Are you satisfied with the Unreal engine in simracing?

Guys, can you try these settings and say how you like it? I think i might like it better than the default.

Contrast 0.60
Exposure 0.30 or 0.20

 

UE does have some good points, however for me the bad points make it a troublesome engine. It’s AA methods are less than adequate and it tends to be a resource hog, because none of the UE titles I have perform particularly well on my rig many titles struggle to get over 100fps, whereas I can achieve frame rates of 350+ on AC.

 

Though i think it has big potential just needs more work in general and updates (not just ACC, the engine itself). And for me it already is the best looking Racing Game on the market.

 

Again as mentioned before, comparing AC to ACC is ridiculous. AC Early access was 6 years ago! Would be the same as saying that the new Frostbite engine Dice used for Battlefield 5 is crap because I can run Bad Company 2 at 300fps+ but BF5 struggles to get 60...

Of course it will punish hardware, it SHOULD punish hardware, it’s new and needs to be relevant for a long time to come. What kind of FPS did AC have on first release?

 

The game is very CPU intensive which could have a lot to do with the physics complexity of all the cars moreso than just the implementation of UE4. I've run ACC on both a 8086k and a 9400f, both 6 cores but obviously clock speed/hyperthreading differences, however with the same in game settings I had to run my monitor at 90hz with the 9400f where I could run it at 120hz with the 8086k. Of note is that the game utilises all threads/cores, so with a quad core 4790k that will be impacting you a bit. Yes it's a great chip (I've owned one!), but it is still a quad core and is 5 gens old.

So to conclude yes you will be able to run it reasonably (tell 2008 Ben Lee that you were playing this at 100fps and he'll likely start drooling because he still can't run Crysis at 1440*900 smoothly), but maxing it out on a 4790k and 1070ti @ 300+ fps won't happen.

 

Depends if you are using post processing. Default 0.50 contrast is way too much for me if i have PP enabled and it's okay if i have it on low. With PP set on mid-high i have to use 0.35 or 0.40.
Just go with settings you are comfortable with. It's totally subjective.

 

I get about 180fps in Battlefield 1 using the Frostbite engine from DICE. Most UE engine first person shooters I struggle to get over 100fps. I have Hell Let Loose, Sandstorm 2 and a few others. None of them perform brilliantly.

I get around 250-320fps in Project Cars and Project Cars 2, not that I think much of those games in sim terms, but in ACC I struggle to get above 120fps, and thats with a lot of settings turned down.

I just think the UE has a high overhead for whatever reason. None of the games look amazing because of questionable AA methods and perform averagely (in my opinion).

 

120fps in ACC with a 1070ti? I think thats more than good news considering that the card is a 1440p 60fps Ultra Settings card.
i get in a 16AI field of cars clear weather for example in Barcelona 120fps on average during the first lap with everything maxed out on 1440p

 

Engine looks pretty good to me. I'm a mid/low level rig in sim terms but my 4790k and 2070 deliver a pretty good experience at 2560x1080.

 

Well, all of the games I own that use Unreal4 suffer like ACC with performance and the same "problems" in the shadows popping and requiring a lot of processing besides the antialiasing method. If that's going to change any further, I think it's up to Epic to work on the improvements that Unreal needs, rather than game developers. This is not to say that the Devs can not try to see if it is possible to bypass or circumvent Engine shortcomings, Kunos showed this with his KTAA

 

What are your settings at 60 fps? For example, with 28 AI, night, rain.

 

Night and rain really slow things down. All I can say is even at 2560x1440 I can't achieve 60fps on my rig. Running a recent i5 cpu 8840 or something like that, vega 64. I can achieve 60fps on Pcars2 with all eye-candy on with 30 AI except in case of rain or night at 4k. The fact that I can't even get day races to run at 60fps at 2560x1440 on ACC shows it has issue. Yeah, it might look a bit better here and there but it's not like it's wholesale dramatically better looking so I feel the comparison is pretty valid.

 

Hm. Night and rain don't seem to be an issue on my system. It's when many cars are in view (particularly when viewed with track cameras) and for some reason the lighting in the morning hours where performance really drops for me.

 

Yeah, Vega 64 and UE4 don't play too well together, unfortunately.

 

can I vote yes and no

yes - on a 43" megawide it looks GREAT (shadow / LOD pop is a bit annoying but I can kinda tune it out)

no - in VR its horrid, and I really wanted to play in VR... I guess we're waiting on improvements there but I suspect its going to take next gen GPU to get that solid 90fps at decent quality


Still, it drives great and I cant help but like it overall

 

There’s a third option, just saying.

 

Hello,
The questions to ask yourself with UE4:
From the point of view physics cars there is more possibilities
From the graphical point of view of cars and tracks are there more possibilities. Of course while being playable for the greatest number, without having equipment worth a fortune.
But if the benefits are minor, then why complicate the life.
JF

 

In general I like UE4, but I hate: the popping even maxing out the graphics and that the act of activate the mirrors even at the lowest setting worth 20fps+ not even in the gpl times I needed to deactivate the mirrors to have a decent frame rate.