it's not the engine's fault 5090 owners are too poor to run it. They should feel blessed and grateful if they can get to the main menu at all
quit complaining, this is a totally acceptable trade for worse graphics than a decade ago. Just turn on Upscaling & FG X16 and enjoy your "underwater gaming experience"
I mean, it is and it isn't. Half the reason it's so shit, is the same reason most devs choose it. Cause it's easy out of the box with no tinkering.
If they actually worked on it to modify it and adapt it for what they need, people would likely have a different impression of it.
Of course, the other half is that epic doesn't give a shit, and all they want is the impressive show cases, and they don't care much for how games run.
It's more a case of poor game desing and bad choices considering performance then the engine itself imho. Most of the poorly running UE5 games are by big bloated devs. The better games are made by smaller passionate teams.
Clair obscur does a 100fps with UE5 for instance with a screen full of moving vegetation.
And it's all relative. KCD2 with it's 100FPS but delivering 10 year old graphics isn't great either. But people considered that game "well optimised".
Clair obscure is one of the worst looking and worst running games on UE5, I don't what you're talking about. Unless they changed something after release or you're running with framegen.
Clair obscure is one of the worst looking and worst running games on UE5, I don't what you're talking about. Unless they changed something after release or you're running with framegen.
It's not great, but it's the kind of performance you get with a modern game. And comparing games at "max settings" by it's FPS doesn't mean shit. Different games have different loads.
I have a low end system and perhaps I tried half of those titles. I need to tweak setting and I use samish setting for every game. 1440 p. dls quality. Framegen 2x. med textures cause of vram bottleneck. And often I use some guide to turn off the shit that doesn't matter on screen.
Every fucking game gives 50-70 ish performance. It realy does not matter. And it's not that I tweak the poorer designed games a bit more, I tweak for acceptabel visual performance.
The difference between games is no more then 10-15 FPS. The problems come when people are tuning up there games to 11 not thinking about what they need cause hey, I have a high end rig and spend XXXX$ for this, it should do max settings.
It's more a case of poor game desing and bad choices considering performance then the engine itself imho. Most of the poorly running UE5 games are by big bloated devs. The better games are made by smaller passionate teams.
Clair obscur does a 100fps with UE5 for instance with a screen full of moving vegetation.
Citation needed. Show me a recent example of a game built on a modern Unreal Angina 5 build (not Gears of War 5) that shows what an amazing Angina it "could" be. Please, one or two examples.
Meanwhile, the engine itself is just not delivering good results. All games look alike, same bloomy "GI", same LOD pop, same texture fade in, same fucking STUTTERS in all games, same performance drops. It's a terrible engine.
I laugh every time I see Unreal Angina and I’ve seen it a lot lately
I get triggered every fucking time. Every new game, there is a 9/10 chance it's an Angina game. Racing, shooting, MMO, sidescroller—doesn't matter. Angina 5
I have seen two games, that are semi-decent: Arc Raiders (but they don't use half of the stack) and Tempest Rising (which is surprisingly smooth), they also don't use half the stack.
UE5 and ray tracing in general just promises lazy devs a shortcut. I hate it. But I also hate the no optimization cycle we are in right now. Just throw better hardware at it.
But now the AI craze will destroy gaming prices, I think devs that actually take the time to optimize will have an advantage. Or so I hope.
But now the AI craze will destroy gaming prices, I think devs that actually take the time to optimize will have an advantage. Or so I hope.
Highly unlikely. It's not like games already in development will suddenly change engine version, or how they do everything to optimize their games, and games that are just starting, or are very early in development will likely not be affected, or they'll hope they won't be in 5 years when they release. Realistically, how games are made isn't likely to change because of the AI nonsense ruining hardware prices. At least not any time soon.
They'll just tell you to play at 1080p with dlss on performance and framegen on.
And it's all relative. KCD2 with it's 100FPS but delivering 10 year old graphics isn't great either. But people considered that game "well optimised".
So I finally had a chance to play KCD2 on a modern gaemingz PC and I don't know what you want. KCD2 looks and runs great. It looks on par with UA5 "triple AAA" titles with much less pop-in, much more stable image, a much sharper image due to no reliance on DLSS (I know it can be turned on in settings). And it runs really really great in a scene full of vegetation. UA5 struggles everywhere and must rely on DLSS tricks to hit acceptable performance, and that's when it's not stuttering like a motherfucker. Likewise for Space Marine 2, it looks great and runs great.
Stutter has nothing to do with people putting everything on max, as event PCs with 64 GB of RAM and 32GB of VRAM still stutter. It's an issue in the asset streaming system if the engine, not users with unrealistic expectations.
And it's all relative. KCD2 with it's 100FPS but delivering 10 year old graphics isn't great either. But people considered that game "well optimised".
So I finally had a chance to play KCD2 on a modern gaemingz PC and I don't know what you want. KCD2 looks and runs great. It looks on par with UA5 "triple AAA" titles with much less pop-in, much more stable image, a much sharper image due to no reliance on DLSS (I know it can be turned on in settings). And it runs really really great in a scene full of vegetation. UA5 struggles everywhere and must rely on DLSS tricks to hit acceptable performance, and that's when it's not stuttering like a motherfucker. Likewise for Space Marine 2, it looks great and runs great.
Stutter has nothing to do with people putting everything on max, as event PCs with 64 GB of RAM and 32GB of VRAM still stutter. It's an issue in the asset streaming system if the engine, not users with unrealistic expectations.
It's a 10 year old engine basically. No ray tracing for instance. The game is well designed, but the tech behind it is old. And maxed out, it just does a 100FPS. That's not great.
Sure the game does look ok, but it doesn't demand a lot of modern hardware.
UE5 does a lot more fancy stuff and requires more compute.
But this is the main problem: graphics have reached a point where most games looks just fine since the last 10 years or so. The last "benchmark" game that delivered something spectacular and innovative was cyberpunk. And since then AAA games look the same. If a devs make a game that's twice as demanding as cyberpunk, it will not be a 2x better looking game. Perhaps you don't even notice a lot of difference. But it will cut the FPS in half and people will complain it's poorly optimised. And this is the problem with UE5: it uses the latest tech -at the cost of FPS- but the eyecandy you get for that FPS drop isn't worth it.
And this is my experience using a low end rig: I tweak every game with custum medium settings/DLLS/framgen and basically every game gives the same performance. 50-70FPS. UE5, KCD2, Cyberpunk, Indiana Jones: it's all the same.
The problem with UE5 is you can push it more at higher settings and performance drops or becomes unstable. But what you get for that just isn't worth it.
I agree that game graphics have plateaued, especially since the focus on shitty competitive MP games which demands game look like shit so they run on laptops and handhelds.
Yes, I know UA can have ray tracing. So can a modern CryEngine. So? First, most new games do not enable it. At most, they have "ray" "traced" global illumination, which ... is not that impressive. See RDR2's no-RT global illumination (a 7-8 year old game) for example, a much more impressive implementation, even if technically less accurate.
The things I care about are not fixed with Angina. My OCD makes me hate screen-space reflections and ambient occlusion. Those are the things that stick in my eyes the most, and they exist in all Angina games. See Oblivion remaster, for example.
Some games do allow some RT stuff in, but it is set as "ultra" and basically tanks the framerate even more, and still the games look bad. Somehow UA's recent (5+ years) renderer produces a very soft image. Maybe it's TAA that is mandatory, I think, in Angina. So that's before the resolution scaling that Angina now heavily relies on due to terrible optimizations. That softens the image even more. Just look at tree leaves in any Angina game. Even if you use a native resolution without any scaling, the tree leaves are very soft. Add scaling, even the transformer model DLSS 4 quality, and it gets even more softer and blurrier. On top of that, Angina adds this overall bloom to all games, maybe it's their GI implementation, who knows, and you get a very, very soft image. And it just doesn't look good. I'm at a point where I can guess about 9/10 Angina titles just by watching a trailer posted by headshot.
So how does it matter if the engine is old or new? If tech is old or new? Old tech looks better in my eyes, while new Angine tech is terrible. I agree that Cyberpunk looks good. Does it look so good to throw performance out of the window just for these graphics? Don't know. But it does feel like a step forward, a step not seen anywhere else. It could be the Crysis of the last 5 years, but I think it's better optimized now than Crysis ever was, including the remake.
Gears 5 was OK in the Angina department, more like an Unreal Myocarditis It didn't have many of the "modern" "tech", which allowed it to look and run well enough, even on Xbox Series X. It does suffer from the asset streaming bugs, where textures appear 32x32 until they eventually stream, at which point they look like 256x256
Titanfall 2 SP is running smooth 60FPS on a Steam Deck. That's a 15W TDP APU from 2018-2019 technology. It looks fantastic. Is it all approximated vs a more physically-correct impl? Sure. So? It looks and runs great. It looks better than most Angine shooters.
So how does it matter if the engine is old or new? If tech is old or new? Old tech looks better in my eyes, while new Angine tech is terrible. I agree that Cyberpunk looks good. Does it look so good to throw performance out of the window just for these graphics? Don't know. But it does feel like a step forward, a step not seen anywhere else. It could be the Crysis of the last 5 years, but I think it's better optimized now than Crysis ever was, including the remake.
It's this. Games look fine allready, FPS is more important then eye candy.
4k isn't worth it. Ray tracing often isn't worth it.
So a vid comparing games at max settings doesn't mean a lot. You should not max out your game in the first place, unless you have a beast of a rig like in the vid.
And with a little tweaking UE5 is fine. Some engines perform a bit better, some are worse though. As I said I'll have samish performance with practicaly modern AAA game after some tweaking (and not at the cost of visual performance). The last time I was appalled by a games performance was with Dragon's Dogma 2. UE5 for me is fine.
So how does it matter if the engine is old or new? If tech is old or new? Old tech looks better in my eyes, while new Angine tech is terrible. I agree that Cyberpunk looks good. Does it look so good to throw performance out of the window just for these graphics? Don't know. But it does feel like a step forward, a step not seen anywhere else. It could be the Crysis of the last 5 years, but I think it's better optimized now than Crysis ever was, including the remake.
It's this. Games look fine allready, FPS is more important then eye candy.
4k isn't worth it. Ray tracing often isn't worth it.
So a vid comparing games at max settings doesn't mean a lot. You should not max out your game in the first place, unless you have a beast of a rig like in the vid.
And with a little tweaking UE5 is fine. Some engines perform a bit better, some are worse though. As I said I'll have samish performance with practicaly modern AAA game after some tweaking (and not at the cost of visual performance). The last time I was appalled by a games performance was with Dragon's Dogma 2. UE5 for me is fine.
TLDR: Settings don't matter, Resolution doesn't matter, my blind eyes can't differentiate differences in visual quality so they don't matter.
Basically what you're saying is it's not important for you so you don't care about the objective reality that UE5 is an awful fucking engine that even at max settings, irrelevant of performance it just looks like absolute garbage, since all games are blurry fucking messes, as visual clarity has been sacrificed long ago. And as for performance, they all run terrible, in spite of all the dlss and shit tacked on to help, and they scale really poorly in terms of settings and what they do.
Even the games that run better performance-wise like Arc Raiders, do so by pretty much not using either Lumen or Nanite, the 2 "features" the engine is being sold on to begin with. And realistically, those games don't actually run all that great considering they don't exactly look amazing and are using dlss to achieve that fps.
I can even tolerate the omnipresent vaseline effect, jittering and pitiful average performance to a degree, but the signature stuttering (micro and macro) genuinely pesters me - and sadly, that seems to affect the vast majority of Angina titles. I was able to mitigate that annoyance in DX11 with dxvk, but there is no ghetto solution with modern titles and devs often fail to provide thorough compiled shaders, thus making the issue worse than it already is.
Yeah, with previous Anginas, the graphics were not amazing, but at least you knew you were getting a consistently smooth experience on PC (on PS3 it was another story :loi:). I do remember there being many issues with UE3 with some games, like the original Rainbow Six Vegas, but those were developer issues, I think, rather than Angina issues. UT3 ran like a champ and looked great for its time. UA4 was good too, I think, unless I misremember some issues. But with Angina 5, it's been years now and it's just terrible.
Some marketing "journalism" says that 5.7 fixes some of these issues. 🤷♂️ We'll see in 2-3 years when games start using it. Games are still coming out using Angina 5.2.
I laugh every time I see Unreal Angina and I’ve seen it a lot lately
I get triggered every fucking time. Every new game, there is a 9/10 chance it's an Angina game. Racing, shooting, MMO, sidescroller—doesn't matter. Angina 5
I can even tolerate the omnipresent vaseline effect, jittering and pitiful average performance to a degree, but the signature stuttering (micro and macro) genuinely pesters me - and sadly, that seems to affect the vast majority of Angina titles. I was able to mitigate that annoyance in DX11 with dxvk, but there is no ghetto solution with modern titles and devs often fail to provide thorough compiled shaders, thus making the issue worse than it already is.
With UE5 it's either share compilation stutter or traversal stutter. And sometimes Vsync can help with having a smooth framerate but then suddenly you get lagging animations or such as the engine is not catching up internally. I know DF is rather despised here, but they had a video on this recently explaining it. It's just a nightmare.
Look at RE-Engine or the second Plague Tale game. These look fantastic and run just so well.
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
- Albert Camus
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
