Very good reflection shader code + GI. But question is what it runs on. DX12 Witch demo was running on 4x Titan X. There is probably reason for DX12 demos not being downloadable.

(near) static environments are pretty easy to render nowadays. its time a more interactive world be created. MOAR DESTRUCTION!!!!

(near) static environments are pretty easy to render nowadays. its time a more interactive world be created. MOAR DESTRUCTION!!!!

Destruction of the environment is troublesome because it requires lots of new models (that's expensive as it requires more 3D modellers, texture artists, and development time) and possibly dividing the existing ones suitable for partial destruction. This could also demand significant engine changes (if using a door loads a new area, then what happens if the whole wall is torn down?). Depending on the game it can also bloat save files (could be even incremental, corruption prone things) and generally make the engine more unstable when the environment can't simply be loaded the same way every time but the engine must always keep checking if something needs to be overwritten. If it's MP, the destruction must be synchronized over the network. It would be cool, but it's easy to understand why things change so slowly.

Despite the improvement in the field of multithreading in general . Game engines usually have troubles using many cores. usually games end up using less power from high end GPUs and CPUS . Most game engines avoid different cores for the same operation. In fact all programmers do to avoid hell.

Like others said. It seems we are moving to a world where everyone tries to make the best looking semi-static rendered picture. Furthermore, ive been seeing "impressive" tech demos like this for 10 years now. I still dont see any games with any of this. Maybe NOW we start getting games that look like tech demos from 10 years ago, and they run like ****, even on all the expensive hardware. The new fad is to cover up the game in all kinds of effects and heavy motion blur and what not, so you can barely see the game world. While mantaining low resoluton and 30fps.

Where have you seen impressive tech demos like this for 10 years? Like show me the demo that has this fidelity while running in real time 10 years ago? The entire point of these engines, specifically UE4, is that anyone, literally any little studio can produce extremely high quality content with a small team in a short amount of time, with little to no upfront cost. Every time these demos get posted people complain about the most inane ****. "Wahh, no destruction". "Wahh the textures on the rock look blurry" "wahh too much motion blur". All these things are configurable and left up to artistic choice. If you want a demo with/without this stuff -- go build it yourself. The Engine is free. You can download texture packs/objects/materials/etc right from the store if you don't feel like building your own.

Destruction of the environment is troublesome because it requires lots of new models (that's expensive as it requires more 3D modellers, texture artists, and development time) and possibly dividing the existing ones suitable for partial destruction. This could also demand significant engine changes (if using a door loads a new area, then what happens if the whole wall is torn down?). Depending on the game it can also bloat save files (could be even incremental, corruption prone things) and generally make the engine more unstable when the environment can't simply be loaded the same way every time but the engine must always keep checking if something needs to be overwritten. If it's MP, the destruction must be synchronized over the network. It would be cool, but it's easy to understand why things change so slowly.

Battlefield 3 handled it easy enough though.

Despite the improvement in the field of multithreading in general . Game engines usually have troubles using many cores. usually games end up using less power from high end GPUs and CPUS . Most game engines avoid different cores for the same operation. In fact all programmers do to avoid hell.

That`s because engines are not .Net. .Net allows to utilize multithreading very easy (and through thread pool mechanics). Ofc, achieving massive parallelism is mega difficult task for all languages, but light subtasks in .Net is piece of cake.

(near) static environments are pretty easy to render nowadays. its time a more interactive world be created. MOAR DESTRUCTION!!!!

I think what you're forgetting is this is a LIVE rendering. Sure, seeing realtime destruction would definitely be pretty cool, but people aren't appreciating the fact that videos like this used to take days or weeks to render just a few years ago.

Can't wait to download it and see how it runs on my machine. 🙂

Where have you seen impressive tech demos like this for 10 years? Like show me the demo that has this fidelity while running in real time 10 years ago? The entire point of these engines, specifically UE4, is that anyone, literally any little studio can produce extremely high quality content with a small team in a short amount of time, with little to no upfront cost. Every time these demos get posted people complain about the most inane ****. "Wahh, no destruction". "Wahh the textures on the rock look blurry" "wahh too much motion blur". All these things are configurable and left up to artistic choice. If you want a demo with/without this stuff -- go build it yourself. The Engine is free. You can download texture packs/objects/materials/etc right from the store if you don't feel like building your own.

I can think about only one which may look good. That is AMD's ladybug techdemo. It is very small environment too, but looks impressive considering its age. http://developer.amd.com/resources/documentation-articles/gpu-demos/ati-radeon-hd-5000-series-graphics-real-time-demos/ It can be downloaded somewhere.

this is realy cool - UE4 on a I7-3770 / GTX970 [SPOILER][YOUTUBE]_nLGoqqDc0w[/YOUTUBE][/SPOILER]

They were kind of generous with that Chromatic Aberration.

Destruction of the environment is troublesome because it requires lots of new models (that's expensive as it requires more 3D modellers, texture artists, and development time) and possibly dividing the existing ones suitable for partial destruction. This could also demand significant engine changes (if using a door loads a new area, then what happens if the whole wall is torn down?). Depending on the game it can also bloat save files (could be even incremental, corruption prone things) and generally make the engine more unstable when the environment can't simply be loaded the same way every time but the engine must always keep checking if something needs to be overwritten. If it's MP, the destruction must be synchronized over the network. It would be cool, but it's easy to understand why things change so slowly.

I do believe the technology is there as well as the money. i mean EA spent 200million on advertising http://www.dealspwn.com/battlefield-3-call-duty-marketing-battle-cost-200-million-55606