Check your system performance, clean processes, who are using ram.
My firefox takes sometimes up to a gig with all those tabs and even skype raises from 30-600mb.
I have Ramrush(Freeware) running, but i do not use the autotweak option, but it shows me exactly, when i have to restart launcher and editor, before mess starts.
Important part is, that you have your cache on ssd, ue4 would be great there yes, but it is using so much space.
Check your system performance, clean processes, who are using ram.
Summary so far :
Finn’s computer :
FPS : fps 36 ms 24 Empty Level : Defined by creating new level, default grid floor and UE4 sky and light. Cannot even run Kite Demo.
2009 Mac Pro 2.66 Quad Core with 32GB Ram and an ATI Radeon HD 5770 1024MB. 1 TB SSD (solid state hard drive).
FPS of 220+ in a blank project with the default level, and about an average of 30 FPS while running the Kite Demo
i7 4790K 4.0 GHz CPU
GTX 980 Ti GPU
24GB 1866 MHz RAM
Mfgcasa recommends :
says " You should get +100 frames on a basic level."
Intel i5 core that runs at 3 Ghz or more.
960+ for 1080p game design. 980Ti for 4k development. with atleast 2GBs of HDDR 5.
RAM is 8gb to 16gb.(you don’t need more unless your making a movie, like lets say a Youtuber or Sony) Get DDR3 or 4… It really doesn’t matter which right now, yes DDR4 is more powerful, but its also more expensive.
FPS 120 in empty level
I have a windows 10, Asus Radeon EAH5870/2DIS/1GD5/A(buy it 6 years ago), z87-A motherboardand, i5-3.40GHZ, 16 ram DDR3 2400, ssd hard drive. Nothing spectacular.
FPS 120 in empty level
fps on my gtx 760ti too and had very good performance on my gtx 670 before too!!! The 760ti isn’t an expensive card!
£870, including VAT for i5 6600K, 16GB 2133MHz RAM, GTX 960 4GB and a 480GB SSD. Looking at the previous posts in this thread, this should run UE4 very well.
FPS 50 in empty level.
I have a 3.4GHz i5, no graphics card (i.e, the on-board Intel 4000 chip), and way more RAM than I need. I get 50fps in the “empty” level. Obviously not a “serious gamer” computer, but then again, I can run Skyrim on low settings and look over a vast landscape at 35-60 fps, or run Dark Souls just fine at 30+.
You need to remove VSync using the command “r.VSync 0”, and remove the FPS cap using “t.MaxFPS NEWMAX” (The max is usually 120).
Finn, you should try profiling the GPU with scalability settings at the lowest, their may be 1 main thing that your Mac is having trouble with. Also, you definitely don’t need any more than 16GB or RAM for just UE4, and could get by with 8GB (8 is the min specs for UE4, and wouldn’t be optimal, but can get you by), the only reason I have 24GB is because I wanted to have my RAM be proportional to my other specs, and Chrome loves to hog my RAM, plus RAM is pretty cheap now-a-days. To give you an idea, I’m pretty sure I don’t pass 16GB RAM with the Kite Demo running.
Trying to re-imagine what my game could look like, making it more illustrative like my drawings, trying some other tricks now to gain speed and take control of the overall look of my game, instead of relying solely on the Scalability settings. It’s somewhat depressing to turn on scalability and watch your game dwindle down to 1985 standards, not to get too Marty McFly and all.
So I’m playing with shadows, and my shaders heavily with this. Of course now when dealing with my shaders and it takes literally two minutes for the shader ball to show me what change I’ve made I realize it’s my crappy computer and no one else has to wait ten minutes for their shaders to re-compile every time they save their material out.
Sorry shader, material, using different terms in my 1985 throw back.
Good news, my son likes the new direction, and the frame rate for the first time, dipped into green territory. imagine that. Mind you I’m trying to do most of my development with those same scalability settings set to supa low. Yes, I just made up the supa low setting.
The trick I’m trying to come up with now, is to maybe not let people know they are in finn’s supa low render setting. I suppose I could get a new HP supa computer instead, (**** I have to stop reading Captain Underpants stories to my kids at night). The new HP workstations are pretty tempting, and I’m not saying eventually I won’t. However, I simply imagined this would be a game that kids who struggle with dyslexia in particular could play. That generally means kids struggling between 8-12 years old, who don’t own supa computers.
so i haven’t given up yet.
I’m looking at getting a new HP workstation. This advertisement on the HP site is great, but when i look at the HP store I cannot seem to find the system that i can keep expanding like this below. However to have a system that I could keep expanding to 24 CPU cores, 512 GB of memory, and 15 TB hard drive would be amazing.
but it all adds up fast. The idea is not to max out the system though, but have a system I can max out for years.
They look fantastic apart from the GPU; looking at the specs from the UK HP Store, they all use Intel graphics
That FPS,even with an empty project? So sad…
Here is my junk cost me 700 bucks.
Ultra low settings yield 110~ FPS,at most beatiful settings in same mediumish scene is 50~. FPS.
AMD Fx-8350 (yes,AMD forever)
4 GB 1600MHz RAM (definitely need more)
R7 260x 2 GB
Ok, my guess from the floating lantern image is that the terrain map there is big and probably has tight polys. If you could make a heightmap of it then minimise the polys of it, use blocking volumes in hills and obvious places, static meshes instead of multiple similar objects and zone things like that building interior, that should help. That said, I think this thread points at the main issue with UE now needing a pretty good pc to get performance. UE isn’t naturally suited for large outdoor areas I dare say so your FPS actually seems ok to me. Occlusion isn’t a lost art either I hope.
Edit: I see there are more images there, doesn’t really look like a terrain issue now but what else could the problem be? I made a very similar map myself years ago with just statics (0 terrain) with barely any slowdown at all, I want to remake that map in particular asap for the new UT. No idea about the performance issue here sorry, let us know if you solve it though Save the map off without the terrain and try that, if it is the issue it may be better to redo the terrain from scratch or from the heightmap if you don’t want to lose the existing layout, just less polys.
Thanks for responses. I am using a height map, and although it was suspect I remove it from the equation and still have the problems. The overall problem seems related to overall quality needed to generate UE4 imagery. So I turn my scalability settings down super low (all the way).
I am re-developing the overall look of my game because I want to control how the game looks, and what the experience is, not make something on a super high system and then listen as people react when they set it to low settings and find it looks awful.
With that in mind I’ve been taking some pretty extreme measures. I’ve been removing normal maps, reducing the sizes of my texture maps overall. If it doesn’t look good with the texture at 256, then i modify it more. I’m even purposely breaking shadows to see what the overall changes will be if an object has no shadows, but rather the appearance of shadows based on my paintings. So far that seems to be working, not sure it will work for everything, but it’s forced me to re-design overall my entire look.
In some ways this is actually good for me. I’m too attached to realism, even had grass in there at one point, but that’s my visual effects background talking, not my desire to make a game that kids without supercomputers can play.
It should be interesting to see how many texture maps I can reduce my game too as well, that’s my next step. See if i can play with my shaders, so that I can trick the eye into thinking there are many textures when often it’s the same lexture re-used.
The specs on the computers btw are deceptive. True I can get the HP Z computer and expand to 36 processors, and 2 tb of ram memory, and put the best graphics card in. What I did was “built” in my shopping cart a system that would equal if not be slightly better than the fully maxed out Mac Pro. The results are that the Mac Pro was somewhere around $11,000 dollars, and the HP Z I put together was around $6500 dollars.
The question though is how expandable is the HP Z. They say it’s fully expandable but looking at the system you have to swap the Chassis if you want the cores to go above a certain point, because the power supply on the higher end chassis is more , it’s like 750w vs 1250 watts for the slightly more expensive chassis. (advertisements by HP make it sound like for $2399 you can build the best 36 core 2TB system… which I call b.s. on. They mean if you keep sinking more money you can have the 2TB ram and 36 cores… many thousands of dollars later.)
so it’s complicated… trying to stick with my ratty old Mac Pro for now and just see how i can re-do this.
I feel like with your specs you should be getting noticeably higher frame rate, especially on the blank project.
I truly feel like there might be something else wrong with your system?
like bad drivers or malware or something. Have you investigated much external to UE4 much to see if maybe the problem stems from somewhere else?
e.g. reinstall drivers, ‘fix windows’, scan for malware, do performance and diagnostics checks, etc…
Landscape is pretty expensive…like almost 10 ms difference if you have long shadows stacked on top of it. Something we did for lost planet 3 was have a landscape mesh and a copy that we convert to static mesh…so if I need to edit the terrain i do it on the landscape and then convert again and toggle off the visibility of the landscape. It’s not an ideal workflow but often times in game dev you just do what it takes to make the game. The pitch of your directional light is another cost that often times goes under the radar since the lower the pitch the more shadow casting and also long huge expensive shadows. Speaking of shadows you will have to play with your cascaded distances and make sure they aren’t going too far at their highest quality. Exponential height fog is also very expensive and in all honesty you can get better results using fog sheets. The biggest GPU killers will always be shadows and over draw…its been that way for like a decade. If your game requires having some of these things then you have to design around them by cutting off view distances with hills and walls.
I started my current game with landscape in it …i saw the cost and yanked it immediately. Cost to benefit didn’t make sense to me, but that will obviously be different project to project. Keep us posted if you find anywhere else you can optimize!
Tiny Tanks Unblocked
@namrog : I am using an Apple system currently, so it’s been my clean system, no malware or problems of that nature. That kind of stuff happens on my Windows system (which is why if i get a new system I will mostly disable any internet connections unless I need them specifically).
@paingate : This is all good information. I am curious to know what kind of system specs you are working with. I am looking right now at HP workstations like we used at Imageworks, and trying to max out what I think I’m willing to pay right now. There is a significant jump from the 3.0 processors to 3.4… really significant. I’m putting a spec sheet together to start with 8 cores, 64 GB ram, processor speed 3.0, and an NVIDIA Quadro K2200 4GB DL-DVI(I)+2xDP
I’m hoping that I will see a significant increase in my development time, but that doesn’t mean I’m not trying to make my game more playable on my slow system still.
I like your solution with the landscape, I’m going to give that a go, that is a serious contender for helping my game.
I also notice that the shadows in the recent 4.10 update have gotten significantly slower for landscapes. I have had to increase my settings on my landscape just to render, and even simple scenes are painfully slow to render, it all gets down to the landscape in that case, because the quads are too large, although this wasn’t an issue previously. I’m not sure what version update this changed, but it was recent.
I have been re-art directing my game, reducing texture sizes significantly, still removing normal maps and seeing if I can attain a more personal look.
I will look at replacing the fog with cards, good old school solution. I didn’t realize this was costing so much.
I am also still experimenting with removing shadows in the game, without it being obvious the shadows are missing. I know what you’re saying about dumping landscape because of the overall cost to a game. It’s far easier to keep things as interiors and I wish i could just abandon this, I guess i’m a bit stuck on this vision of making it like a world. There are some reasons for that too. I have been playing with making the visibility drop off in my world more though, so I’ll see how that goes as i move forward.
thanks for feedback.
I’m running a
Geforce GTX 760 Ti
16gb of ram
If you’re building a game dev machine, I would stay away from the Quadro series. Those cards are meant to handle large data sets like huge poly scenes in max or maya but they are actually slower when it comes to HLSL shaders, frame buffers, and things of that nature. They are not gaming cards and you will see some performance drops in games when compared to lets say a titan card. My advice when building a game dev machine for pc games is to build a machine that is middle of the road with whats currently available. It will keep you honest while you are doing performance test and let you know exactly what a large part of your consumer base will be experiencing.
Another thing to be mindful of is the use of sublevels and sublevel streaming. Loading and unloading either assets or chunks of the level is a necessary evil if you want to make decent size levels.
Not trying to hijack your thread but here is a look at my current level. It’s strictly just a test to see performance, line of sight distances, and game mechanics. With this test I know I can art out the level and keep it within 30 fps no matter how crazy I get.https://youtube.com/watch?v=zvhu1jFsyuA
Looking forward to seeing your project!
You should try Avast! Antivirus, it’s free. I download several hundred gigs of data monthly, and have yet to be infected with a virus for over 5 years (also just did a full system scan last night). Avast | Download Free Antivirus & VPN | 100% Free & Easy
Suggest **Malwarebytes **instead… Not a fan of the direction Avast are heading, and AVG plain avoid!
“Avast – another anti-virus big-hitter – recently announced plans to make use of anonymised user data to develop marketing analytics… This is not quite the same thing as what AVG is doing – not least because it doesn’t involve third-party ad brokers – but it might still be seen as moving in the same direction of travel of monetising users’ data as as way of offsetting flat or declining anti-malware software sales.”
“However, Malwarebytes… remains committed to the freemium model and reluctant to get into data brokering in any form, at least for now.”
update. Put together what might be a powerful HP system, but did not go through and purchase. I’m erring on the side of caution and just going to deal with incredibly slow render times for now while i try to make sure my game runs smoothly on my slow Mac Pro (which btw, meets the minimum requirements of Epic and more).
I’m still reducing textures, improving the run time by fixing problems with shadows which again, slows things badly if there is anything amiss or outdated.
You should try windows defender! Its free and built in with windows and actually fights against viruses. Avast. Norton, junk. Such a waste of resources. Turns your windows defender off which does exactly the same. Prove me wrong? How do you get viruses in the first place? Simple, by running and installing apps that you know nothing about… Also by clicking accept on web pages that ask you to install a plugin to watch this video. There are other tricks such as, fooling you into thinking your flash player needs updating… But if you understand where the viruses come from in the first place, then you will know how to not get them in the first place… Windows defender is antivrus, you don’t need to replace it. Now Malwarebytes is good, it does fight against malware and keylogging, so if you are not good at using a computer and like to click accept all the time, then you will need this… I also use CC cleaner, just to clean up my PC now and again.
So you want to install a program you know nothing about and it could be a virus, well first scan it for viruses, many ways to do that. Secondly, install VM ware then install your program using VM ware, that way you can see what the program is doing and is a cool sandboxing way of testing something out without infecting your PC… It will only infect the OS inside VMware that you installed.
Just some tips on actually fighting viruses and stop wasting your computing resources by adding rubbish lol… May aswell bitcoin it away.
@Finn you are falling again in same trap.
Do not buy HP, they are great for corporations and office use, because of technical support ,drivers, less stress and work for IT/admins. But HP are not so good choice for personal use, they love to do some nonstandard connectors, their pcs are full of parts and slots that you can use only with hp hardware. So do not get HP. Instead go to any decent pc hardware shop, order all parts from same manufacturer. ie. graphics card and motherboard, then ask salesman which cpu and ram fits motherboard you choose.
Most if not all pc hardware shops offer to assemble your pc, or if not there will be some employee there that will put it together for you after hours. Yes a bit more hassle now than just getting hp in box, but belive me unless you have 500 pcs to maintain, custom build one is much better than HP (or dell).
And if you do not know what to pick read some new articles on tomshardwarwe, they explain it all.
Want a cheaper option? Get a GTX970, a new HDD (install bootcamp in it)
Follow this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOcbQ-A5y0 and you’ll have a good mac and windows computer.