighting, which takes out the neighborhood streetlights when you boot it up, is not going to save you. It will just be a crap game that uses a lot of resources.
They have no idea, that you can quite easily make the player think this sort of thing is going on, without even 5% of the resources, just using clever shortcuts and everything that was already available in UE4.
They don’t understand all these new things are tools that you might use. It’s not compulsory
I’m sure Nanite will be the default, and be great, in the end, over time, when everybody, including all the players out there, have jumped up to the next generation of GPUs. But right now, it isn’t quite there.
I think Lumen’s going to get there first. It does look great, and is a pretty good take on static lighting.
1 Like
IMO we are all forgetting the fact that software will always demand more from hardware. It’s absurd to blame the tool for its misuse.
Would also like to know performance / memory comparissons but don’t have time to set up the assets to test.
4 Likes
My problem is you are hijacking my thread away from my question because you have a grievance with epic. I don’t care about your grievance. I have questions and im posting on the forums to get them answered.
I appreciate the tests you run, but I’m happy with nanites performance. It runs great on a gtx 980. Thats my baseline. Now how about we get back to my questions… ill update this thread if i run any new tests with tesselation in 5.3 that was just added.
POM/Nanite aren’t very easy to directly compare but my opinion is that Nanite strikes a much better quality/performance balance than POM does.
POMs cost is variable, it depends on the camera angle and how many steps you’re using. Getting quality similar to Nanite requires using PDO with contact shadows which adds some additional cost, and introduces more aliasing into an already heavily aliased effect.
If you’re seriously looking at POM I would suggest you look into Relaxed Cone Step Mapping as a potential alternative. It requires precomputation and additional texture memory but it produces better results at lower step counts.
Fundamentally though since these are material effects you’re going to have material effect problems, parallax won’t look right on the horizon of curved surfaces or along the seams of the sharp edges of a mesh. For this reason, even before Nanite, I was of the opinion that it was best to simply model more geometry into LOD0 instead of relying on POM/RCSM.
As far as Nanite goes, it provides much better quality without the aliasing of POM, LOD popping, and does so while also largely decoupling the rendering cost from the scene complexity which is a huge benefit on its own.
I haven’t yet done much testing with the new Nanite tessellation so I can’t really comment on that. When it was first added I built the engine from source, and the performance cost of the tessellation was pretty steep, especially on landscapes. I don’t know if that has been improved or not.
3 Likes