Are you satisfied with the Unreal engine in simracing?

Why ? develop ...

 

I hate to cry in the forums about the shortcomings of UE4 but 3 main points:

VR
Triple screen
Aliasing

 

Tech question for @Lord Kunos or one of his sgherri...

How comes you did choose the deferred rendering over the Tiled Forward Rendering ? Does UE4 offer the TFR ? And if so, what kind of drawbacks does it bring compared to the Deferred ?
Did you go for the Deferred Rendering due to the greatly increased number of lights ? And thus we all have to blame the damn night for not having a working AntiAlias (which is cool but not worth the TAA hell) ?

I'm just curious , i'm no expert on that topic, all (few) i know is what i learned in those months thanks to how much the TAA upsets me

 

Oh really. Obviously Gran Turismo devs aren't "real devs".
Wasn't really relevant to this thread anyway, just a follow-up to what someone else posted.

Obviously yes.

In my opinion a good decision. And there are plenty of modern games with deferred rendering that still offer good antialiasing. So it can be done. Suppose Kunos will just have to venture beyond what's offered by the engine by default.

 

I saw just another UE4 racing game(Kart) , that should use deferred rendering too, and its AA is even worse or maybe not there at all. Some different games can get better results than ACC with the TAA but its probably tied to the kind of camera and objects moviments you have in a Simracing game ? Which is WAY different than other games.
Because as far as i understand (not so far here too i gotta admit) the temporal AA is based on the former frames and thus pretty sensible to the kind of moviments of objects and camera

Got an example of an UE4 game (or just a deferred rendered one) which has a good AntiAlias result ?

 

A game I was playing "Squad" uses the UE4 and they implemented there own SMAA. It was nicely done. After a couple of years they dropped it however a few people have complained and they are looking to bring it back. Who knows if Kunos will venture down this path.

 

ACC looks brilliant at times but what's the point if you have to stop using triples/VR in order to see that? So, not satisfied with the engine upgrade.

 

I am old enough to remember the religious war between the Unreal engine used in Unreal Tournamente and the IdT3 engine used in Quake III Arena.
I was a Q3A fan, and always thought that UT had better visuals, but seemed 'slow' for a first person shooter.
I'm old...

 

166 hours in now and I can’t say I have issues with the visuals, looks good to me. All my playing is exclusively with Oculus CV1. Something to remember is that AA by nature is a bandaid to the problem of a lack of resolution. Newer headsets would suffer less here and something with the resolution of an HP Reverb shouldn’t have issues at all (ignoring the crappy WMR implementation). Hopefully in the next 12 months or so high res headsets will be even more normal and more affordable

 

[QUOTE = "fenegroni, post: 1073964, member: 212751"]
I am old ... [/ QUOTE]
But no, if we are here, it's because some of us have been able to stay young.)

 

UE4 offers a Forward Renderer but it's pretty limited feature wise and more oriented to mobile gaming than PC/Console gaming. We had a quick try but quickly discarded it because so many features (most notable reflections, perhaps motion blur as well) were missing it was a non starter... so we can say it wasn't even a debate: deferred is the only real option at the moment.

 

Performance throughout the Early Access was very fine for me. At launch I experienced stuttering with the same graphics settings. I ended up just dialing the resolution scale to 90 %. This has worked surprisingly well. I play at 3440x1440 resolution and this reduction in rendering resolution is not resulting in any evident loss of visual fidelity to my own eyes. On the other hand it has provided a nice boost in fps.

At the moment I run with a mixed bag of settings between highest and down to medium + 90 % resolution scale. That provides me with around 65-75 fps in dry daylight conditions during races. Somewhat less with rain/night obviously.

Hardware: GTX 1070, i7 3770k.

 

Thanks (btw noone cares bout motion blur...or at least i don't )

 

Can't agree with the tone of your post but motion blur is the first thing I disable when launching a new game.

 

I'd say for the spectators mode it's a good thing because it'll make things look more natural/movie-like.

 

Got to say that I don't see either of these issues and I don't have a super PC. Running smoothly at 1440p with mostly epic or high settings and large grids. I very happy with the UE4 game engine (but have to admit I only run a single screen).

 

Something may happen to old engine to squash its flaws

 

Have you considered CMAA2 as an alternative to FXAA and TAA for ACC? I think it's the best post process AA currently available

 

Let us not forget the timeless phrase that is “but can it play Crysis?”

There’s an interesting look at it here: https://www.pcgamer.com/au/10-years-later-we-can-finally-run-crysis/

I remember Quake 3 being not too different, there was nothing in existence at the time that could max it out.

I’m not sure when it is that people started to expect new release games to be instantly playable on their max graphics settings, I do suspect it has something to do with the ever increasing cost of high end hardware giving people the opinion that if they spend a heap on the latest and fastest current cards and CPU’s then they are somehow entitled to be able to max everything out.

For me personally I’m very OK with not maxing everything instantly as it prevents anything being dated in a few years time and means the devs are pushing the boundaries of what’s possible visually much like Crysis did all those years ago. I imagine with game development one of the choices you would make is do you develop the visuals bellow the current hardware, at the level of current hardware, or beyond the level of current hardware so future hardware can be taken advantage of. If you have only a short term goal for the sim then current hardware is fine but if your views for its development span several years down the road then why limit yourself now?

And let’s not forget that while VR has now been around for a few years it’s still very much in its infancy and it’s requirements and complications throw a fairly massive spanner in the performance works.

 

@Serge M Don't forget games like Doom 3. They had graphics settings tied to the amount of VRAM available on the system, something more DEVs should do. It would prevent people from attempting to run settings they shouldn't be using. You literally couldn't play Doom 3 on Ultra graphics for many years until the next generation of video cards came out, the option was greyed out and would only be enabled when they game detected more VRAM.

Another thing is, asking these types of question, "What do you think of X", unless people have technical expertise their opinion will most likely be either superficial or just completely wrong. Are you suddenly an expert because you play a game that uses X engine?

That's why I think threads where people complain they used UE4 over something else is laughable.... these armchair experts...