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

571–580 of 695 posts

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#571

Post by TeMPOraL »

bigfoot675 wrote: post #563
TeMPOraL wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ehh this is debatable. After searching for a memory bug in a AAA game C++ codebase for hours, you might feel differently

Which kind? Most of the memory problems (in particular leaks and null pointers) happen just as much in managed languages, so you'll have your fair share of those bugs in C# games as well.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#572

Post by pistachiopro »

_bxg1 wrote: post #120
skohan wrote: post #96

The real-time GI is amazing. Ray tracing is going to be a game changer, not only in terms of visual quality, but also because it's one of those rare times in computer graphics where the more advanced solution is actually making it easier on graphics programmers by replacing a bag of dirty tricks with a unified, physically based solution. One interesting note: they say the GI is "instant" but you can actually see that…

I tried to figure out whether the new GI used raytracing, and it doesn't seem like it is? If it is using raytracing hardware it isn't nearly as impressive. If it isn't , then it's sheer magic.

Feels to me like: https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1026182/ (which Nvidia has wrapped up in their RTXGI library: https://developer.nvidia.com/rtxgi). The idea is to supplement basic irradiance probes with moment shadow maps, so you can efficiently calculate how much each pixel should be affected by each probe. This greatly reduces the light bleeding problem, which is the biggest downfall of irradiance probes. Nvidia uses raytracing to update some percentage of the probes each frame, and I wouldn't be surprised if UE5 does, too (despite the Euro Gamer article). That said, their geometry solution is likely more amenable to random access than traditional rasterization, so that may make raytracing for probes and probe shadow maps unnecessary. Also, judging by when the player character puts her hand on the door, it looks like there's a bit of screen space GI going on, as well.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#573

Post by ksec »

barbecue_sauce wrote: post #321
ksec wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the industry, so pure speculation. Unreal Engine's old business model were exactly that, get you excited with demos and sign up ( paid ) for their engine. And it was the same with UE 3 and UE 4. But in 2015 all that changed. It was open sourced on Github, it has a very sustainable revenue model due to the explosion of Mobile Gaming, the Gaming industry as a whole is now bigger than Movies and Music industry co…

Possibly a typo, but EPYC is a processor brand. EPIC makes Unreal (and Fortnite).

Haha yes been writing too much about AMD and EPYC. Didn't realise until you point it out.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#574

Post by ksec »

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #496
swalsh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unreal is now starting to be used in place of green screens in some movies. (there's a lot more that goes into it, but essentially it seems like unreal is one of the core software pieces) Here is an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjb-AqMD-a4

I wonder if this has anything to do with my wife's complaint (and I agree with her on this) that modern productions are beginning to look more and more like computer games. She's been watching the third season of westworld, and it's kinda scary to me how almost every episode feels more like a game trailer than an actual story...

Does she watch Game of Thrones? What does she think about those VFX? Or which drama does she think that is not Computer Gaming Graphics like?

It is an interesting complaint. Need some time to think about that in details.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#575

Post by trynewideas »

flipgimble wrote: post #145

Let me throw in an anecdote that may amuse some: I was working for a now defunct large game company when Epic and Tim Sweeny came in to demo Unreal Engine 3 very early before the PS3 and XBox360 were launched. This was about 2004. Their demo blew away executives in particular. They showed multicolored lights casting multicolored shadows on a single high detail character. One of the lights was behind a stained glass w…

That video's amazing because the part of the UE5 demo I can't wrap my head around is where Nanite magically turns 1 billion triangles of source art to 20 million triangles of rendered art, per frame.

And then I get a minute into the UE3 video from 2004 and what do I hear?

"The scene you're seeing here is about 1 million polygons of in-game assets, which came from about 200 million polygons of source art."

Then, deja vu, right into a realtime lighting demo.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#576

Post by noisy_boy »

explorigin wrote: post #99
Shivetya wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Water, dust, cloth and hair physics are all still in the uncanny valley...not to take away from the tremendous progress with triangles and lighting!

Bingo. Look at the way her tied hair bounces when she is climbing. Totally unnatural. Also, the body movements - the speed of turning is too uniform/fluid; there are variations of speed within a single turn we do.

Though I was totally blown away by the detail of the rock texture and very realistic lighting.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#577

Post by kidintech »

Very late to the discussion but I might be missing something; a majority of you are bashing this by saying "it's just a demo"/"games never end up looking like that":

a) If this demo is runnable at real time fps on ps5 hardware ($400-500 WITH markup)...that's a technologically phenomenal feat in itself.

b) If the engine IS capable of running something like this...they are not lying. The responsibility for "good looking games" then falls on to game studios to deliver instead of halfassing something just to hit a deadline.

Where am I wrong?

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#578

Post by ggreer »

ajmurmann wrote: post #560
cdash wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't agree with that. Current games look better than the UE4 demo. See this for the original demo of UE4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9CPqSKjTU

What game looks better than that demo?

Gears 5 is a UE4 game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkW_uD0PzIw&t=7m40s

If you want to see particle effects like the demo, skip ahead to 11 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkW_uD0PzIw&t=11m

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#579

Post by ooobit2 »

matz1 wrote: post #559
wolco wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not open source in any sense. You can see it so that part is shared but if you try to use it you fall under a very different licease. If you try to modify and sell you can't. Modify and use you must pay. Use you must pay. Bait open source might be a better term.

In the sense of you can see the source, it is open source. Not everyone will agree with your definition of open source.

I'm not sure where people get the idea that they can assert something as a counterpoint on no basis. "That's just your opinion," is not a rational basis to disagree, especially when your counterpoint requires the implied basis (semantic) to be equally relevant to the original argument's basis (law).

"Open source" isn't based on the semantic that the source code is public, its definition comes exclusively from a set of guidelines that limit the rights of the original creator to enforce a specific range of IP protections guaranteed to them by domestic and international laws. There are various types of public licenses, also known as GNU, that are considered "true open source" in that the original creator can only enforce some provisions like a source attribution credit in a modified distribution. And there are permission licenses, like the MIT License, which don't necessarily meet every guideline for FOSS, but do meet most of them.

When it comes to IP, the only basis that matters is legal, as its the only basis that's universally enforceable. Laypersons can define "open source" however they please, but when engineers, devs, business, and legal discuss it, it has one definition, and that definition is well-established as exemptions from current IP law.

Re: A first look at Unreal Engine 5

#580

Post by adamrezich »

tamrix wrote: post #529
dazzawazza wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember the PS1 dinosaur demo? Yeah the whole industry is famous for this. Games are more than tech demos.

Look up E3 game demo's and their launched comparison on YouTube. You'll learn all the game trailers with 'real game play footage' are all fake. The whole industry is filled this.

https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/09/12
Post reply on HN