Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A first look at Unreal Engine 5

unrealengine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 695 posts

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#391

Post by basch »

scrumbledober wrote: post #289
jl6 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a scene has been filmed in this setup, how easy is it to separate the physical foreground from the background screen if they want to re-composite the foreground with a more detailed rey traced background?

I imagine with the advancements in consumer level tech with portrait mode in cameras and zoom backgrounds that the tech ILM has could make easy work of this.

Imagine if the screen flickered at 120hz and half of them were green and the other half were the cgi, and you were able to capture and separate both.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#392

Post by outworlder »

swalsh wrote: post #53
fxtentacle wrote: post #36

Wow, we'll soon be down to only one game engine. Crytek has financial worries. Plus it's the most difficult to use, because it's almost all C++. Unity is very accessible thanks to C# scripting, but has bug issues (and no source code). Unreal Engine looks amazing, is cheap or free for indie studios, and has source code included. If they can make UE slightly easier to develop for, they'll dominate the market.

There's a possibility Valve might release Source 2

It would be a shame if they didn't. Alyx is a pretty good showcase.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#393

Post by dougmwne »

gfxgirl wrote: post #381

So I'm going to join the naysayers here and say while the graphics look absolutely phenomenal the game itself looks the the same game I've been playing for 20-25 years. A 3rd person character who walks through caves, canyons, ruins, slides through tight places where the camera moves in close, can only climb on areas painted with the "you can climb here color" and then pushes or pulls a few knobs for "puzzles" It coul…

This is a tech demo. Epic will be able to demonstrate their engine more effectively in a familiar genre. If they were to showcase this using a completely original game genre concept it would distract from where the focus should rightly be, the pretty graphics. As far as I know, this is not a game that's being developed or released. If you are not interested in 3rd person action games, don't buy them.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#394

Post by TeMPOraL »

ccvannorman wrote: post #345
utexaspunk wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my first thought- it's a shame all we have to interact with such a complex, richly rendered world is a couple of analog sticks and some buttons.

You're going to absolutely love what Oculus is working on.

What are they working on? New hardware?

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#395

Post by redxdev »

gfxgirl wrote: post #381

So I'm going to join the naysayers here and say while the graphics look absolutely phenomenal the game itself looks the the same game I've been playing for 20-25 years. A 3rd person character who walks through caves, canyons, ruins, slides through tight places where the camera moves in close, can only climb on areas painted with the "you can climb here color" and then pushes or pulls a few knobs for "puzzles" It coul…

This seems like a silly complaint to me. Epic's engine team isn't the one coming up with game mechanics - that's largely up to teams actually making games. Unreal may have some functionality related to commonly implemented mechanics but anything truly unique isn't coming from the code in a generic engine anyway - it's coming from the studios building on top of it.

This is a demo showing off tech. Any "game" that exists in the demo is purely to sell the realtime aspect and making it in a familiar environment or with familiar mechanics is just to show how the tech might be implemented in an otherwise known area.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#396

Post by TeMPOraL »

_bxg1 wrote: post #37
jakearmitage wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to use C++, you have Blueprints, which can control not only shaders, but also game logic and levels.

If you're a programmer who wants to write code, you have to use C++

For a non-programmer getting into games, C++ isn't that much larger leap than C#. Also, as others said, you have blueprints. They're not bad - though hopefully there will be some investments made into ergonomics of their use.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#397

Post by robmerki »

Mirioron wrote: post #148
robmerki wrote: post #24

I am always skeptical of tech demos like this, but if Epic has truly created a way to show full quality assets at runtime without manual LOD / optimization, then this is going to be a huge process improvement for game development. Same goes for this lighting. Baking lights is such a burden, if they can simply do all of this at runtime then making beautiful games just became that much easier. They also bought Quixel,…

I think it remains to be seen. Unity's big upcoming feature seems to what they call the Data Oriented Technology Stack. Essentially, this supposedly allows you to put far more non-static objects onto the screen than is usually available in a game engine. I do agree though that what Epic's doing here is a huge deal.

I love the Unity's efforts with ECS, but how many games would benefit from it?

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#398

Post by twoquestions »

Shivetya wrote: post #66
ksec wrote: post #8

In the past, I have always looked at Demos from Games and thought this is very good and getting close to movie quality. But that "close to" remained "close to" for quite some time. Even though It is improving every year but you can still tell it is gaming graphics. Even if some of the shots are not real time and pre rendered, they are still gaming like. That Unreal 5 Demo was the first time ever I thought this is Hol…

the water effects just after the four minute mark looked odd. while the fixed assets like the statues and such later on looked great. however I kept going back to the water and questioning some of the lighting effects too. don't get me wrong, the fixed assets look amazing and I look forward to seeing more done with this system

It's not so much that the water looked off (which it did compared to the rock), it's that the character was completely unencumbered by the water. If you're walking through ankle-deep water, your feet are going to slow down as they drag through the water and go faster through air, and the character's stride didn't account for the increased drag. It'd be the same as if you put that super-realistic character in a stylized game like Hollow Knight without adapting her animation to 15fps like the rest of the characters are.

The animation was great, but the graphics were much better, and one can't help but notice the quality difference even though both are awesome works of art.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#399

Post by unnouinceput »

gfxgirl wrote: post #381

So I'm going to join the naysayers here and say while the graphics look absolutely phenomenal the game itself looks the the same game I've been playing for 20-25 years. A 3rd person character who walks through caves, canyons, ruins, slides through tight places where the camera moves in close, can only climb on areas painted with the "you can climb here color" and then pushes or pulls a few knobs for "puzzles" It coul…

this is a demo. and i prefer graphics at engine level and let the games win or lose due to their quest/lore/immersion of storyline rather than a poor choice of graphics that looks clunky.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#400

Post by Priem19 »

While this is completely amazing, a caveat: graphics are way less important than we think it is. I still remember every nook and cranny from Tomb Raider 3's jungle level, and when I think about it I imagine being deep inside a real jungle. It didn't matter that everything looked jagged; my imagination could go wild.

This is probably a flawed opinion, but sometimes I think the more realistic games become, the less work for our imagination. I don't mean to say that we should stop upgrading graphics. What I do wish to say is this: if you have to choose between optimizing gameplay or graphics, choose gameplay. If you can do both, do both. Having access to a ridiculously powerful easy to use engine does not automatically mean you can do both by just jumbling high detailed props, foliage, terrain together and be done with it. It's counterintuitive, but it takes even more skill and a keen eye to create beautiful and immersive environments in a nearly photo realistic engine than those used 20 years ago. Why? We live in a perfect photorealistic real world, so we immediately spot things that just look weird and unnatural in game. Whereas in old engines our imagination corrected for all those things.

Post reply on HN