FatKingBallman
Banned
this because Sony portable asked to don't release the demo (for better or for worse) on other platforms ... to avoid comparison you understand it right?
Man, WTF you're smoking.
this because Sony portable asked to don't release the demo (for better or for worse) on other platforms ... to avoid comparison you understand it right?
Where’s the “Lumen in the Land of Nanite” demo then? Why hasn’t it been released to the public? Lol, I love how you’re all like “I would trust the Unreal 5 devs over some forum member“ but when Tim Sweeney of all people said the laptop was playing a video of last year’s demo running on the PS5 and that last year's demo wouldn't have been possible without the breakthroughs Sony's made, “hE’S iN a mArKEtiNg dEaL WiTH sOnY!!!” Funny enough I didn’t see PlayStation posting/promoting anything about this on their social media last year when the demo was released, dumb move on their part I guess for a non-existent "mARkeTiNG dEaL."I answered this question in a previous thread like 2 weeks ago. Look in my history and you'll see where I quoted a few ppl saying that, even after Epic confirmed it would run on all platforms. I even quoted the ppl that said the demo wouldn't run on Xbox or PC/or have downgraded visuals a few posts up from here. You can even search GAF to find this as well.
You didn't even bother reading the post and as usual, you have no clue as to what you're even talking about. I might've missed it, but did they disclose the source polygon count difference between last year's demo and this demo and how many polygons were actually being rendered every frame? While both demos look great anyway, what I loved most about last year's "Lumen in the Land of Nanite" demo was the sheer geometric density and the ending part where the chick literally flies through all those structures while they're collapsing in real-time.Until we see that, UE5 Demo is officially stated by the devs themselves it’s built around PS5 I/o. That’s the demo, not UE5 itself.
Is the demo scalable? Sure, it may just run with 1/4 the fidelity on a regular ssd for example. But we need to be specific when talking about what was shown vs what’s possible.
Watch your dirty mouth, there is nothing wrong with my mem, mem, mem fs.So you have a fish memory and can't hold details for more than 30 seconds?
Man you just keep repeating this...Let's put simple numbers again for the last time (gonna watch a match now):
Old: 100's of billions of polygons demo.
Ohhh maybe it is the LG CX and 3090 issue... there is a HDMI signal the CX won’t accept with 3080/3090.
I would trust the guys who actually worked on the demo themselves over a GAF forum member like yourself, or Tim Sweeney for that matter. He's high up in the company now and handles PR, unlike the devs that actually created the engine and demo. And they were 100% spot on with their findings in what they reported last year.Where’s the “Lumen in the Land of Nanite” demo then? Why hasn’t it been released to the public? Lol, I love how you’re all like “I would trust the Unreal 5 devs over some forum member“ but when Tim Sweeney of all people said the laptop was playing a video of last year’s demo running on the PS5 and that last year's demo wouldn't have been possible without the breakthroughs Sony's made, “hE’S iN a mArKEtiNg dEaL WiTH sOnY!!!” Funny enough I didn’t see PlayStation posting/promoting anything about this on their social media last year when the demo was released, dumb move on their part I guess for a non-existent "mARkeTiNG dEaL."
The new “Valley of the Ancient” demo looks amazing on all the platforms it was shown on and I can’t wait for that to become a standard this gen, I just personally found last year’s demo a bit more impressive. I don't remember seeing people here saying that UE5 itself was exclusive to PS5 when Epic themselves literally said it was scalable all the way down to smartphones, people were CLEARLY talking about LAST YEAR'S tech demo, not the engine itself.
One of the posts you quoted to "pRoVe aLL tHEm NaYsAyERs wRoNG" talking about last year's tech demo:
You didn't even bother reading the post and as usual, you have no clue as to what you're even talking about. I might've missed it, but did they disclose the source polygon count difference between last year's demo and this demo and how many polygons were actually being rendered every frame? While both demos look great anyway, what I loved most about last year's "Lumen in the Land of Nanite" demo was the sheer geometric density and the ending part where the chick literally flies through all those structures while they're collapsing in real-time.
And for anyone wondering about the resolution of last year's demo:
Yeah I'm not actually up on tech enough to know but something feels off today to me. Doesn't look like a year's work later imo.
I remember previous demos, they showed the exact demos on pc and I remember downloading the balloons one with the kid, you could run it in a loop and watch it. Maybe the equivalent of the original demo comes later.
Man, WTF you're smoking.
Which demo and could you please link it?A guy ran this demo with a 3090 and a fucking HDD with no hiccups, hitches, etc. The power of the SSD was a lie in this instance.
It seems pretty evident that on PC they are just loading data into system RAM, and then streaming into VRAM from there?
That's why having an SSD or not doesn't matter.
The devs that created the game. The interview with the Chinese devs that broke down the tech in like an hour plus long interview. I believe there are links on beyond3d. But they gave hardware that the demo ran on, and it is spot on to people's findings today. If it can run amazing on a HDD or pci-3.0 SSD, like shown today, I don't see why they hyped up ps5 SSD... Until the marketing deal was revealed publically, and then it all made sense.Which demo and could you please link it?
That's because PC is brute-forcing the SSD advantage with - and this isn't to be said lightly - 64 GIGS OF RAM + 8 GIGS OF VRAM.I would trust the guys who actually worked on the demo themselves over a GAF forum member like yourself, or Tim Sweeney for that matter. He's high up in the company now and handles PR, unlike the devs that actually created the engine and demo. And they were 100% spot on with their findings in what they reported last year.
It doesn't help that the marketing deal was revealed wide open with Epic and Sony, which justifies what everyone already thought about a marketing deal. It literally solidified what everyone was already claiming.
A guy ran this demo with a 3090 and a fucking HDD with no hiccups, hitches, etc. The power of the SSD was a lie in this instance.
We need more games with natural habitats like that. Imagine PS3's Afrika in this engine or a game like Abzu. I would cry.I hope they showcase something like the Great Barrier Reef with a huge amount of aquatic life going about there business.
The RAM requirement pretty much tells that... 64GB for 100% screen percentage and 32GB for 50% screen percentage.It seems pretty evident that on PC they are just loading data into system RAM, and then streaming into VRAM from there?
That's why having an SSD or not doesn't matter.
You don't need 64gb of RAM, which has been repeated to death already. Might as well edit your post, so others won't continue to be dead wrong like you are.That's because PC is brute-forcing the SSD advantage with - and this isn't to be said lightly - 64 GIGS OF RAM + 8 GIGS OF VRAM.
So unless DirectStorage and RTX I/O are fucking scams as well, I guess we can expect consumers to buy 64 gigs of RAM for UE5 / next-gen titles? Stop being willfully obtuse, brother.
Probably because the I/O enables the demo to run on a system that isn't using an enormous amount of RAM.The devs that created the game. The interview with the Chinese devs that broke down the tech in like an hour plus long interview. I believe there are links on beyond3d. But they gave hardware that the demo ran on, and it is spot on to people's findings today. If it can run amazing on a HDD or pci-3.0 SSD, like shown today, I don't see why they hyped up ps5 SSD... Until the marketing deal was revealed publically, and then it all made sense.
Watch your dirty mouth, there is nothing wrong with my mem, mem, mem fs.
I feel like 16 gb of ram was good to go for last gen games. And probably very feasible for the beginning of this gen at least. But I've been using 32gb of RAM from last gen, and have 64 now, just to be future proof. Not everyone will do that, but at the same time, there's no games that are using 16gb of RAM as the very minimum, more or less 32gb at the moment.Probably because the I/O enables the demo to run on a system that isn't using an enormous amount of RAM.
For PC it seems they are loading into system RAM ahead of time, then "streaming" to VRAM from there. So that is actually faster than the PS5 I/O, but obviously not incredibly efficient.. and wouldn't work on a console, or a phone.. and probably won't be feasible for actual released games on PC either.
We really won't know realistically what this all does for games until actual games are out. Particularly what devs will do w/ PC requirements for cross platform games vs. what Sony could do for a PS5 only game (since MS is a PC shop.) Sony might also be asking devs to make their games PC compatible.. but I also could see Sony allowing ridiculous RAM requirements on PC.
A static, slow-moving scene will have no issues when running off HDD.A guy ran this demo with a 3090 and a fucking HDD with no hiccups, hitches, etc. The power of the SSD was a lie in this instance.
A static, slow-moving scene will have no issues when running off HDD.
Where SSD is crucial is in scenes like this for fast asset streaming. It wasn't a lie. This will be a slideshow on your HDD.
He went through the portal, which changed the world. Under a second. And handled it with absolutely no issue. I just pray that all games don't end up in some shitty gimmick, where the industry implements shitty portals in every game. The only game to ever get it right is the game, Portal 1 & 2.A static, slow-moving scene will have no issues when running off HDD.
Where SSD is crucial is in scenes like this for fast asset streaming. It wasn't a lie.
It's not using the HDD to stream data.. it's using system RAM... faster than any I/O solution.A static, slow-moving scene will have no issues when running off HDD.
Where SSD is crucial is in scenes like this for fast asset streaming. It wasn't a lie. This will be a slideshow on your HDD.
It's not required, it's recommended. I'll try to get some statistics here in a minute as I have 64G of RAM, and 3090.The RAM requirement pretty much tells that... 64GB for 100% screen percentage and 32GB for 50% screen percentage.
I said SSD, not HDD.It's not using the HDD to stream data.. it's using system RAM... faster than any I/O solution.
So why 32GB drops to 50%?It's not required, it's recommended. I'll try to get some statistics here in a minute as I have 64G of RAM, and 3090.
There is a difference...I said SSD, not HDD.
Where does the system RAM get its data from?
The question becomes what will games released on PC actually require.I feel like 16 gb of ram was good to go for last gen games. And probably very feasible for the beginning of this gen at least. But I've been using 32gb of RAM from last gen, and have 64 now, just to be future proof. Not everyone will do that, but at the same time, there's no games that are using 16gb of RAM as the very minimum, more or less 32gb at the moment.
But I can definitely see more ram being more important than faster storage, at least till directstorage drops. But these demos can run perfectly fine, even without direct storage.
You also said HDD.. point was it's not streaming from your drive, it's "streaming" from system RAM into the GPU...that is readily apparent from the lack of any I/O requirement and the high RAM requirement.I said SSD, not HDD.
Where does the system RAM get its data from?
I see not much difference at all.
Thats the point. Lumin gives you better than baked quality without having to fucking bake. Lumen is fully dynamic, baked is not. This means open world games with day night cycles can have baked quality.I see not much difference at all.
If Lunem is less expensive to the hardware then it is a good thing.Thats the point. Lumin gives you better than baked quality without having to fucking bake. Lumen is fully dynamic, baked is not. This means open world games with day night cycles can have baked quality.
It's incredibly expensive it seems.If Lunem is less expensive to the hardware then it is a good thing.
Uhh, Lumin is far more resource intensive than baked lighting. But we have these beefy computers for a reason, and its time to force people to upgrade to play games. Light baking needs to die in a fire.If Lunem is less expensive to the hardware then it is a good thing.
As someone said above, yeah that's the entire point of the image.I see not much difference at all.
Its a separate download on the launcher.hey folks i downloaded the UE5 Editor as well - how can i acess the Demo shown in the Video? It opens the UE5 and i can choose between stuff but the new demo is not there..
well, yes, that's what Nanite does. Some in this thread would have you believe 'source' polygons imply power levels like the billions and billions of polygons from PS5That's because it's not rendering anywhere near that many polygons.
I find it strange people are so hung up on this Nanite thing. Like, people, nanite is very simple. It decimates (lowers the poly count) of high poly meshes and then recomputes the normals while also automatically creating LODS (RIP SIMPLYGON?). That's all it does. Why the fuck are people yelling about Millions vs billions of polygons? Yall realize even if its on the lower end it blows away, by an order of magnitude, the amount of polys current game engines can handle right? We should all be super happy about this! Like, wtf is with the dick waving contest and bickering in this thread.well, yes, that's what Nanite does. Some in this thread would have you believe 'source' polygons imply power levels like the billions and billions of polygons from PS5
Absolutely 100% agree. It's a pain in the ass.Uhh, Lumin is far more resource intensive than baked lighting. But we have these beefy computers for a reason, and its time to force people to upgrade to play games. Light baking needs to die in a fire.
Baked lighting = static GI solution (you cannot change it at runtime)
Lumin = fully dynamic (can change during runtime)
Yall don't understand how much I loathe baking lights in game engines. Its a pain in the ass and I am glad it is on its death bed. Sorry, you will have to upgrade that 1060.