Support NeoGAF

[DonJuanSchlong]

Nice way to dodge it, when it should be obvious to anyone that the video was about using the engine tools on PC, and the target resolution and specs I was implicitly talking about for running the editor, just in terms of the PC.

That doesn't take away from the fact that consoles run it at 1080 30fps, while pc can run it at much higher settings than ps5. Ps5 can't run the editor. They used a dev kit to run the demo you keep implying was more impressive. Maybe we are going around in circles at this point. But as long as we leave with the facts, is what's important.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Well that's to be expected, as the PS5 demo doesn't push the BVH RT feature hard - despite looking better than anything on any platform we've seen - it was a demonstration of the PS5 IO (based on the slide info) with nanite and lumen, and using most of UE's other key features. If dialling up far more BVH RT stuff costs 1400p > 1080p to look even better, then that's hardly the same as concluding that this unimpressive demo that does a fraction of the first demo will be 1080p30 on it, is it? That is a conflation of two different things IMO, and let's the person making the point of the hook for failing to bring proof. (can you also link to that page of documentation?)

I don't disagree.. we don't really have proof that it doesn't run better.. we also have no clue how any of this is going to play out in games on any system.

Here's the link to the doc:

Lumen Technical Details in Unreal Engine | Unreal Engine 5.0 Documentation

In reading it again; it might be suggesting that the lighting/reflections themselves run at 1080p30 not the entire frame.

 

[PaintTinJr]

That doesn't take away from the fact that consoles run it at 1080 30fps, while pc can run it at much higher settings than ps5. Ps5 can't run the editor. They used a dev kit to run the demo you keep implying was more impressive. Maybe we are going around in circles at this point. But as long as we leave with the facts, is what's important.

Your point about the editor is also hypocrisy - because at no point in the second demo do Epic state the consoles don't run the editor - it is obvious to the audience - but you assumed I said it did, because I don't explicitly factor out pc as the only one running the editor.
But you still haven't brought receipts for your fact. So I'll ask again, please transcribe so we can inspect your claimed fact.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Your point about the editor is also hypocrisy - because at no point in the second demo do Epic state the consoles don't run the editor - it is obvious to the audience - but you assumed I said it did, because I don't explicitly factor out pc as the only one running the editor.
But you still haven't brought receipts for your fact. So I'll ask again, please transcribe so we can inspect your claimed fact.

Consoles never ran the editor! That's my point! You claimed it did, not me, not Epic. The receipts are in both videos. The first one of the demo last year, had PC running the editor, not PS5. This year's video, only showed a few seconds of PS5, with PC running the editor and demo for the majority of the whole video.

 

[SmokSmog]

1 second of input lag.

+ even more boring missions on rails

 

[PaintTinJr]

Consoles never ran the editor! That's my point! You claimed it did, not me, not Epic. The receipts are in both videos. The first one of the demo last year, had PC running the editor, not PS5. This year's video, only showed a few seconds of PS5, with PC running the editor and demo for the majority of the whole video.

At the first time you claimed I said that, I clarified the meaning of my words, refuting it, so now you are just trolling on that resolved issue.

So there's no misunderstood mean on your words, are you claiming that Epic state that the consoles lack the performance to run the demo better than 1080p30? - as I will transcribe all the console performance comments in 2nd videi to resolve this, if you won't.

I'm claiming (quoting from memory) that they run this demo on the consoles at full resolution and framerate - and obviously show a tiny part of the demo consistently running on all three platforms @ 1080p30 at the start of the UE5 UI demonstration video. Making no claims about the consoles inability or ability to go higher for the demo.

 

[VFXVeteran]

For those reading this thread, UE5 editor does not run on consoles. It's done on PC and cooked to PS platform. I'm trying to get Epic to give me the Sony project. It might not happen though.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

At the first time you claimed I said that, I clarified the meaning of my words, refuting it, so now you are just trolling on that resolved issue.

So there's no misunderstood mean on your words, are you claiming that Epic state that the consoles lack the performance to run the demo better than 1080p30? - as I will transcribe all the console performance comments in 2nd videi to resolve this, if you won't.

I'm claiming (quoting from memory) that they run this demo on the consoles at full resolution and framerate - and obviously show a tiny part of the demo consistently running on all three platforms @ 1080p30 at the start of the UE5 UI demonstration video. Making no claims about the consoles inability or ability to go higher for the demo.

It's their performance target. So they are optimizing for that resolution and framerate. Not sure what is so hard to believe about that... You believe Epic prior, why not now?

 

[PaintTinJr]

I don't disagree.. we don't really have proof that it doesn't run better.. we also have no clue how any of this is going to play out in games on any system.

Here's the link to the doc:

Lumen Technical Details in Unreal Engine | Unreal Engine 5.0 Documentation

In reading it again; it might be suggesting that the lighting/reflections themselves run at 1080p30 not the entire frame.

Thanks for the link

Lumen's Global Illumination and Reflections primary shipping target is to support large, open worlds running at 60 frames per second (fps) on next-generation consoles. The engine's High scalability level contains settings for Lumen targeting 60 fps.
Lumen's secondary focus is on clean indoor lighting at 30 fps on next-generation consoles. The engine's Epic scalability level produces around 8 milliseconds (ms) on next-generation consoles for global illumination and reflections at 1080p internal resolution, relying on Temporal Super Resolution to output at quality approaching native 4k.

I assume this line I've highlighted above is the part you meant originally, because that's very interesting that nanite is under 5ms in the PS5 first demo, and lumen is clocked at 14ms (IIRC), so for that to be a performance budget of just 8ms, then it implies one of the consoles maybe isn't managing nanite at under 5ms, and only leaving 8ms of 33ms to do the lighting - it would certainly tally with x5 less latency than RTX IO or XVA that Cerny showed in Road to PS5 100x latency reduction, versus 20x reduction on XVA specs.

It also clearly shows the PS5 won't be running this demo at 1080p30, if it at 1400p it was able to complete frames just beyond the 16.6ms limit for 60fps and they said they expected to optimise the demo - with more time to 60fps.

 

[VFXVeteran]

Thanks for the link


I assume this line I've highlighted above is the part you meant originally, because that's very interesting that nanite is under 5ms in the PS5 first demo, and lumen is clocked at 14ms (IIRC), so for that to be a performance budget of just 8ms, then it implies one of the consoles maybe isn't managing nanite at under 5ms, and only leaving 8ms of 33ms to do the lighting. It also clearly shows the PS5 won't be running this demo at 1080p30, if it at 1400p it was able to complete frames just beyond the 16.6ms limit for 60fps and they said they expected to optimise the demo - with more time to 60fps.

The numbers are completely moot since there is no gameplay code, transparency assets, multiple unique characters, animations, volume FX etc..we can't assume this demo is representative of an actual game.

If the consoles struggle right now with 1440p/60FPS with less complex geometric/lighting pipelines, I can see a frame budget ceiling happening rather quickly for a given scene.

 

[PaintTinJr]

The numbers are completely moot since there is no gameplay code, transparency assets, multiple unique characters, animations, volume FX etc..we can't assume this demo is representative of an actual game.

If the consoles struggle right now with 1440p/60FPS with less complex geometric/lighting pipelines, I can see a frame budget ceiling happening rather quickly for a given scene.

There is nothing to look at in the 2nd demo, where is all the stuff mentioned in the Unrealfest videos - that the ps5 does, like Brian mentioning the complex simulation for the huge blue vortex at the end of the Ps5 demo? Or the complex creature behaviours reacting to the spotlight, etc, etc?

This recent demo is pretty vacant and dull, and nothing like something from an actual game(IMHO) - but playing mostly exclusives on platforms I might be out of touch with a more varied quality bar. The other demo for PS5 looks a little bit uncharted, and a lot Last Guardian - two actual game scenarios I can already see being fabricated into existing IPs.

 

[PaintTinJr]

It's their performance target. So they are optimizing for that resolution and framerate. Not sure what is so hard to believe about that... You believe Epic prior, why not now?

They don't say what you claim AFAIK - will check and get back to you when I do. I'm puzzled by the situation. if you believe you are correct in your claim, why don't you want to prove it ? Especially as the forum FAQ rules state you should prove it, or withdraw the claim.

 

[VFXVeteran]

There is nothing to look at in the 2nd demo, where is all the stuff mentioned in the Unrealfest videos - that the ps5 does, like Brian mentioning the complex simulation for the huge blue vortex at the end of the Ps5 demo? Or the complex creature behaviours reacting to the spotlight, etc, etc?

You got a blue vortex that's a simulation with no interactivity. Looks great! But it's just for show. The bugs are particles with Actor code to them. Nice but there are way more games that have even better AI than that. CPU cost there so no biggie.

This recent demo is pretty vacant and dull, and nothing like something from an actual game(IMHO) - but playing mostly exclusives on platforms I might be out of touch with a more varied quality bar. The other demo for PS5 looks a little bit uncharted, and a lot Last Guardian - two actual game scenarios I can already see being fabricated into existing IPs.

The recent demo has a lot more going for it IMO because the map is larger and will tax the hardware quicker.

If I was tasked by Epic to make a map to tax the hardware, I'm going to go bigger as well. I would be particularly interested in how many unique meshes I can put into the scene to find out the breaking point. I would also have to put that scene in the Lumen pass to see how the lighting holds up. I would have used shadow maps as well on local lights. They ignored that. Basically I would have brought the RTX 3090 to it's knees and consequently all hardware below it. A good developer doesn't need to make fancy small parts that are inconsequential to the frametimes like the bugs and instanced statues in order to determine a good performance metric (which is the goal).

You saw a fancy vertical slice of a typical game using UE5 and that's all fine and dandy, but the scope was too small to determine how it would really perform with a much larger world, more textures having to be indexed (which would surely cost ms), and multiple high res shadow mapped lights with a free-roaming camera with a top speed velocity attached to it.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

They don't say what you claim AFAIK - will check and get back to you when I do. I'm puzzled by the situation. if you believe you are correct in your claim, why don't you want to prove it ? Especially as the forum FAQ rules state you should prove it, or withdraw the claim.

And you've never proved anything about ps5 running the current iteration of the updated engine or demo, better than it's first appearance, or even on par. It's lower now. I'm not home right now so I can't exactly get the quote, but at least one person or more stated it earlier in this thread. If I'm not mistaken, you directly responded to the quote with the info in there. It was posted several times in the other unreal thread, quoted from Epic themselves.

You might want to put up some info yourself, as it's been confirmed to run at 1080p 30fps on next gen consoles. I'm not sure why this pill is so hard to swallow.

 

[CamHostage]

There is nothing to look at in the 2nd demo, where is all the stuff mentioned in the Unrealfest videos - that the ps5 does, like Brian mentioning the complex simulation for the huge blue vortex at the end of the Ps5 demo? Or the complex creature behaviours reacting to the spotlight, etc, etc?

This recent demo is pretty vacant and dull, and nothing like something from an actual game(IMHO) - but playing mostly exclusives on platforms I might be out of touch with a more varied quality bar. The other demo for PS5 looks a little bit uncharted, and a lot Last Guardian - two actual game scenarios I can already see being fabricated into existing IPs.

It would have been nice if both demos had been released and available to pick apart, for sure... Until that happens, we're left to bicker about what is and isn't possible and what is and isn't in the available demo that does or does not show the powers and limitations of the engine on distinct hardware.

Speaking of, I would really like to see "Chaos" released for research, if it were possible. There's a nice Chaos Destruction tutorial, but it's obviously very different in purpose and execution. (That tutorial also shows the limitations of the Chaos system under typical horsepower, I'd be curious what this "real-time tech demo" ran under and what tricks they were using like camera placement and particle generation to augment the Chaos physics system and pull this off.)

 

[PaintTinJr]

You got a blue vortex that's a simulation with no interactivity. Looks great! But it's just for show. The bugs are particles with Actor code to them. Nice but there are way more games that have even better AI than that. CPU cost there so no biggie.


The recent demo has a lot more going for it IMO because the map is larger and will tax the hardware quicker.

If I was tasked by Epic to make a map to tax the hardware, I'm going to go bigger as well. I would be particularly interested in how many unique meshes I can put into the scene to find out the breaking point. I would also have to put that scene in the Lumen pass to see how the lighting holds up. I would have used shadow maps as well on local lights. They ignored that. Basically I would have brought the RTX 3090 to it's knees and consequently all hardware below it. A good developer doesn't need to make fancy small parts that are inconsequential to the frametimes like the bugs and instanced statues in order to determine a good performance metric (which is the goal).

You saw a fancy vertical slice of a typical game using UE5 and that's all fine and dandy, but the scope was too small to determine how it would really perform with a much larger world, more textures having to be indexed (which would surely cost ms), and multiple high res shadow mapped lights with a free-roaming camera with a top speed velocity attached to it.

Have you actually watched the full video of the first demo? We are talking 10,000km draw distance, and then flying it, cinema assets being GI lit while streaming into view constantly, at 20m triangles per frame giving constant IQ from models with millions of source triangles and three layers of 8K textures per unique model(IIIRC) and all instances being uniquely scaled. How big did they need to make the world for you?

 

[Lethal01]

If I was tasked by Epic to make a map to tax the hardware, I'm going to go bigger as well. I would be particularly interested in how many unique meshes I can put into the scene to find out the breaking point. I would also have to put that scene in the Lumen pass to see how the lighting holds up. I would have used shadow maps as well on local lights. They ignored that. Basically I would have brought the RTX 3090 to it's knees and consequently all hardware below it. A good developer doesn't need to make fancy small parts that are inconsequential to the frametimes like the bugs and instanced statues in order to determine a good performance metric (which is the goal).

You saw a fancy vertical slice of a typical game using UE5 and that's all fine and dandy, but the scope was too small to determine how it would really perform with a much larger world, more textures having to be indexed (which would surely cost ms), and multiple high res shadow mapped lights with a free-roaming camera with a top speed velocity attached to it.

They literally said that the first demo was made to push things to the absolute limit while this one was made to be a learning tool that people could download.

 

[PaintTinJr]

And you've never proved anything about ps5 running the current iteration of the updated engine or demo, better than it's first appearance, or even on par. It's lower now. I'm not home right now so I can't exactly get the quote, but at least one person or more stated it earlier in this thread. If I'm not mistaken, you directly responded to the quote with the info in there. It was posted several times in the other unreal thread, quoted from Epic themselves.

You might want to put up some info yourself, as it's been confirmed to run at 1080p 30fps on next gen consoles. I'm not sure why this pill is so hard to swallow.

Completely shifting the goal posts as that was never disputed.

The line I highlighted isn't what you've been claiming. You said they can't render the demo higher than 1080p30 like a 3090 can, and you have no receipts for that claim. If you are back tracking to confirm the actual facts, of what was factually shown, then there is no disagreement.

But look at the nanite docs info in my previous post, that proves that PS5 has render budget for nanite at 1400p, and lumen at 1400p - with much greater workload - and still would have around 15ms spare for other rendering for gameplay and BVH RT features in the first demo.

 

[VFXVeteran]

They literally said that the first demo was made to push things to the absolute limit while this one was made to be a learning tool that people could download.

I don't know what that means and would have to talk to the devs specifically. Just because they said that doesn't mean this new one isn't doing that. It's released to devs for a reason while the other seems to elude the public. I will get an answer next week if I can upload the project or not. But I never make assumptions.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I assume this line I've highlighted above is the part you meant originally, because that's very interesting that nanite is under 5ms in the PS5 first demo, and lumen is clocked at 14ms (IIRC), so for that to be a performance budget of just 8ms, then it implies one of the consoles maybe isn't managing nanite at under 5ms, and only leaving 8ms of 33ms to do the lighting - it would certainly tally with x5 less latency than RTX IO or XVA that Cerny showed in Road to PS5 100x latency reduction, versus 20x reduction on XVA specs.

It also clearly shows the PS5 won't be running this demo at 1080p30, if it at 1400p it was able to complete frames just beyond the 16.6ms limit for 60fps and they said they expected to optimise the demo - with more time to 60fps.

Huh? That quote is just about the expectation of the engine in general on next-gen consoles and has nothing to do with either demo. I don't think that "epic" level lighting system designed for interiors (not outdoor environs) was in either demo.

Putting way too much thought into a throwaway demo based off of an engine nearly 2 years away from even being in a preview state my friend (at the time of the demo.)

 

[Lethal01]

I don't know what that means and would have to talk to the devs specifically. Just because they said that doesn't mean this new one isn't doing that. It's released to devs for a reason while the other seems to elude the public. I will get an answer next week if I can upload the project or not. But I never make assumptions.

They specifically said the new one isn't doing that in the latest inside Unreal, The last one was made to push some things to the absolute maximum, this one was made taking the size on disc into account. Smaller textures.

And upload what project exactly? the exe of valley of the ancients demo?

 

[staticshock]

None of the youtube videos I've seen show the sections they showed off from the original demo, the truly detailed stuff. Like the statues and the high quality cave. Everything I've seen so far is a noticeable dip in quality from the demo. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

The UE5 demo shown off in a 2020 video (the one that used a PS5 and they talked a little bit of console-salesmanship but also showed off a ton more content and a more robust experience with creatures and caves and the fast-paced destruction sequence at the end) has not yet been released to the public, or shown for a second time since, or offered up for any kind of performance analyzation AFAIK. Frustratingly, we don't know much more about that demo besides having the 2021 demo to compare it to.

36 fps with 3090 .. a singel static avatar, one blue ball, static desert .. I presume less than 20 fps with more dynamic PS5 UE5 demo, isnt it .. 3090, 400 watt, 2000+ euro .. thank you and I love you.

Dont write back.

One year old PS5 demo is a little bit more impressive. On PC without HW restrictions they showed a third-class boring bullshit. Why ..

What? make up your mind, either it was lavished with effort and optimised, hence why it looks better than anything we've seen on any platform at any performance/resolution, or it was an impressive effort with nothing optimised to the PS5, and the PS5 hardware enabled that rapid level of expressiveness.

ps. Calling people like Cerny, Sweeney and the Epic's team liars about the PS5's UE5 demo used to be not the done thing here around the time of launch. Surely they are entitled to professional respect, and to be trusted unless you have proof, no?

"There's been a bunch of misconception that the PS5 Demo doesn't work anymore or only runs on a PS5"
Also entire Nanite data for the demo was 6.14 GB.

 

[Lethal01]

"There's been a bunch of misconception that the PS5 Demo doesn't work anymore or only runs on a PS5"
Also entire Nanite data for the demo was 6.14 GB.

Hopefully this ends some conspiracy theories on Sony desperately trying to hide this demo.

Here's a link to the full thing, nice indepth look at Nanite

 

[VFXVeteran]

They specifically said the new one isn't doing that in the latest inside Unreal, The last one was made to push some things to the absolute maximum, this one was made taking the size on disc into account. Smaller textures.

I don't know what you are claiming here. Are you trying to incenuate that this demo is less computensive compared to the Sony one thereby claiming that the PC GPUs would underperform if they had the Sony demo while the PS5 would outperform the PC? Surely you aren't making that claim right?

And upload what project exactly? the exe of valley of the ancients demo?

No, the PS5 demo.

 

[muteZX]

"There's been a bunch of misconception that the PS5 Demo doesn't work anymore or only runs on a PS5"
Also entire Nanite data for the demo was 6.14 GB.

"UE5 has gotten *substantially* better since we showed this demo. No "downgrades"."

I repeat my question .. where is that *substantially better* PC presentation for ninja PC ..

" .. push some things to the absolute maximum"

where, what, who ..

 

[Lethal01]

I don't know what you are claiming here. Are you trying to incenuate that this demo is less computensive compared to the Sony one thereby claiming that the PC GPUs would underperform if they had the Sony demo while the PS5 would outperform the PC? Surely you aren't making that claim right?

No claims, just saying they mentioned that the Lumen in Nanite was more of a showpiece with some things scaled back in the later demo. Do with that info what you want.

No, the PS5 demo.

Okay, Guess I'll see if I can get them to give me the demo too, I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[raduque]

I hate google drive. Download failed twice. Wish there was a better link. I really can't wait to see how pathetically my RX580 handles this.

 

[staticshock]

"UE5 has gotten *substantially* better since we showed this demo. No "downgrades"."

I repeat my question .. where is that *substantially better* PC presentation for ninja PC ..

" .. push some things to the absolute maximum"

where, what, who ..

Being ran on Brian’s pc... did you even watch the video. He did the entire showcase on his PC because of people like you. He has to defend his own creation from misinformation.

 

[niilokin]

F U C K imagine in the future if they implemented modeling&sculpting tools to this shit, like create EVERYTHING in one package.

 

[muteZX]

Being ran on Brian’s pc... did you even watch the video. He did the entire showcase on his PC because of people like you. He has to defend his own creation from misinformation.

what, where .. defending WHAT from whom ??

I repeat my question .. where is that *substantially better* PC presentation for ninja PC ..

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Man, if Epic ever releases that first demo, crows might actually go extinct. Thoughts & prayers

 

[longdi]

I hate google drive. Download failed twice. Wish there was a better link. I really can't wait to see how pathetically my RX580 handles this.

ran about 24-30fps in the dark world and 30-40fps in the cave world.
however the in game feels laggier than the numbers suggest.

pathetic 1080ti on uw 1440p still chugging.

anyone have that wierd halo artifacts across the gal when you spin the camera?

 

[hlm666]

Man, if Epic ever releases that first demo, crows might actually go extinct. Thoughts & prayers

No it's obvious at this point they would still rather eat their own shit, vomit it back up and eat it again than crow.

 

[Clear]

Here's the economic reality guys:

Epic have all this amazing tech, and yet they make the majority of their money off of Fortnite.

 

[Lethal01]

Here's the economic reality guys:

Epic have all this amazing tech, and yet they make the majority of their money off of Fortnite.

Hows that relevant to anything in this thread?

what did I miss?

 

[rodrigolfp]

Well I meant on PC.

On pc 800ms