Why wont epic steal/copy tech from cry engine from GI?

UE4 is great engine , the only thing where it falls short is dynamic moveable lights or Dynamic Global illumination

We know other engines can do this pretty nicely (Cryengine specially) and it seems to be mostly based around LPVs . So why won’t UE4 implement the same technique in UE4 as standard? The current state on LPV seems to be experimental.

Cryengine is giving out its source code now so why wont just copy the techniques and implement it in UE4 as suitable? They can copyright the source code but not the technique.

Or is there some other secret technique under process for dynamic GI in UE4?

Hey Shepard!
Check out this thread to understand why Epic chose another route and to see GI progress

some poor guy/gal in the legal department just fell off their chair reading that title. :smiley:

Several Reasons:

1- You can’t just plug-in code from one Engine to another, for both Legal and Technical reasons.

2- CryEngines tech and lighting model is massively out of date. They also don’t use a Deferred renderer.

3- CryEngine ONLY has a SINGLE light bounce from ONE hard-coded light source (the sun). VXGI (nVidia’s Solution) and DFGI (Unreals Latest Solution), bounce from ALL lights, and DFGI is almost free

4- LPV is a horrible, leaky and poorly optimized unscalable technique for GI regardless of implementation. It has a very narrow range of uses. It did the job for a while, but technology has moved on.

5- CryEngine isn’t giving out it’s FULL source code, they give out part of it (don’t believe what you read on their website), and it’s still a jumbled mess.

6- It’s just a terrible idea.

Can anyone offer a comparison of these in Side-by-Side comparison photos / videos :-

HDR (Unity shader packs) vs. UE4-PBR
(in demo videos the results seem similar)

To a certain point, it has to be irreverent. Every engine has it perks and fails.

Why is this topic not in feedback?


Wow… really?

And how almost every CE3 EaaS screenshot looks stellar in terms of dynamic GI (not the free old sk)??

According to you this is also horrible:

Before, I never cared much about what was going on under the hood… But with :-

UE4+PBR vs. Unity5+Enlighten vs. Unity4+HDR/PBR_Shaders vs. Cryengine+LPV

I think its important now to have some sense of the relative strengths and weakness of each render system…

The quality there is mostly in the assets, the lighting isn’t actually all that realistic.

DFGI 4.8 Builds? WTH are they talking about? 4.7 just came out and post is dated about a year ago! what did i miss?

Those console variable things never seem to work with my source built 4.6.1. There must be a wiki which is constantly updated with GI tweaks in each build

DFGI isn’t in 4.6.1 It might be in 4.7 though it’s not an official feature yet, it’s experimental.

Then how come their foliage+water looks miles better?

With UE4 you have to fight the engine to make them look believable.

Had to chime in on this one…
DFGI only supports directional lights right now (aka what you get if you build Master in GitHub), but bounce from all light types is planned and it is certainly not almost free =) It’s high end PC atm, hopefully will be able to optimize it down to mid spec PC in the coming months. Static GI is always going to be cheaper than fully dynamic GI.

Free? You mean as in legal terms of money or in technical terms of computation cost?

Computational :smiley:

Ahhh my bad, I haven’t had a lot of time to experiment with it yet… it was a long day :stuck_out_tongue:

I disagree on both parts. Their water system is IIRC, pre-determined by their own artists. If you want to make changes or create your own, you’ll have to be a capable Shader programmer. I’ve managed to get ace looking water in UE4, it takes time, and there have been loads of improvements to the engine since so I’ll probably have another go when I get time. (I wanted to do a water pack like Adam from Epic has just done, but he beat me to it).

As for foliage, have you SEEN Koola’s work? His latest stuff isn’t even using pre-computed lighting.

Adam from EPIC made a very simple water system with Blueprints with some basic parameters, it’s good but the water doesn’t look realistic.

CryEngine’s water plane system offers you more parameters, buoyancy etc and it looks very realistic. Their foliage also looks very realistic, smooth foliage rendering.

A game engine should provide these things straight away, without having to read the bug list.

Don’t take me wrong, imo UE4 is better in many aspects but saying the obvious shouldn’t upset any fan.

Foliage problems are fixed in 4.7. Now nothing stops you from creating nice foliage.

Well, it’s only your opinion. I don’t think that game engine should provide one particular asset of AAA quality. Why water, why not clouds, fire and realistic character with customizable appearance? Where is the line?

Anyway, I completely agreed with DarthViper - it’s all about assets(After new foliage shading model in 4.7, of course). As example:

The difference is CryEngine is heavily geared to creating a certain type of environment (i.e. large, outdoor spaces) and has several of these features hard-coded into the engine. It’s possible to change some of them, but it’s pretty awkward and inflexible. Don’t like the ocean shader? Too bad, unless you want to start editing the shader yourself. Want to render interior spaces? The lighting engine will make that pretty awkward.

Epic’s approach is to present artists with the right tools to customise visuals their liking. That flexibility comes with the trade-off that you’ll have to do more work yourself, just like any good game engine.