Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4.17-4.18 LPV is completely broken. 4-19 - what's next ?

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

    #16
    Originally posted by BlackRang666 View Post
    Unreal Engine is unfortunately not a good choice if you want stability. Its development is completely guided by Epic's internal projects. If Epic needs a bug fixed for something they are developing, then it might get fixed. If not, its going to stay broken.
    This is the current list of fixes that is coming to 4.19. Please review. https://issues.unrealengine.com/issu...nt=&sort=votes

    teak
    "A little bit of nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men..."
    -- Willy Wonka

    Smooth Zoom Camera Plugin for 4.24 here.

    Comment


      #17
      I believe this would be a full list of bugs in 4.19
      https://issues.unrealengine.com/issu...nt=&sort=votes

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by TheJamsh View Post
        LPV was an Epic-feature I believe, it was in UDK. The stuff from Lionhead was just a few tweaks and fixes to make it work better when they were working on Fable Legends.
        First of all LPV is a product original created and made by Crytek and used in Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 this means Cryengine 3 back since PS3 gen.

        Second point wasn't in UDK, and no wasn't made by Epic Games and as @BrUnO XaVIeR correctly said the UE4 version was made by Lionhead studio back in 2014.

        As the last point @aue idea why you guys request this feature, the LPV need negative lights as the leaks are everywhere, as Crytek done and the way is mean to be done, and UE4 don't support it <negative lights>. As sub part, the cost in Cryengine vs UE4 is way WAY WAY bigger like x3 times the cost of the original Cryengine 3 version, that without count the fact that is a tech from 2010 or 2011 really updated that even Crytek dropped.

        You guys would do better in request a different tech
        Last edited by Hevedy; 12-17-2017, 03:13 PM.
        Hevedy - Instance Tools: https://hevedy.itch.io/hevedyinstances
        Hevedy - Image Tools: https://hevedy.itch.io/imagetools

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by BrUnO XaVIeR View Post
          Oh really? Okay... LMGTFY:
          Well, there you have it. It's something they want to do, but can't currently be justified unless it aligns with internal needs. Sounds legit. On the community side, they are working on more highly requested stuff and the easier, less problematic things to handle. It's on their radar though. Let's not forget that we can still implement stuff, if we so please. Having access to the source code and all.

          Epic might not be waving a huge flag that says "WE ARE WORKING ON THE BESTEST GI!!", but I can't shake the feeling that they are working towards it. Look at the work Ryan Brucks has been doing with ray marching, for example. Slowly but surely the engine is getting the legs it needs to provide awesomeness, in my opinion.

          To quote a nerd, Inigo Quilez: "Writing a global illumination renderer takes one hour. Starting from scratch. Writing an efficient and general global illumination renderer, takes ten years."

          An efficient, robust, cross-platform GI solution isn't something you whip up quickly. It isn't something that is going to play well with an already established rendering pipeline necessarily, either. Look at how many people freaked out when the decision to switch over to the ACES filmic tonemapper was made. Guaranteed the same will happen when a GI solution is implemented. Previous projects won't look the same, people are gonna freak, bla bla bla. That's certain to be a factor in this situation as well: easing into it.

          So time and resource constraints, legacy compatibility, and many other factors here. It's not Epic dangling a carrot in front of us.

          Comment


            #20
            "That's OK. I guess Epic should mark such features as "experimental" and "not supported" then...But I see that this one has official documentation and contained in official release as supported feature."
            The documentation already labels LPV as "not ready for production". If it's mentioned anywhere as supported, those sources almost certainly predate the closure of Lionhead Studios and the sentencing of LPV to limbo.

            Originally posted by Derjyn View Post
            Look at how many people freaked out when the decision to switch over to the ACES filmic tonemapper was made. Guaranteed the same will happen when a GI solution is implemented.
            You mean when they remove all the previous lighting in the entire engine and replace it with something that uses a completely different standard that is incompatible with all previous art styles?
            Raymarching did not need any enhancement or modification to the engine, but it is only possible with custom nodes in the material editor.
            While any GI implementation may take time, that it is explicitly not being worked on is what makes that hypethetical time period even more foreboding.

            While I'm sure some optimism (or at least less pessimism) is warranted, somewhere, your justifications for optimism are so thin that it only encourages more pessimism.

            Comment


              #21
              It's pretty easy to see why Epic hasn't implemented a new, better, dynamic GI solution. Just looking at other games, game engines, tech demos, and tech docs, there's 0 high quality, low performance impact, general use dynamic GI solutions without major drawbacks.

              Enlighten isn't truely dynamic because it requires baking, and the baking takes forever. Lots of leaking, seams, errors, artifacts. Also imagine it would be very expensive to license.

              VXGI. Only works well for smaller scenes. Very demanding.

              SVOGI, going off the CryEngine/Lumberyard implementations, it works fine for outdoor scenes, but falls apart on even a simple interior room.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Hevedy View Post

                As the last point @aue idea why you guys request this feature, the LPV need negative lights as the leaks are everywhere, as Crytek done and the way is mean to be done, and UE4 don't support it <negative lights>. As sub part, the cost in Cryengine vs UE4 is way WAY WAY bigger like x3 times the cost of the original Cryengine 3 version, that without count the fact that is a tech from 2010 or 2011 really updated that even Crytek dropped.

                You guys would do better in request a different tech
                My point is that i don't request any new functionality I just want current implementation LPV bugs to be fixed. LPV worked as expected in 4.16.3 but not anymore. And it's sad.

                I'd like to say thank you to Epic that we have LPV as it is. It is far far from perfect ideal dynamic GI and it's outdated technology - but it works with acceptable performance(comparing to VXGI - quality is perfect but performance...ehhh) and it is possible to tune it to acceptable render quality almost ever. So performance-quality relation is quite good. Of course we don't have cascades in LPV and i guess many other things that could bring LPV on level up. But we have what we have. I understand that it is very challenging task to create excellent dynamic GI.

                If Epic will finally bring new dynamic GI to UE4 - it will be fine for all of us

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Dementiurge View Post

                  The documentation already labels LPV as "not ready for production". If it's mentioned anywhere as supported, those sources almost certainly predate the closure of Lionhead Studios and the sentencing of LPV to limbo.
                  Yeah - really i missed it in documentation. Sorry for this.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Derjyn View Post



                    These sound like statements made out of frustration, not based on facts. We're working with one of (if not the) most powerful open-source engines available, for free. Epic contributes massive amounts of energy to their engine, integrating hundreds of pull-requests, implementing feature requests, fixing bugs, so-on-and-so-forth. Let's not forget how much knowledge and training they make available via documentation and live-stream training sessions. Members from the Epic staff release content goodies regularly, as well.
                    Nope. It is actually true and (I thought) well known fact in industry. Idk if that was ever official statement or something that Epic employees usually tell you. If Epic does not need or use feature internally they don't develop it. Unless you are very big 3rd party licensee.

                    It's actually bit disappointing, since their internal projects rarely align with what the engine is mostly used for. It now happen thta Fortnite BR pushed engine in direction that it is used by lots of people but IDK if that was accident or planned because well "people make open world multiplayer games, and we need to test engine".

                    Upside of the situation is that features which are used by Epic are actually well developed, tested and proved to work in real game development, not proved to work with theoretical engineering (like Unity).
                    https://github.com/iniside/ActionRPGGame - Action RPG Starter kit. Work in Progress. You can use it in whatever way you wish.

                    Comment


                      #25

                      Originally posted by Chosker View Post
                      when was LPV ever in UDK? (pretty sure it wasnt)
                      Yeh - a quick google shows I'm probably wrong about that. I could have sworn I was using them in UDK but meh, that was many years ago.

                      Originally posted by Hevedy View Post
                      First of all LPV is a product original created and made by Crytek and used in Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 this means Cryengine 3 back since PS3 gen
                      The tech and/or idea might have been created by Crytek, but Lionhead/Epic obviously implemented their own version. Doesn't really matter...

                      I doubt Epic are going to do much with LPV, especially if they're not using it internally and with it not being a fully supported feature. Like almost all GI solutions it only really works for limited outdoor scenes anyway. It looked good on Fable Legends but if what has been said in this thread is true (I've heard different but meh), then it was only ever designed for that game anyway.

                      I expect they'll take pull requests though. Unfortunately it looks like we're limited to fixing it ourselves for now.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by TheJamsh View Post
                        I expect they'll take pull requests though. Unfortunately it looks like we're limited to fixing it ourselves for now.
                        let's pretent for a bit that pull requests are actually a fluid process...
                        even if someone could fix it, submit a PR that Epic accepts and get fixes/improvements integrated, nothing guarantees it won't break again because as Epic doesn't use it internally, leading to the same situation that the OP had when creating this thread
                        Follow me on Twitter!
                        Developer of Elium - Prison Escape
                        Local Image-Based Lighting for UE4

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by iniside View Post
                          Nope. It is actually true and (I thought) well known fact in industry. Idk if that was ever official statement or something that Epic employees usually tell you. If Epic does not need or use feature internally they don't develop it. Unless you are very big 3rd party licensee.
                          It's often true, but not always true.
                          The biggest Epic games aren't designed for Nintendo Switch, mobile, VR/AR. Still they're doing great job on it. Robo Recall was more like a way to "battle test" Unreal's VR than a standalone product made for profit. Epic games don't need big system like Sequencer too much, but lot of non-Epic games use it.

                          Of course all the tools for character animation are so good because all big Epic games use it heavily
                          There's no awesome open world support because Epic doesn't produce open world games.

                          There's no game engine that will satisfy needs of every kind of game.
                          But saying that Epic doesn't care about community and needs of very different games... come on... Did you notice difference between UE3 and UE4?
                          UE3 was great engine for every kind of game, but only if this game was a FPS shooter with few cinematics, not too much of "living world" elements and... if you was OK with that general look of the game would be similar to Gears of War. Gamers where quite to surprise that The Vanishing of Ethan Carter didn't "look Unreal".
                          It's a bit different in UE4...
                          Last edited by Moth Doctor; 12-18-2017, 02:16 PM.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            It is important that the sentence 'if the Epic doesn't use internally, then they dont implement it' is true, because some people think Epic somehow is lazy (or any negative) and they start teasing around it. Because once the code is in (PR is accepted), then Epic will be fully responsible to support it across multiple devices be it Xbox, Pc etc. And there is no way to be fully sure about PR quality until you are actually using it in actual games played by real people (not just some games sitting in the lab). It is that serious.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Derjyn View Post

                              Epic might not be waving a huge flag that says "WE ARE WORKING ON THE BESTEST GI!!", but I can't shake the feeling that they are working towards it. Look at the work Ryan Brucks has been doing with ray marching, for example. Slowly but surely the engine is getting the legs it needs to provide awesomeness, in my opinion.

                              To quote a nerd, Inigo Quilez: "Writing a global illumination renderer takes one hour. Starting from scratch. Writing an efficient and general global illumination renderer, takes ten years."

                              An efficient, robust, cross-platform GI solution isn't something you whip up quickly. It isn't something that is going to play well with an already established rendering pipeline necessarily, either. Look at how many people freaked out when the decision to switch over to the ACES filmic tonemapper was made. Guaranteed the same will happen when a GI solution is implemented. Previous projects won't look the same, people are gonna freak, bla bla bla. That's certain to be a factor in this situation as well: easing into it.
                              Godot added new cross-platform realtime voxel GI solution in 1 year with a team of less than 10 guys. And the performance seems okay.

                              There are open source Unity GI solutions aswell. Idk can be references for open source community projects.
                              Hevedy - Instance Tools: https://hevedy.itch.io/hevedyinstances
                              Hevedy - Image Tools: https://hevedy.itch.io/imagetools

                              Comment


                                #30
                                There was one called AHR that was abandoned:
                                https://forums.unrealengine.com/comm...ive-plugin-ahr
                                tox.chat - Skype alternative
                                blender.org - 3D suite

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X