Unreal Engine 5.1 adds some cool new stuff

UnknownSouljer said:
2.) Both the PS5 and XB are capable of running Fortnite with RT features on at 60 fps in 4k.
3.) Both the PS5 and XB are obviously using resolution up-scaling reconstruction techniques as well as other optimization to run Fortnite with these features and to reach 4k/60 frame locked.
Click to expand...
That seem a bit of a contradiction here, I too understood has them not running at 4k

Metro Exodus also run at "4k-60fps" with RT on

UnknownSouljer said:
4.) Cyberpunk doesn't run nearly as well on consoles and is incapable of consistent frame rates with any form of RT features on on PS5 or XB.
Click to expand...
It is not like cyberpunk ran that well without RT on consoles either, we are comparing one of the biggest money maker in history of cultural product budget 5 years in of updates versus a very rough product.

The performance drop in Fortnite passing to UE 5.1 seem to be incredibly massive, in the same range than previous RT implementation did (the minus -50% type) but maybe I am missing something.

Did not look much, but I do not see how the performance hit in the last Fornite is not really similar to enabling RT in previous title and something particularly revolutionary.

We are talking about something that put a new 7900xt at 60fps-under 60fps at 1440p a game that would go near 200fps at high setting with a 6950xt.
 
Last edited:



Ashes of Creation updated their game to Unreal 5 over the past year not out yet in Alpha 2 testing.
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
That seem a bit of a contradiction here, I too understood has them not running at 4k
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, what we're talking about is optimization. Optimization includes not just all of the settings being turned on or off but also resolution and reconstruction techniques. If you want to split hairs, fine, but it's relevant for talking about performance targets and under what conditions.
LukeTbk said:
It is not like cyberpunk ran that well without RT on consoles either, we are comparing one of the biggest money maker in history of cultural product budget 5 years in of updates versus a very rough product.

The performance drop in Fortnite passing to UE 5.1 seem to be incredibly massive, in the same range than previous RT implementation did (the minus -50% type) but maybe I am missing something.

Did not look much, but I do not see how the performance hit in the last Fornite is not really similar to enabling RT in previous title and something particularly revolutionary.
Click to expand...
Okay? I would say watch this video from DF that was posted on the previous page:


Things like Nanite make a massive IQ difference without a big performance penalty. Fortnite is also capable of being 100% illuminated by GI even on the console versions, which is vastly different than CP2077 or Control and it makes illumination in more scenarios as well as color casts much more accurate. This is doing something that is functionally different and better than other engines and it's doing so with either an equal or less performance hit. Even if it's "equal" in terms of performance the quality result is better. Regardless of the way we're talking about it, it's not 1:1.
LukeTbk said:
We are talking about something that put a new 7900xt at 60fps-under 60fps at 1440p a game that would go near 200fps at high setting with a 6950xt.
Click to expand...
Under what relevant settings?
 
UnknownSouljer said:
lly different and better than other engines and it's doing so with either an equal or less performance hit.
Click to expand...
Maybe, it just not obvious to me, we go under 60fps on the latest card at 1440p, maybe I just have an unrealistic view or what performance looked for Fornite before going to UE 5 and overestimate the performance hit. Never played that game and it basically never showed up in benchmark, I had the impression that it was a fast twitched affair with the very simple graphic it had and a quite look made it show to run at high setting-1440p around 200fps on a 6950xt in the recent past, with seem to indicate some -70% type of hit going on.

UnknownSouljer said:
100% illuminated by GI even on the console versions
Click to expand...
Not really if it is running the software version anything that is dynamic will not be, only static mesh with non-transparent material and you need large wall to avoid leaking. Which seem like good compromise but we are talking about a solution in which it is possible for asset has large and major like a car to not cast its shadow in a very simple world.
 
LukeTbk said:
Maybe, it just not obvious to me, we go under 60fps on the latest card at 1440p, maybe I just have an unrealistic view or what performance looked for Fornite before going to UE 5 and overestimate the performance hit. Never played that game and it basically never showed up in benchmark, I had the impression that it was a fast twitched affair with the very simple graphic it had and a quite look made it show to run at high setting-1440p around 200fps on a 6950xt in the recent past, with seem to indicate some -70% type of hit going on.
Click to expand...
The performance mode on PS5 and XB that turns off RT features is 120fps vs 60fps with RT features on.

However again, that isn't 1:1. There is more optimizations present than simply RT on/off. Resolutions and how upscaling is done is relevant for those switches as well. That's the thing, I can't see the point in talking about all of this without talking about what creates visual impact, what creates performance impact, and how to best optimize settings to get the best results with least impact. On PC those decisions must be made manually. On consoles it's done for you. However I think that's relevant to the discussion. You're just looking at the whole thing as RT on vs off and it spits out a number and that's what you're basing your assessment off of.
LukeTbk said:
Not really if it is running the software version anything that is dynamic will not be, only static mesh with non-transparent material and you need large wall to avoid leaking. Which seem like good compromise but we are talking about a solution in which it is possible for asset has large and major like a car to not cast its shadow in a very simple world.
Click to expand...
This is inaccurate: https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.1/en-US/lumen-global-illumination-and-reflections-in-unreal-engine/
Lumen is Unreal Engine 5's fully dynamic global illumination and reflections system that is designed for next-generation consoles, and it is the default global illumination and reflections system. Lumen renders diffuse interreflection with infinite bounces and indirect specular reflections in large, detailed environments at scales ranging from millimeters to kilometers.
Click to expand...
and
Lumen Global Illumination solves diffuse indirect lighting. For example, light bouncing diffusely off a surface picks up the color of that surface and reflects the colored light onto other nearby surfaces — creating an effect called color bleed. Meshes in the scene also block indirect lighting, which also produces indirect shadowing.
Click to expand...
While it's true the console versions are only capable of software RT rendering for some features, PC is capable of hardware RT, which doesn't have this problem.

Software RT in consoles is obviously another optimization to hit 60 fps. This is talked about extensively in the DF video I linked above at roughly the 20 minute mark, where they place hardware/software lumen features side by side.

Regardless of if you're using software or hardware RT, lumen is NOT a static mesh. It is actually a part of a full GI RT stack. Both either can have imperfect rendering such as light leaks, also further demonstrating that it isn't a static mesh. And that video demonstrates the difference between RT on and off in regards to Lumen very well regardless of if it's software or hardware.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
This is inaccurate: https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.1/en-US/lumen-global-illumination-and-reflections-in-unreal-engine/
Click to expand...
This is direct from them, your link say the same things:

Limitations of Software Ray Tracing​

Software Ray Tracing has some limitations relating to how you should work with it in your projects and what types of geometry and materials it currently supports.

Geometry Limitations:

  • Only Static Meshes, Instanced Static Meshes, Hierarchical Instanced Static Meshes, and Landscape terrain are represented in the Lumen Scene.
  • Foliage must be enabled with the setting Affect Distance Field Lighting found in the Foliage Tool settings.
 
Software Lumen doesn't trace against triangles - it traces distance fields. Something skeletal/animated doesn't have one, so it doesn't contribute to software Lumen.

I suppose a character or car for instance can technically work as an occluder to light in hardware mode, but is unseen to software Lumen.

I'm sure there will be continued optimizations, especially now that they're actually dogfooding the engine in a live and very popular game. 5.1 was already a huge step forward in performance and quality.

Hopefully they finally nail in the coffin fix the fucking stutter that plagues almost every UE game on PC.
 
idiomatic said:
Keep in mind all that prettyness is in a nearly completely destructible/constructible environment. You roll a boulder through a castle and the light shining through the hole looks... it looks right. Which is just nuts.
Click to expand...
This is one of Ray Tracings' huge strengths, the normal raster methods for lighting optimization are a PITA, and it involves a lot of manual work, that sucks for a destructible environment because you can't reasonably optimize for it so you have to either settle for huge performance hits or rubble effects that look OK at best. When gamers complain that a game "isn't optimized" because it is running badly 90% of that was lighting and texture work that didn't get done or was rushed. Ray tracing removes the need to do that work as it is calculated on the fly in real-time, you set up material properties, you configure your light sources, and boom, done the engine tackles the rest independently of the developer giving a far more consistent result. Not necessarily better, I mean a good artist tweaking the crap out of a scene can and often will get a better visual result, but that is not something easily replicable and takes an absurd amount of man-hours to accomplish and test for, as a developer you can't do this reliably which is why you get the "The game is so poorly optimized" complaints so frequently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top