Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Svogi

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

    #46
    Originally posted by Errvald View Post
    CryEngine's runs pretty smooth though.
    UE4 with LPV also, which is the same technique that the Cryengine uses.
    The Unreal Wiki & Unreal Docs are full of helpful Information about almost every topic!
    Found a Bug? Have a Question or a Feature request? The AnswerHub is your best friend!
    Want to share/discuss your progress or a tutorial? The Forums are all yours!

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by Chris.R View Post
      UE4 with LPV also, which is the same technique that the Cryengine uses.
      Are you following this thread at all?

      page 1

      Comment


        #48
        Originally posted by Errvald View Post
        Are you following this thread at all?

        page 1
        Haven't seen it and didn't know that they switched, sorry for that.
        The Unreal Wiki & Unreal Docs are full of helpful Information about almost every topic!
        Found a Bug? Have a Question or a Feature request? The AnswerHub is your best friend!
        Want to share/discuss your progress or a tutorial? The Forums are all yours!

        Comment


          #49
          Originally posted by Chris.R View Post
          Guys, you have to understand the complexity of a realtime GI solution, it's nothing that you can build in one day! Light behaves extremely complex in real life and replicating its behaviour even approximately is hard as rock. You have to take a lot of factors into account like the color, the roughness or reflectance of a surface, the strength and radius of the lightsource and even the shape of the lightsource. And those few points just scratch the surface of the topic, you also need to calculate this stuff PER FRAME! VXGI is by far the closest system that i've seen 'til now and of course it will be taxing on almost any system because of the stuff that happens behind the scene.
          We may see certain solutions in the future who are better than what's available now but don't expect anytime soon a solution that has no flaws or drawbacks and runs like butter.
          I'm well aware of that. I can only roughly estimate what amount of work has to go into creating a reliable and good GI solution, but I can promise you I don't think it's easy.
          RyanTorant managed to create a GI solution on his own called AHR. Yes it's not as good as VXGI, but if you take into account that it has way better performance and is made by one person, AHR becomes way more amazing than it already is.

          Epic has a lot of talented and capable people, able to create a GI solution. They already created a GI solution, but ditched it for various good reasons, but we can't stay without one.
          So many games are going to have GI, it's most likely one of the bigger changes of the generation alongside PBR. (I might be wrong with this statement, it's how I perceived it 'til now)
          We have distance fields and distance field GI, which is experimental and currently on hold, and "only" offers one bounce, but it's something.

          I really don't expect a miracle from Epic, but at least some work towards GI and volumetric rendering would be highly appreciated not only by me, but many others as well.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Dakraid View Post
            I'm well aware of that. I can only roughly estimate what amount of work has to go into creating a reliable and good GI solution, but I can promise you I don't think it's easy.
            RyanTorant managed to create a GI solution on his own called AHR. Yes it's not as good as VXGI, but if you take into account that it has way better performance and is made by one person, AHR becomes way more amazing than it already is.

            Epic has a lot of talented and capable people, able to create a GI solution. They already created a GI solution, but ditched it for various good reasons, but we can't stay without one.
            So many games are going to have GI, it's most likely one of the bigger changes of the generation alongside PBR. (I might be wrong with this statement, it's how I perceived it 'til now)
            We have distance fields and distance field GI, which is experimental and currently on hold, and "only" offers one bounce, but it's something.

            I really don't expect a miracle from Epic, but at least some work towards GI and volumetric rendering would be highly appreciated not only by me, but many others as well.
            I would appreciate it too since i'm not able to build such things on my own. But technically we're able to create our own realtime GI solution since we have the source which if i'm not mistaken you don't get with the Cryengine (at least not as a subscriber) so that they are "forced" to have one implemented. If my post sounded offensive than i apologize myself for it, wasn't meant that way. But some people tend to go bonkers about this topic without really knowing what it needs to build a system like that.
            The Unreal Wiki & Unreal Docs are full of helpful Information about almost every topic!
            Found a Bug? Have a Question or a Feature request? The AnswerHub is your best friend!
            Want to share/discuss your progress or a tutorial? The Forums are all yours!

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by Chris.R View Post
              I would appreciate it too since i'm not able to build such things on my own. But technically we're able to create our own realtime GI solution since we have the source which if i'm not mistaken you don't get with the Cryengine (at least not as a subscriber) so that they are "forced" to have one implemented. If my post sounded offensive than i apologize myself for it, wasn't meant that way. But some people tend to go bonkers about this topic without really knowing what it needs to build a system like that.
              No need to apologize, you made a valid point and it didn't sound offensive to me I hope I didn't come off as harsh...
              Source code access is just one of the many things I love about UE4. Thanks to Epic's decision to make UE4 open we can have things like Ryan's AHR and many other great community contributions.

              This is a bit more personal and a bit(?) offtopic; just as a "warning" :
              I'm anything but able to create anything like this, my focus is on Game Design, but try to learn from as many fields as possible to have a realistic view on them. That and I do almost 99% of the work on my own, so yeah...

              I really wished I could create a GI solution and share it with the community, but I'm not nearly as talented and skilled as many others here on the forums. So I rely on the work of the community, Nvidia and Epic.
              Combine that with my wish to push PCs as much as possible, since it's the only platform I work on, and you've got me in a situation where I'm myself to blame. I shouldn't expect to be able to fulfil this wish as Indie, especially not as a student, but I'm naive. Maybe it's wrong to expect others to fulfil something I wish for. I want to have high end rendering features, but why should Epic implement them? Because I want them? I'm not sure if I'm in the position to ask for something like this.

              Comment


                #52
                I have to say that I'm amazed by the Ryan Torant's work.
                Assets: Military Ammunition (Released)
                Plugins: BlueManBPFunctionLibrary C++ plugin (Free), Blue Man Vehicle AI Plugin (Released), Air Resistance C++ Plugin (WIP), Blue Man Vehicle Physics Plugin (Marketplace)
                Projects: Giants Of Destruction

                Comment


                  #53
                  I agree, i was very disappointed when the real-time GI that was demonstrated before the engine was released was removed.

                  It would be nice to, at the very least, have an unsupported branch with this integration on GitHub.

                  Right now i am testing the VXGI branch of UE4 and it works very well but i don't think it will be real-world viable until DX12 is commonplace.


                  Twitter - @TheCSilverman

                  Ancient Cistern | Advanced Material Pack Ed. 1 | Advanced Material Pack Ed. 2 | Advanced Material Pack Ed. 3 | Texture Pack Ed. 1 | Container Pack Ed. 1 | Road Sign Pack Ed. 1

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by CharlestonS View Post
                    I agree, i was very disappointed when the real-time GI that was demonstrated before the engine was released was removed.

                    It would be nice to, at the very least, have an unsupported branch with this integration on GitHub.

                    Right now i am testing the VXGI branch of UE4 and it works very well but i don't think it will be real-world viable until DX12 is commonplace.
                    It should be much more usable with DX12 and the upcoming GPU generation. If I recall correctly Nvidia's Pascal should be 10 times faster than Maxwell; we will have to see if that CEO talk is true, but it would be amazing if yes.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Even with the 2X performance increase that DX12 supposedly offers in current-gen engines on new mid-high end GPUs it should run very well.

                      I'm just waiting for my new MSI GTX 980 TIs to arrive so i can start messing with it, it runs very slowly on my current MSI 560 TIs which are just starting to sow their age.

                      Originally posted by Dakraid View Post
                      It should be much more usable with DX12 and the upcoming GPU generation. If I recall correctly Nvidia's Pascal should be 10 times faster than Maxwell; we will have to see if that CEO talk is true, but it would be amazing if yes.


                      Twitter - @TheCSilverman

                      Ancient Cistern | Advanced Material Pack Ed. 1 | Advanced Material Pack Ed. 2 | Advanced Material Pack Ed. 3 | Texture Pack Ed. 1 | Container Pack Ed. 1 | Road Sign Pack Ed. 1

                      Comment


                        #56
                        I don't think the features of DX12 will offer much improvement with VXGI if any. One of the big things that DX12 improves is draw calls and that's where you'll see the most benefit.

                        Comment


                          #57
                          According to what i saw NVidia showing and talking about at SIGGRAPH they're targeting DX12.1 for full GameWorks suit application for practical real-world use.

                          From what I've seen VXGI seems to be the least mature GameWorks solution but most likely sometime early next year it will be mature enough for mainstream and DX12.1 will be released.

                          I guess we'll have to wait and see but even in it's current state the VXGI UE4 integration works well for things like ArchVis.

                          Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
                          I don't think the features of DX12 will offer much improvement with VXGI if any. One of the big things that DX12 improves is draw calls and that's where you'll see the most benefit.


                          Twitter - @TheCSilverman

                          Ancient Cistern | Advanced Material Pack Ed. 1 | Advanced Material Pack Ed. 2 | Advanced Material Pack Ed. 3 | Texture Pack Ed. 1 | Container Pack Ed. 1 | Road Sign Pack Ed. 1

                          Comment


                            #58
                            I don't think 99% of games need dynamic GI. For dynamic day-night cycle openworld games, the local IBL is the proper lighting solution for now, I really hope Epic can bring this feature to UE4. As far as I know, there's only one game using SVOGI in the world so far. However, 1~2 years later, we can just use VXGI which is much better than SVOGI.
                            Last edited by Awesome_Junior_Miss; 08-27-2015, 11:19 AM.

                            Comment


                              #59
                              At the very least it would make game development easier, because you wouldn't have to spend hours building lighting or settings things up for lighting.

                              Comment


                                #60
                                @Awesome:junior_Miss, Take a look at all the upcomming blockbuster games, The Divison, Ghost Recon Wildlands, Metal Gear Solid 5 and so on... They all use and they all need dynamic lighting and GI.
                                Dynamic GI is no more a phenomenon or magic, it is almost a common feature when you look through all the engines.

                                Dynamic lighting / GI is of course a high end technique and requires good skilled programmers to realize but i don't thnik that this is epic's problem. I guess they have enough talented employees to realize it.
                                I think epic is more interested in bringing new features to mobile devices, it is simply the biggest market... PC and Consoles are no longer that important, it is not like they are no longer important at all but the mobile devices market is simply bigger and more lucrative.

                                Have a look at Konami, they even wrote a few months ago, that they are changing they're focus on the mobile devices market cause this market requires much less developement costs and can also bring much more sales and profit.

                                So basicaly i guess epic makes the most roy profit with games for the mobile devices area or at least they see the biggest potential there, so it is absolut appreciative that they are focusing on other features than dyanmic GI which is not really useable for mobile device applications.
                                Last edited by A-J-K; 08-27-2015, 12:27 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X