Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KiteDemo a low-res version please

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

  • replied
    can't run it and i have an i7 with 12 logical cpu and 16go of ddr4 of ram and a gtx960 4go of ddr5

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I'm running UE4 on GF9600GT, so i would not say his GPU is biggest weakness, he atleast has card supporting SM5.0. I think his biggest weakness is RAM, 4GB is way low, not to mention it's integrated GPU takes some amount of it right? so it's even worse

    Also what definition of "properly"? Whatever things are annoying is matter of opinion. I got weak hardware, some things are annoying, but i don't think i'm using UE4 "unproperly" (or else sometimes in code lol)

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Eslake View Post
    I'm surprised people are taking this position in the first place, because even if it were just a hardware issue - this is a Game Engine.
    Telling someone they need to target higher-end systems in order to use it or create with it is like telling a store to only allow people to shop there who are over 5'9".

    Having the option of higher quality, high requirement processes is fine, but if you exclude the rest.....
    Acting to limit your user/customer base before you even produce a product is a great way to fail.
    No one is telling anyone to target high end hardware, what we were talking about the requirements for the KiteDemo and then about the requirements to use the UE4 editor (properly).

    Your comparison is fairly weak imo.
    In most cases you need more potent hardware while developing than you need to run it in the end, since there is a lot more going on while working on your project than there is when you play the packaged product. You seem to forget to differentiate between these two stages. Of course, if you fall below a certain hardware limit you will face certain problems. Code and shaders need decades to compile, your viewport is lagging and so on and so forth. I doubt that anyone is able to properly work in such a situation.
    Someone was/is using an integrated GPU to work with UE4, which is even weaker than the GPU from 2008 I have here somewhere in my room, and tried to open the KiteDemo assets. Assets which were created to show the maximum capabilities of UE4, the problems were foreseeable.

    I wished that most good devs were able to create their games without problems, especially hardware related ones, but sadly this isn't how it works. Game development is always a resource demanding one and sadly one of the biggest resource you need is money in one way or another.

    Greetings,
    Dakraid

    (I don't want to exclude anyone to make that clear, everyone should be invited to create games if he/she wants to, unless you are one of those cash-grabbing parasites which flood Steam Greenlight with nothing but other devs work...)

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Bubleguber View Post
    I really support this idea please don't flame low hardware because that is not the problem see this post:

    https://answers.unrealengine.com/que...n-mac-474.html

    My specifications :

    Windows 7 64 bits
    4096MB RAM
    AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 640 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.7GHz
    GeForce GTX 760 4gb
    I'm surprised people are taking this position in the first place, because even if it Were just a hardware issue - this is a Game Engine.
    Telling someone they need to target higher-end systems in order to use it or create with it is like telling a store to only allow people to shop there who are over 5'9".

    Having the option of higher quality, high requirement processes is fine, but if you exclude the rest.....
    Acting to limit your user/customer base before you even produce a product is a great way to fail.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Windows 7 64 bits
    upgraded today to 8 GB RAM and still froze at 73%, maybe i will try to let loading hours, but that is really an horror to work with it
    AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 640 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.7GHz
    GeForce GTX 760 4gb

    Please some more information about that 2.4 gig version pls!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    My laptop is similar to this one described and it will only allow me to use the ferns and leaves from the Kite Demo. That also took a few days of crashing harsh and often utill finally one day I could use just those. I tried again today to use a tree as IT JUST came into the options after being installed for a week. But the trees are instant death to my laptop. It is sad but I know I could use a serious computer. Someday soon I hope.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I tried the 2.4 gig version of the assets that another forum user provided a link for(not sure if it still exists) and it still looked great, not quite as good as the full size version and it loaded twice as quick, the full size version took about 25min on an amd 8core with 16gig ram

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    thank you Samantha Sutton

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Hey everyone,

    I have submitted a feature request to our developers to hopefully include a lower-res. version of Kite Demo. If you need to reference this request in the future, please refer to: UE-13867

    Cheers!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Chosker View Post
    I second this.

    my CPU is a bit old but I have 16 GB of RAM and a Geforce GFX 970. it still took a huge time to load everything.
    for me it's not only the huge amount of time it took to load the first time (I left the PC on and went for a hike). every time I want to open a texture from the content browser just to see it, it takes up to a minute for the 8k ones. and the fact that the whole thing is over 6 GB for a handful of trees, rocks, plants and ground textures, seems excessive.

    also despite the quality is extremely good, from the technical side I'm not all that happy about them.
    some textures have almost half of the sheet with a solid color. others are just masks and yet they can go up to 8k.
    diffusemaps have the roughness built into the alpha which is good, but I wonder if there's really no place to pack the heightmaps so they don't use up one whole texture (I guess Blue or Alpha channel of the normalmap can't be used because of the NormalMapUncompressed setting?)
    finally, I see many of the assets use a tiled detail normalmap which is nice for closeup detail. which is why I ask, are 8k textures really needed? we learned to make the most quality for terrains using detail textures many years ago, so why have the textures for environment assets and props escalated up to 8k now?

    I know I might seem a little too picky on this, but the quality of these assets is so good that everyone and their mother will use them, analyze them, learn from them and use as example. and so I question if the example Epic wants to give is a set of assets that is hardly optimal for game purposes
    Your PC is fine, it takes everyone a long time to load the files

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Personally I like the way it is currently, giving people access to the full fat, uncut stuff lets people using the assets decide if they want to use them super high res or export and downsize them.
    If they were all 1-2K then you'd be stuck with that.

    So I like the way it is, but don't think it would be bad if someone at Epic did have the time to make a cut down version (Someone in the community has already done this but cannot distribute it, seems like an easy win for Epic to grab that version and upload to launcher).

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I second this.

    my CPU is a bit old but I have 16 GB of RAM and a Geforce GFX 970. it still took a huge time to load everything.
    for me it's not only the huge amount of time it took to load the first time (I left the PC on and went for a hike). every time I want to open a texture from the content browser just to see it, it takes up to a minute for the 8k ones. and the fact that the whole thing is over 6 GB for a handful of trees, rocks, plants and ground textures, seems excessive.

    also despite the quality is extremely good, from the technical side I'm not all that happy about them.
    some textures have almost half of the sheet with a solid color. others are just masks and yet they can go up to 8k.
    diffusemaps have the roughness built into the alpha which is good, but I wonder if there's really no place to pack the heightmaps so they don't use up one whole texture (I guess Blue or Alpha channel of the normalmap can't be used because of the NormalMapUncompressed setting?)
    finally, I see many of the assets use a tiled detail normalmap which is nice for closeup detail. which is why I ask, are 8k textures really needed? we learned to make the most quality for terrains using detail textures many years ago, so why have the textures for environment assets and props escalated up to 8k now?

    I know I might seem a little too picky on this, but the quality of these assets is so good that everyone and their mother will use them, analyze them, learn from them and use as example. and so I question if the example Epic wants to give is a set of assets that is hardly optimal for game purposes

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I hope I didn't sound like I'm flaming lower end hardware or anything (It's not like my PC is that great).

    In your case the CPU is pretty low spec (seems around the same as a Core 2 Quad from 7 years ago?) and 4GB of RAM isn't doing you any favours.
    As far as I know UE4 performance on mac is not the greatest either.
    Have you tried loading the textures for the trees individually? (Doing the atlas last).

    Though from that answer hub post Andrew Hurley did say they were looking to optimize the pack.

    The thing is that these assets are high quality, and you need a high quality system (preferably a desktop Windows system) to have a good time using them.

    Originally posted by domi109 View Post
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/b2aubfldjk...4Game.wmv?dl=0

    my screen capture is bad and I can't show the frames/sec
    Congrats on getting them loaded =]

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Bubleguber View Post
    My specifications :

    Windows 7 64 bits
    4096MB RAM
    AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 640 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.7GHz
    GeForce GTX 760 4gb
    Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
    Yours shouldn't be too bad, GTX 760 is a very good card, but I'd be concerned about the RAM
    I would say RAM and CPU could be upgraded, everything else looks fine. Also your graphics card is a proper dedicated card, while domi109's card is an integrated solution by the looks of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Bubleguber View Post
    I really support this idea please don't flame low hardware because that is not the problem see this post:

    https://answers.unrealengine.com/que...n-mac-474.html

    My specifications :

    Windows 7 64 bits
    4096MB RAM
    AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 640 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.7GHz
    GeForce GTX 760 4gb
    Yours shouldn't be too bad, GTX 760 is a very good card, but I'd be concerned about the RAM

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X