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

[TAN]

@;231365

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.

I am using both (UE4 + CE) and I can say you pretty much nailed it

When DFGI comes you will be able to pretty much whatever you want with UE4. Interior and outdoor.
Yes shaders are more complicated in UE4 but they are also more flexible. Try making a toon shader in CE. I did. Did not go well Well pretty much impossible

The rest of the matter ( performance and how your assest looks and “feels”) will completely depend on your know-how and skills as it should be.

[anonymous_user_8784b148]

@TAN_;232384

When DFGI comes

That’s the problem. “When” can be very relative. Why are you sure will be the complete dynamic GI solution also? I have my doubts about that.

[zeOrb]

@TDoro;232387

That’s the problem. “When” can be very relative. Why are you sure will be the complete dynamic GI solution also? I have my doubts about that.

And your doubts based on what exactly?

GI solution is not some black box, it the feature that was requested by many and development has been started as soon as major rendering problems were handled. You can follow the process at any and see for yourself.
There weren’t any slowdowns in development since start and we are approaching to optimization phase.

It is a part of complete dynamic GI solution, second part is Heightfield GI for landscape which could be tested either.

I honestly don’t understand why you having such doubts when everything on the table and you can simply ask about further plans

[anonymous_user_8784b148]

Doubts about how this will work on a full level. I mean, working acceptable in terms of fps and quality. I don’t expect to be perfect, but working acceptable. So far this solution is under dev, is nothing final, and by the when will be ready probable VXGI will be much more interesting to adopt.

[Jambax]

@TDoro;232449

Doubts about how this will work on a full level. I mean, working acceptable in terms of fps and quality. I don’t expect to be perfect, but working acceptable. So far this solution is under dev, is nothing final, and by the when will be ready probable VXGI will be much more interesting to adopt.

VXGI is for GTX 900 series cards and above, and practically nothing else. That’s not an optimization issue either, it’s simply taken for the hardware to be able to pull it off. It’s not like we’re going to get much better at it, or adapt VXGI for other graphics platforms. If we’re talking about acceptable FPS, VXGI is pretty much out of the playing field.

DFGI is currently the solution Epic are working on. It only started out as an experiment a month or two ago, it’s going to take a long to be 100%. It’s already a thousand times better than LPV, and performs okay considering how early into development it is. However, the key part is that works on any graphics platform. That’s the key when it comes to the engine, it has to be scalable. VXGI is fine (and you can use it now if you’re an nVidia registered developer I believe), but only if you want to target a very narrow range of hardware.

EDIT: Scratch that, you can play with VXGI so long as you’re a subscribed UE4 member:
https://github.com/NvPhysX/UnrealEngine

[anonymous_user_8784b148]

It does not matter if it’s for GTX 900. I remember the jump from TNT to GForce was brutal. And everybody wanted the new card because T&L. This should be a major selling point for nVidia if they manage to market that feature well. Everybody will love to have a hardware accelerated solution instead software:)

[Jambax]

Yea but most people can’t afford that, and 99% of the developers that use UE4 need something scalable. Don’t get me wrong, 4-5 years from now it’ll be much more standardised.

We need something that’s viable right now, all good things come to those who wait n’ all that

[FrankieV]

Unreal 4 is a half done engine and as a first adopter I’m investing for the future.

[darthviper107]

I’ve used VXGI on a GTX 660 and at a lower quality it works OK

[SaviorNT]

How about a PBR/GI type of system for audio :

[Nudlegaru]

@zeOrb The jungle megascans demo you provided uses 4.6.1 and not 4.7 (now 4.7.1) so it doesn’t use the new foliage lighting system that has backscattering from leaves otherwise it would have looked even better. You can check my comment in the video and Quixel answering me.

Also about VXGI, for now it has many bugs and lacking features like emissive materaisl aren’t part of their GI system for now, the same for indirect specular. Also VXGI is programmed to only have one bounce level which is not eneough for many scenes since some areas don’t get lit by just one bounce thus the lack of many needed results like indirect refelctions.

Does DFGI work interiors for the being? How many bounces does it have (I hope at least two to be reasonable)? Will it be available to to 4.8 preview when it comes to launcher? Thanks !

[anonymous_user_8784b148]

@PLASTICA-MAN, VXGI looks under dev, so DFGI, but one is a hardware solution, one is software. If I would be a decision maker at Epic, I would probable stop development efforts of current dynamic GI , keep only Lightmass and focus on VXGI only. If nVidia started this way, AMD and Intel will be forced to adopt it or come with something similar.

@darthviper107, possible to work on GTX 660, but is marketing also, that new feature can be a major selling point for new cards.

[Jambax]

@darthviper107;232978

I’ve used VXGI on a GTX 660 and at a lower quality it works OK

It does? I thought it was purely designed for Maxwell only, something to do with their new firmware?

[zeOrb]

@darthviper107;232978

I’ve used VXGI on a GTX 660 and at a lower quality it works OK

NVIDIA VXGI 2.0.1

If I would be a decision maker at Epic, I would probable stop development efforts of current dynamic GI , keep only Lightmass and focus on VXGI only. If nVidia started this way, AMD and Intel will be forced to adopt it or come with something similar.

I’m glad you’re not decision maker. Limiting lighting of game engine to particular GPU and excluding millions of users from using it is just the worse decision you could make in such situation =/

[anonymous_user_8784b148]

I don’t know, maybe you are right, but I just think a hardware solution is welcome.

Limit something? No, this is next step, exactly how was per pixel lighting, ended into a shader:)

UE4 losing anything? Nope, Lightmass is still here and working.

[Mikand79]

Seems to me the marketing guys forced the list you linked. Got a 650 Ti (no boost) and a bit toned down VXGI just works.