That looks like 3D grass? No more billboarding! 🙂

Looks like something the RTX 5090 would struggle to render at decent resolution xD Really nice tho.

Looks ok, i guess... [youtube=irOzXzK7Xvo] [youtube=qA3KsglfYI8] [youtube=tXw5O9HtP84]

Eyegasm

Vert impressive! Except the head bob is 3 times as many as it needs to be!

https://media0.giphy.com/media/vDIGFvak0dh2ICPL55/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47ew97z5b8f2umei58rwfznldl8su03u68945fyl77&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

Hate the overexposing of the scenes. I know irl I get blinded by the sun, I don't wanna be blinded while playing a video game. Also, the head bobing better be off or I won't play any games with this engine. The forests look impressive, and they shouldn't need a 4090 if nanite is what they say it is. Just scale detail back to hold a certain resolution at a designated frame rate. Optimization is everything. I haven't seen great differences on level of detail in games but they ask the latest hardware to run. BS.

5-10FPS at 1440p with RTX5090 xD

kapu:

5-10FPS at 1440p with RTX5090 xD

It will run at 30FPS at 360p, then DLSS 4 will upscale to 4K and DLSS 5 will do frame rate amplification to 120FPS. (Only half-kidding. At some point, upscaling and frame rate amplification will actually be required to run anything at decent speeds, and then they won't even be options anymore.)

Do some of you remember the 3rd uncharted game and the mission that you ended up in a middle o Rub al Khali desert? When I played that I was awestruck at the rendering of desert in that game and the game is 13 years old today, unbelievable...Yes this presentation looks almost photorealistic, but it also looks stale and boring somehow, I cannot describe it.

Traversal stutter??? Hmm 🙂

EzyPzyJapaneze:

Do some of you remember the 3rd uncharted game and the mission that you ended up in a middle o Rub al Khali desert? When I played that I was awestruck at the rendering of desert in that game and the game is 13 years old today, unbelievable...Yes this presentation looks almost photorealistic, but it also looks stale and boring somehow, I cannot describe it.

Honestly... being stale and boring is likely a complement. The grass is always greener on the other side, or in this case, with greater geometry. Once you get to around 80% photorealistic, it's easy to be amazed at how detailed it is, because you're actively aware it's fake but it still looks great (especially compared to what renderings used to be). Once you get to 90% photorealistic, you enter uncanny valley territory, where you're not so impressed anymore because some things look a little bit off; it's distracting. I would argue that sometimes, a 90% photorealistic scene has the potential to be 100% realistic, but artistic choices diminish that quality. Think stuff like excessive bloom, oversaturated colors, overdone depth-of-field, overexaggerated shiny surfaces, some lines being a little too sharp, etc. So, once you get rid of artistic choices and actually try to be 95%+ photorealistic, it looks boring, because the real thing wouldn't look any more interesting. Look at any raw photo of a desert and you will not be amazed. Look at any raw photo of an oasis and you might think "that's cool such a place could exist" but otherwise it's nothing amazing to look at. I would say this is also one of the reasons why CGI in modern movies doesn't impress anyone anymore - they're so convincing that you often have no idea if an entire scene (or even the actors) are real recordings. It's hard to be impressed when it looks so good that you don't know there is anything appreciable. Meanwhile, look back at movies like The Matrix or The Abyss, where people were astounded by the CGI, even though by modern standards it's actually quite bad. At the time, they offered something people had never seen before, so the novelty helped people appreciate them more, but the CGI was also just unrealistic enough for people to know that it was a well-done artificial visual. Kind of weird how that works, psychologically, because to me it's no different than getting genuinely scared from a horror movie or a haunted house, when you know you're safe. The other reason people don't care about CGI is because it's overdone, and takes a lot of soul out of filmmaking, but I digress. TL;DR: visuals are the most impressive when they're obviously fake.

UE 5.3 is around for awhile now - there's lots of demos. [youtube=vC53KOPjnBQ] UE 5.4 is already in the making - you can even beta test it, and sure - there's improvements - modelling the surrounding and objects does look quite impressive compared to older versions - but humans modelling, well... even 5.4 still looks rather weird: [youtube=nupxxTNJUj0] To be fair - that's put together by just one guy - so a studio of professional should be able to do a better job. Even so, this part - is still rather challenging. One can notice the improvements - yet still not that impressive. Who knows, maybe A.I. can change that as well. Or at least - its potential looks slightly more capable... [youtube=HK6y8DAPN_0]

There hasn't been one cutting-edge UE5 game that runs well on current hardware. Maybe Epic should step back from all the graphics and focus on making optimization more foolproof DLSS/FSR is not a valid solution

kribby:

There hasn't been one cutting-edge UE5 game that runs well on current hardware. Maybe Epic should step back from all the graphics and focus on making optimization more foolproof DLSS/FSR is not a valid solution

Honestly, Unreal has traditionally had pretty good optimization. Granted, I haven't kept up with how well optimized it is lately. To get this level of detail is inherently going to be very taxing. I think they're just trying to demonstrate what's possible with their engine, even if it isn't the most practical.

It's apparently not easy enough for game devs to avoid lots of poorly optimized titles. Would be a disappointment if 5.4 won't have very noticeable performance improvements. But I don't think the rendering in general would be inefficient. It's just hard to compare because there is no equivalent to its rendering features in other engines. If I take Fortnite at 1440p TAA and "legacy" epic details (and shadows high), it's decent with >130fps GPU bound on 7800 XT. And Nanite + SWRT Lumen/VSM high is also decent with >80fps, given that it looks pretty "RTed" (well, with lots of noise, unfortunately) and is native 1440p.

Can't wait to play this in 320p 10fps -> 1080p 60fps using DLSS after upgrading to a brand new 2 grands GPU /s

kribby:

There hasn't been one cutting-edge UE5 game that runs well on current hardware. Maybe Epic should step back from all the graphics and focus on making optimization more foolproof DLSS/FSR is not a valid solution

It's not the engine. It's the game devs. Studios who develop their own engines usually know how to optimize games for that engine. They have the people who implemented the engine right there. With UE though, you don't get that unless you have access to graphics programmers who actually know UE in and out. But studios who don't have their own engine usually don't have graphics programmers (exactly because they don't have their own engine.)

People: I don't care about graphics, I just want good game play! Also people: I want this level of graphics at 400FPS on my 1060 machine! I think the problem Unreal Engine is having is the marketing department are over-hyping things - seeming to give the impression that you can throw hundreds of billion polygon models and thousands of 8K textures and it will "just work". It won't. All those massive models and textures still would have to be loaded, moved, stored, processed. As always, things work better if assets are still intelligently sized to begin with.

RealNC:

It's not the engine. It's the game devs.

Well, Epic isn't able to deliver a stutter-free experience in their own Fortnite either. Actually far from it. 🙁