Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dynamic shadows artifacts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    Originally posted by jonimake View Post
    Well then I'm quite astonished, since everything suffers from it. Directional lights look particularly ugly on relatively clean flat surfaces when the surface and light direction are close to perpendicular. http://i.imgur.com/pXwuHX2.png
    I was just as surprised as you are now that unreal doesn't have this standard feature. It makes no sense at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    [MENTION=738]Daniel.Wenograd[/MENTION], Yes I remember we had to manually download resource compiler form the thread and copy it to it's location.

    Regarding DFAO, CryEngine 2 (2007) had sky occlusion, very cheap and clean, without any artifacts regardless of mesh scale. http://docs.cryengine.com/display/SD...ient+Occlusion
    And now CryEngine 5 has large scale AO + SVOGI. http://docs.cryengine.com/download/a...5668000&api=v2

    What I don't understand is, Why Cryengine with 16 landscape layers, POM everywhere with 256 steps, Dynamic lights, Volumetric Lighting, Volumetric fog, Volumetric Clouds, Dynamic shadows with 7 cascades, Real time G.I, Large scale AO, SSDO and all that stuff, still runs -faster- than UE4.

    I'm not pro crytek or pro cryengine, in fact I have very opposite thoughts with crytek. But when they do something with engine, they do it properly. But here when you say why this is slow, most answers are like Ooooch! you have 10 dynamic lights you should cut them down or turn off shadow casting! But nobody thinks about the fact that 14,716 dynamic lights were placed throughout Crysis 3's 8 levels, 54.55% of them were shadow casting (think about the numbers), meaning out of 14,716 dynamic lights around 8027 of them were shadow casting lights, divided by 8 levels it means 1 map had around -1000- shadow casting lights and -827- non shadow casting lights. In the same game, in an interior, -150- dynamic lights cost only 4ms and that's on an outdated GTX 680 that's way below the bottom of the barrel today. Just think about the numbers.

    With that said, I have no idea why Epic does not try to improve dynamic lighting or even don't want to acknowledge there's anything wrong with it, let alone the improvement. At least can someone from Epic leave a reply on this 4 year old shadowing problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Zeblote View Post
    Yes. Fixing things like that is what slope bias is for.
    Well then I'm quite astonished, since everything suffers from it. Directional lights look particularly ugly on relatively clean flat surfaces when the surface and light direction are close to perpendicular. http://i.imgur.com/pXwuHX2.png

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by jonimake View Post
    Would slope bias help with cases like this? http://i.imgur.com/SLTGKHs.png
    Yes. Fixing things like that is what slope bias is for.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Would slope bias help with cases like this? http://i.imgur.com/SLTGKHs.png

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Frankly, I do not understand objective reason for dropping out SlopeScaledDepth bias. It was primary designed to overcome this kind of artifacts. Changing it surely requires additional rasterizer state change, but I refuse to believe not doing it is worth the visual regression. I would be happy just to know the reasoning behind it for I might be overlooking something.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Chosker View Post
    we're both hinting at the same thing: Unreal's graphics not being optimized enough. however I don't think Crysis 2 had DFAO, which is also costly in UE4.
    but I'm just saying that adding more features on top will just make it slower, and as such will only be considered "high end" - even though as you say, it was "high end" 6 years ago which nowadays should be "mid range"
    DFAO is new, yes. I may be wrong, but if the UE4 wasn't the first engine to have it, it was certainly the first I've heard of it. It's an amazing system for ambient occlusion, I'm glad it exists.

    And just to make one thing completely clear, myself and I'm sure Maximum-Dev are on the same page when I say we left using the CryENGINE for a reason. Unreal's actual tools are superior in almost every way to what the CryENGINE had, I even remember a release where the resource compiler to import assets was broken completely. We don't, or at least I don't, always bring it up to put Unreal down, but to show that the most common problems people have with the engine are possible to solve. Fully dynamic scenes don't -need- to be the performance killer it currently is on even top of the line hardware. Tessellation and POM don't -need- to be features you only use as a last resort. Dynamic shadow penumbras don't -need- to be a high end feature only.

    Even a GTX 950, the lowest end desktop video card of that series, beats a GTX 480 in performance, it's completely outclassed in every way. It isn't even "mid range" anymore, it's bottom of the barrel.

    These 'high end' features need a serious look from Epic on their performance. Things like dynamic shadows are so heavy that part of me actually suspects a second pass to put PCSS support in them will somehow lead to them getting faster just from finding something slowing it down.

    I sincerely hope that things start to get better. Every single person using the engine will only benefit from it.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Daniel.Wenograd View Post
    Every single feature you just listed was in Crysis 2. Crytek did -exactly- what you're describing 6 years ago in fully dynamic scenes and got 60 fps performance on high end hardware of the day. The UE4's -minimum- recommended requirements exceed what Crysis 2 needed for its highest settings to get all of those fancy effects at 60 fps.

    I'm not denying that there's a cost to these features, I'm not even saying that it's easy getting it running this well, all I'm saying is that historically, it's been done before. It's a solved problem, and has been for 6 years. Even mid range gaming hardware today is faster than the GTX 480 that game needed.
    we're both hinting at the same thing: Unreal's graphics not being optimized enough. however I don't think Crysis 2 had DFAO, which is also costly in UE4.
    but I'm just saying that adding more features on top will just make it slower, and as such will only be considered "high end" - even though as you say, it was "high end" 6 years ago which nowadays should be "mid range"

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Chosker View Post
    My point being that adding more features that have 'some' cost (i.e. PCSS, contact shadows, POM or tessellation, to name a few) on top of other features that already have a fair cost, isn't exactly going to be forgiving with performance
    Every single feature you just listed was in Crysis 2. Crytek did -exactly- what you're describing 6 years ago in fully dynamic scenes and got 60 fps performance on high end hardware of the day. The UE4's -minimum- recommended requirements exceed what Crysis 2 needed for its highest settings to get all of those fancy effects at 60 fps.



    I'm not denying that there's a cost to these features, I'm not even saying that it's easy getting it running this well, all I'm saying is that historically, it's been done before. It's a solved problem, and has been for 6 years. Even mid range gaming hardware today is faster than the GTX 480 that game needed.
    Last edited by Zero-Night; 06-06-2017, 03:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Once my friend-artist posted issue. No answer at all.
    After 2 weeks I posted the same bug report, but I described it like programmer. Got answer the same day
    Yeah... well, fortunately or unfortunately, not everyone submitting bug report/feature request is a coder.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Chosker View Post
    Shadowmaps were introduced in 1978 and Cascaded Shadowmaps were introduced in 2007. That doesn't mean that in 2017 you can in UE4 make a big scene with fully dynamic lights using CSM with Skylight + DFAO, and then dance happily about the performance...
    Actually in 2017 you should be able to make big scenes with fully dynamic lighting, dynamic GI, large scale AO, soft shadows, POM, Tessellation, Volumetric lighting, volumetric fog, volumetric clouds etc. and happily dance while looking at something beyond 60 frames on mid range hardware. Most of these features were in other engines way before 2017 as well.

    Edit: The performance problems with UE4 mostly is because nobody really knows why things run so slow, you look at the code and it's flawless, you compare the same feature with other engine it's probably 3 times heavier. But since the code looks flawless that performance difference is accepted without question.

    Like the tessellation problem, it's been around since UE4's existence and still engineers don't really know why ~4000 tris would cost around at least 5ms to render. While in other engine like frostbite's battlefront even the rocks and trees are tessellated, let alone the landscape.
    Last edited by Maximum-Dev; 06-06-2017, 08:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Daniel.Wenograd View Post
    ...if optimized well.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Zeblote View Post
    It's not a regression, as the feature never existed in ue4. People are just starting to expect high enough shadow quality to notice it.
    the feature never existed in UE3 either and yet the shadow acne issues were acceptable, in a state comparable to other engines (which isn't the case here)

    Originally posted by Daniel.Wenograd View Post
    Crysis 2 had dynamic shadow penumbras as a feature back in 2011. There is no gaming rig on earth anymore that shouldn't be able to run it, if optimized well.
    Shadowmaps were introduced in 1978 and Cascaded Shadowmaps were introduced in 2007. That doesn't mean that in 2017 you can in UE4 make a big scene with fully dynamic lights using CSM with Skylight + DFAO, and then dance happily about the performance.
    My point being that adding more features that have 'some' cost (i.e. PCSS, contact shadows, POM or tessellation, to name a few) on top of other features that already have a fair cost, isn't exactly going to be forgiving with performance

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    But wait... isn't this like bug? Does look like new feature to implement, just malfunction
    Depends on how do you treat the term bug.
    A software bug is an error, flaw, failure or fault in a computer program or system that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways.
    Pretty sure, that blocky shadowing can't be described as "intended behaviour".

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Chosker View Post
    I think PCSS will be just a high-end feature as shadows are already expensive on their own (i.e. wouldn't solve the problem on mid/low-end PC's), and if anything I think it would only solve the issue at very close range (I don't expect PCSS to be usable at all distance ranges on full-scene Cascaded Shadows)
    Crysis 2 had dynamic shadow penumbras as a feature back in 2011. There is no gaming rig on earth anymore that shouldn't be able to run it, if optimized well.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X