SVOGI removed from UE4, no dynamic GI, The PS4 already holding back PC gaming!

[QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

[QUOTE="gpuking"] If you can't implement a certain technique into a real world gameplay even if your engine demo can do it then it really makes the technique redundant. You can push technology but only when you can actually utilize it on the hardware available. The original elemental demo was run on a single gtx 680 at 30fps but only 90% 1080p. You can see even high end pc could only do it at sub Full HD res.gpuking

I don't think this demo is even a good way to rate how good of hardware the PS4 has in it. Epic's words are better. They expected the next-gen consoles to process 2.5 tflops and PS4 falls well short of that at 1.8 tflops. Then you've got Nextbox which if the rumors are true falls wayyyyyyyyyy short of it. Despite being a very long console generation it looks like the machines that follow are not going to be as much of a leap forward as usual.

They said next-gen should be 10X as powerful as this gen and they went on to say this gen was around 250 gflops. That comes out to 2.5 tflops. I wasn't sure if the new consoles would get there but I did think they'd both be at least 2 tflops. I ain't saying games ain't gonna look good on the new machines. Just not as good as they could and should have been.

Okay, let's suppose that the PS4 and Xbox Infinity are canceled. What would the cost and return be on this lighting solution be at that point? How much would it cost to implement, and how many dollars of extra revenue would they see in return? Gaming is a business, and it runs on cold, hard financial math.lowe0

That is not the point of the thread.

This gen we are used to console holding back gaming both from a technical and gameplay viewpoint.

However to see "Nextgen"(lol) consoles holding back gaming before they are even on sale is a worry.

Poor Hermits, they still only care about graphics and nothing else. That's why they liked the first Crysis so much, eventhough it was such a mediocre game. Hermits said that Crytek was wrong when they said that graphics are 60% of a videogame. This is because for Hermits graphics are 100% of a videogame.
I wonder why this is, maybe because their upcoming exclusive lineup is absolutely terrible.

You fanboys are so fvcking dumb, it honestly looks exactly the same if not better on the PS4, stop trying to downplay everything Sony you fvcking Hermit Lemming loserscream_my_pie

The peasants are revolting today.

Calm yourself.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

It was removed because of consoles, its not complicated lowe0

tenaka2

If there were enough customers with high end GPUs willing to pay for it, it'd still be there. Developers have to turn a profit, which means they have to make games for more than the small percentage of the market with 670s/680s/7950s/7970s.

Really? The initial Crysis game was a financial success even though it was aimed at high end PCs. 

Wrong yet again lowe0.

Everyone knows that consoles limit games due to both techical reasons and the casual nature of the userbase (easy gameplay, more explosions and 5 hour main campaigns).

Crysis was profitable, but clearly not enough for Crytek's taste, as they went multi platform after that. Pushing the envelope is fine if you have a bunch of people ready to pay for it, but with the kind of money it takes to develop a AAA game, it just doesn't make sense to add that kind of risk.

Guess it sucks to be a PC gamer then.LOL

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="zeeshanhaider"]

Alright lets see what SVOGI is and how it works, come on, enlighten us. And don't fvcking copy paste the reserach paper from Nvidia or Epic explain in simple terms how it worked. And whatever demanding or not, fact is PS4 couldn't handle it and because of it we have to suffer. And just for your information Epic also added support for static lighting after the reveal of PS4, I wonder why!

faizan_faizan

I was also kind of confused by gpuking's previous comment. They removed the SVOGI because it was too demanding even for high end PCs? One, that makes no sense, because one of the points of a new engine is to push the boundaries, and do stuff that makes the hardware companies play catch up. Also, wasn't SVOGI present in the original UE4 Elemental Demo, which ran at 60 fps on a single gtx 680?

Poor Hermits, they still only care about graphics and nothing else. That's why they liked the first Crysis so much, eventhough it was such a mediocre game. Hermits said that Crytek was wrong when they said that graphics are 60% of a videogame. This is because for Hermits graphics are 100% of a videogame.
I wonder why this is, maybe because their upcoming exclusive lineup is absolutely terrible.

Davekeeh

You were missed.

PS4 ain't as powerful as it could and should have been because Sony is in dire financial straights and isn't willing to lose a bunch of money subsidizing the hardware like they did last gen. And the terrible economy likely plays a role in it as well. Microsoft, however, remains a money-making powerhouse and in light of that the very weak specs leaked for Nextbox are kinda puzzling.

It was removed because of consoles, its not complicated lowe0

tenaka2

No it wasn't for the reasons I just explained. 

Nothing stopping an engine from having multiple rendering techniques for various effects. If it was removed it was removed because it was just inefficient overall and they have decided to work on something more efficient (like it says right in the article).

The demo we saw wasn't even running at 60 fps at a full 1080p, they had to use FXAA and had to render it at a lower resolution and upscale just to keep it smooth. Obviously there are some performance issues with it. 

Once they figure those out they'll implement it back into the engine and it will be up to the developer to use it in a game. A developer could choose to implement it in the game on the highest levels but allow the users to revert back to more efficient, yet worse looking methods. 

I guess that's just too much to understand.

PC graphics engines have been doing this since Quake (1996). Quake's rendering pipeline was the first that allowed you to turn off various rendering passes or do different algorithms in each pass. This allowed for a very large amount of optimization options allowing developers and even end users to determine how many graphical effects to run thus increasing or decreasing performance. Every major game since has followed this exact same structure because it works very well.

This is nothing new. I thought this was just common knowledge but people here prove me wrong yet again.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="gpuking"] Go read it up yourself, time will not be wasted on you. the static lighting is for baking GI, all platforms including high end pc would need it for good lighting without sacrificing too much other graphical effects. Too hard for you to understand? the_bi99man

I was also kind of confused by gpuking's previous comment. They removed the SVOGI because it was too demanding even for high end PCs? One, that makes no sense, because one of the points of a new engine is to push the boundaries, and do stuff that makes the hardware companies play catch up. Also, wasn't SVOGI present in the original UE4 Elemental Demo, which ran at 60 fps on a single gtx 680?

lol cows acting like it doesn't matter, but you know if it was the other way around, they'd be all over this.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Huh? EPIC needed minimum of 2TFLOPS while the PS4 only possesses 1.8. By your logic, UE4 demo running on the 680 was pre rendered?gpuking

I was also kind of confused by gpuking's previous comment. They removed the SVOGI because it was too demanding even for high end PCs? One, that makes no sense, because one of the points of a new engine is to push the boundaries, and do stuff that makes the hardware companies play catch up. Also, wasn't SVOGI present in the original UE4 Elemental Demo, which ran at 60 fps on a single gtx 680?

I don't think this demo is even a good way to rate how good of hardware the PS4 has in it. Epic's words are better. They expected the next-gen consoles to process 2.5 tflops and PS4 falls well short of that at 1.8 tflops. Then you've got Nextbox which if the rumors are true falls wayyyyyyyyyy short of it. Despite being a very long console generation it looks like the machines that follow are not going to be as much of a leap forward as usual.

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

I was also kind of confused by gpuking's previous comment. They removed the SVOGI because it was too demanding even for high end PCs? One, that makes no sense, because one of the points of a new engine is to push the boundaries, and do stuff that makes the hardware companies play catch up. Also, wasn't SVOGI present in the original UE4 Elemental Demo, which ran at 60 fps on a single gtx 680?

Wickerman777

I don't think this demo is even a good way to rate how good of hardware the PS4 has in it. Epic's words are better. They expected the next-gen consoles to process 2.5 tflops and PS4 falls well short of that at 1.8 tflops. Then you've got Nextbox which if the rumors are true falls wayyyyyyyyyy short of it. Despite being a very long console generation it looks like the machines that follow are not going to be as much of a leap forward as usual.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]Okay, let's suppose that the PS4 and Xbox Infinity are canceled. What would the cost and return be on this lighting solution be at that point? How much would it cost to implement, and how many dollars of extra revenue would they see in return? Gaming is a business, and it runs on cold, hard financial math.tenaka2

That is not the point of the thread.

This gen we are used to console holding back gaming both from a technical and gameplay viewpoint.

However to see "Nextgen"(lol) consoles holding back gaming before they are even on sale is a worry.

It's central to the argument at hand. This can't be blamed on consoles unless it can be proven that the business case would be different on PCs. 

We have told Hermits for years that devs do not think they are special.
Hermits really should get a cross to hang themselves on. So any time they feel under valued they can hang themselves from it.

And nothing is stopping a dev from maxing out PC's. Oh by the way.....

And nothing is stopping a dev from maxing out PC's. Oh by the way.....

timbers_WSU

Time

Money

Manpower

Experience

Tools

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]Okay, let's suppose that the PS4 and Xbox Infinity are canceled. What would the cost and return be on this lighting solution be at that point? How much would it cost to implement, and how many dollars of extra revenue would they see in return? Gaming is a business, and it runs on cold, hard financial math.lowe0

That is not the point of the thread.

This gen we are used to console holding back gaming both from a technical and gameplay viewpoint.

However to see "Nextgen"(lol) consoles holding back gaming before they are even on sale is a worry.

It's central to the argument at hand. This can't be blamed on consoles unless it can be proven that the business case would be different on PCs. 

It was removed because of consoles, its not complicated lowe0

And nothing is stopping a dev from maxing out PC's. Oh by the way.....

timbers_WSU

Plenty is stopping a dev from maxing out a PC. A tech team cannot spend all of their time focusing algorithms that will run on just the most high end of machines. 

The artists and level designers all rely on what the tech guys can finish for them to build their environments and models. You can delay a large chunk of the team by not having tech working properly or not having a decision made as to which method to use. Since time and money are always finite, devs almost always just pick a set of tech that fits on a larger range of systems to work on. Some devs may spend some time working on higher end machines or some devs may just pick a higher range of hardware to support, thus limiting their market a bit.

This is one major advantage tha console dev has over a PC dev. They have 1 set of hardware. That makes life easier for everybody.

Devs aren't going to focus their time on the top 1% of hardware. Devs like Epic and Crytek can however because they are the ones building engines for export. Even then it's up to the dev to choose if they want to support that tech. Often new tech requires changes throughout the levels and the art to accommodate the new tech, all of which takes time and money. 

What's nice about these big, robust engines like the Unreal 4 and the CryEngine 3 is that even smaller devs can choose to use more advanced tech to make their games prettier even with lower budgets. That's why it's very popular to just license out a fully functioning game engine, a lot of the hard choices are made for you and a lot of the works is already done. 

This is part of the reason why Star Citizen is going to be so amazing. The dev has decided to use a very robust engine and set a relatively higher required computer spec as to not bottleneck the game. Of course he has the advantage of the game not coming out until 2014 at the ealiest so he should be able to get away with it. If the dev was trying to write all of the tech themselves, they would never achive a quarter of what they are trying to do.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

That is not the point of the thread.

 

This gen we are used to console holding back gaming both from a technical and gameplay viewpoint.

 

However to see "Nextgen"(lol) consoles holding back gaming before they are even on sale is a worry.

tenaka2

It's central to the argument at hand. This can't be blamed on consoles unless it can be proven that the business case would be different on PCs. 

It was removed because of consoles, its not complicated lowe0

If there were enough customers with high end GPUs willing to pay for it, it'd still be there. Developers have to turn a profit, which means they have to make games for more than the small percentage of the market with 670s/680s/7950s/7970s.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

It's central to the argument at hand. This can't be blamed on consoles unless it can be proven that the business case would be different on PCs. 

lowe0

It was removed because of consoles, its not complicated lowe0

If there were enough customers with high end GPUs willing to pay for it, it'd still be there. Developers have to turn a profit, which means they have to make games for more than the small percentage of the market with 670s/680s/7950s/7970s.

Really? The initial Crysis game was a financial success even though it was aimed at high end PCs. 

Wrong yet again lowe0.

Everyone knows that consoles limit games due to both techical reasons and the casual nature of the userbase (easy gameplay, more explosions and 5 hour main campaigns).

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

It was removed because of consoles, its not complicated lowe0

tenaka2

If there were enough customers with high end GPUs willing to pay for it, it'd still be there. Developers have to turn a profit, which means they have to make games for more than the small percentage of the market with 670s/680s/7950s/7970s.

Really? The initial Crysis game was a financial success even though it was aimed at high end PCs. 

Wrong yet again lowe0.

Everyone knows that consoles limit games due to both techical reasons and the casual nature of the userbase (easy gameplay, more explosions and 5 hour main campaigns).

Then where are the super high PC games? They dont exsist for a reason. I'm going to lift my comments from a diffrent thread.

The problem is of course that not enough high end gaming PC's are sold so the market for top of the line pc games is to small.

Hermits seem to forget this and blame consoles rather than blaming themselves.

The number one economical rule is supply and demand. Top end PC owners do not create enough of a demand for top end PC games so there is no supply.

Or it may have been extremely inefficient even on the PC. He never mentioned anything about the PS4 specifically.

With engines you CAN have more than one method for a certain thing. They didn't have to remove it because of the PS4. If anything they removed it because their current implementation is very inefficient. 

Remember with an engine you can choose which kind and how much of certain algorithms you want on the scene. You don't just remove something because one platform cannot handle it. You keep an older, more efficient method in place so that older machines can run it. This is why you see with PC games with multiple  graphic levels. The lower levels often implement older rendering methods for various effects in order to speed up rendering.

So your title is misleading. Extremely misleading. 

A lot of games even support 2 or more renderers. Today you can have a DX11 and DX9 version of the same game. They are going to use entirly different rendering algorithms for certain things. An engine can support more than one, it's just up to the client application at run time to decide which one to use.

So this entire thread is meaningless bull.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

It was removed because of consoles, its not complicated lowe0

Wasdie

No it wasn't for the reasons I just explained. 

Nothing stopping an engine from having multiple rendering techniques for various effects. If it was removed it was removed because it was just inefficient overall and they have decided to work on something more efficient (like it says right in the article).

The demo we saw wasn't even running at 60 fps at a full 1080p, they had to use FXAA and had to render it at a lower resolution and upscale just to keep it smooth. Obviously there are some performance issues with it. 

Once they figure those out they'll implement it back into the engine and it will be up to the developer to use it in a game. A developer could choose to implement it in the game on the highest levels but allow the users to revert back to more efficient, yet worse looking methods. 

I guess that's just too much to understand.

PC graphics engines have been doing this since Quake (1996). Quake's rendering pipeline was the first that allowed you to turn off various rendering passes or do different algorithms in each pass. This allowed for a very large amount of optimization options allowing developers and even end users to determine how many graphical effects to run thus increasing or decreasing performance. Every major game since has followed this exact same structure because it works very well.

This is nothing new. I thought this was just common knowledge but people here prove me wrong yet again.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

If there were enough customers with high end GPUs willing to pay for it, it'd still be there. Developers have to turn a profit, which means they have to make games for more than the small percentage of the market with 670s/680s/7950s/7970s.

lowe0

Really? The initial Crysis game was a financial success even though it was aimed at high end PCs. 

Wrong yet again lowe0.

Everyone knows that consoles limit games due to both techical reasons and the casual nature of the userbase (easy gameplay, more explosions and 5 hour main campaigns).

Crysis was profitable, but clearly not enough for Crytek's taste, as they went multi platform after that. Pushing the envelope is fine if you have a bunch of people ready to pay for it, but with the kind of money it takes to develop a AAA game, it just doesn't make sense to add that kind of risk.

They did jump ship in an attempt to make money from the console market, but as Crysis wasn't one of the 4 or 5 established console franchises it of course failed to sell and crytek had to lay staff off.

While this was bad news for the individuals involved it was fantastic news for the gaming industry.

[QUOTE="cream_my_pie"]You fanboys are so fvcking dumb, it honestly looks exactly the same if not better on the PS4, stop trying to downplay everything Sony you fvcking Hermit Lemming loserstenaka2

The peasants are revolting today.

Calm yourself.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Really? The initial Crysis game was a financial success even though it was aimed at high end PCs. 

Wrong yet again lowe0.

Everyone knows that consoles limit games due to both techical reasons and the casual nature of the userbase (easy gameplay, more explosions and 5 hour main campaigns).

tenaka2

Crysis was profitable, but clearly not enough for Crytek's taste, as they went multi platform after that. Pushing the envelope is fine if you have a bunch of people ready to pay for it, but with the kind of money it takes to develop a AAA game, it just doesn't make sense to add that kind of risk.

They did jump ship in an attempt to make money from the console market, but as Crysis wasn't one of the 4 or 5 established console franchises it of course failed to sell and crytek had to lay staff off.

While this was bad news for the individuals involved it was fantastic news for the gaming industry.

And now their next big thing is free to play, which requires casting an even larger net in order to bring in as much revenue as possible. They'll need to focus on being able to run on anything more powerful than a clock radio. That's not to say they can't support higher- end hardware, but it comes right back to my first post in the thread: how much will it cost and how much revenue will it generate? Developers aren't charities; every dollar of development cost needs to pay for itself.

I didn't expect PC games to support only 680 and above. It holds back itself. But yeah, it sucks that there will be no SVOGI though I expect PS4 games to support it, just not from UE4.SaltyMeatballs

They just need to keep improving the algorithm's efficiency. It's tough work which requires some brilliant minds, but I'm sure they can get it to work to some degree on the consoles.

BUTTTTT... BUTTT.... The 8GB of GDDR 5!

:lol:

Already cutting stuff out. Sad.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]The "PC holding back PC" argument is ludicrous, We always have the options to disable features, It's completely our choice. Here's how it would've worked, PC's that couldn't run it the user could disable it, The one's that could, Could enable that feature. On consoles however, It's the opposite, You're limited, You can't do anything.Wasdie

PCs hold themselves back all of the time. If you need to support a DX9 renderer that really cripples your ability to fully utilize DX11 in every way possible. Level design, character design, art direction, and now even physics are directly tied in with DX11. If you cannot properly utilize the latest tech then it might as well not even be there.

Consoles do this too, which is why we need a new round of console supporting the latest graphic rendering techniques. 

However look at PC exclusives. Why is the best looking game on the market a multiplat? 

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="Pray_to_me"]

And according to steam the ammout of PC's that are actually more powerful than PS4 are what? .00001%? When are you freaks going to realize that you're in the absolute minority and nobody gives a damn what you think, Let alone invest significant ammounts of money to cater to your needs. 

OneLazyAsian

Except for all those PC devs who do just that. 

Stay jelly, peasant.

And how many PC devs do just that? Because off the top of my head I can probably only name three or so: Crytek, 4A (Metro devs) and probably the devs that make Total War games. Compared to how many devs actually make games, the super top notch PC devs are a tiny minority.

Well there's them, and there's also all the other multiplat devs who take the time and put in the effort to make the PC versions better, to take advantage of better hardware. And that's actually been quite common this last console generation. Probably because Sony and MS milked those consoles for way too long, and developers got tired of their games looking and running like shit, when a PC version can actually look and perform the way they want, even on midrange hardware.

hermits need immersive graphics since they don't get out in real life :roll:

The "PC holding back PC" argument is ludicrous, We always have the options to disable features, It's completely our choice. Here's how it would've worked, PC's that couldn't run it the user could disable it, The one's that could, Could enable that feature. On consoles however, It's the opposite, You're limited, You can't do anything.faizan_faizan

PCs hold themselves back all of the time. If you need to support a DX9 renderer that really cripples your ability to fully utilize DX11 in every way possible. Level design, character design, art direction, and now even physics are directly tied in with DX11. If you cannot properly utilize the latest tech then it might as well not even be there.

Consoles do this too, which is why we need a new round of console supporting the latest graphic rendering techniques. 

However look at PC exclusives. Why is the best looking game on the market a multiplat? 

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Huh? EPIC needed minimum of 2TFLOPS while the PS4 only possesses 1.8. By your logic, UE4 demo running on the 680 was pre rendered?gpuking

I was also kind of confused by gpuking's previous comment. They removed the SVOGI because it was too demanding even for high end PCs? One, that makes no sense, because one of the points of a new engine is to push the boundaries, and do stuff that makes the hardware companies play catch up. Also, wasn't SVOGI present in the original UE4 Elemental Demo, which ran at 60 fps on a single gtx 680?

Okay. So even if a 680 ran it at 30 fps, so what? That's not a reason to remove a feature from the entire engine. It's just an engine, not a game. If game developers don't want to use a certain technique, because they think it's too demanding for their target audience, then they don't use it. Simple. Having it available as an option in the engine is great, and there's no reason not to. If modern hardware can run it  at all  then it's perfectly reasonable to expect that within just a couple years, hardware will be available that shits all over it and laughs.

And according to steam the ammout of PC's that are actually more powerful than PS4 are what? .00001%? When are you freaks going to realize that you're in the absolute minority and nobody gives a damn what you think, Let alone invest significant ammounts of money to cater to your needs. 

And according to steam the ammout of PC's that are actually more powerful than PS4 are what? .00001%? When are you freaks going to realize that you're in the absolute minority and nobody gives a damn what you think, Let alone invest significant ammounts of money to cater to your needs. 

Pray_to_me

Except for all those PC devs who do just that. 

Stay jelly, peasant.

[QUOTE="Pray_to_me"]

And according to steam the ammout of PC's that are actually more powerful than PS4 are what? .00001%? When are you freaks going to realize that you're in the absolute minority and nobody gives a damn what you think, Let alone invest significant ammounts of money to cater to your needs. 

the_bi99man

Except for all those PC devs who do just that. 

Stay jelly, peasant.

And how many PC devs do just that? Because off the top of my head I can probably only name three or so: Crytek, 4A (Metro devs) and probably the devs that make Total War games. Compared to how many devs actually make games, the super top notch PC devs are a tiny minority.

stupidity of the TS and the people in this thread is insane... at what point did anywhere in the links does it say its the ps4s fault?

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

I was also kind of confused by gpuking's previous comment. They removed the SVOGI because it was too demanding even for high end PCs? One, that makes no sense, because one of the points of a new engine is to push the boundaries, and do stuff that makes the hardware companies play catch up. Also, wasn't SVOGI present in the original UE4 Elemental Demo, which ran at 60 fps on a single gtx 680?

the_bi99man

Okay. So even if a 680 ran it at 30 fps, so what? That's not a reason to remove a feature from the entire engine. It's just an engine, not a game. If game developers don't want to use a certain technique, because they think it's too demanding for their target audience, then they don't use it. Simple. Having it available as an option in the engine is great, and there's no reason not to. If modern hardware can run it  at all  then it's perfectly reasonable to expect that within just a couple years, hardware will be available that shits all over it and laughs.

if you trace the links back the devs say that are hoping to bring it back in the future at some point just not now

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

I was also kind of confused by gpuking's previous comment. They removed the SVOGI because it was too demanding even for high end PCs? One, that makes no sense, because one of the points of a new engine is to push the boundaries, and do stuff that makes the hardware companies play catch up. Also, wasn't SVOGI present in the original UE4 Elemental Demo, which ran at 60 fps on a single gtx 680?

the_bi99man

Okay. So even if a 680 ran it at 30 fps, so what? That's not a reason to remove a feature from the entire engine. It's just an engine, not a game. If game developers don't want to use a certain technique, because they think it's too demanding for their target audience, then they don't use it. Simple. Having it available as an option in the engine is great, and there's no reason not to. If modern hardware can run it  at all  then it's perfectly reasonable to expect that within just a couple years, hardware will be available that shits all over it and laughs.

You fanboys are so fvcking dumb, it honestly looks exactly the same if not better on the PS4, stop trying to downplay everything Sony you fvcking Hermit Lemming loserscream_my_pie

Quit your crying. PS4 is going to be fine for a console, but there is no doubt that it isn't as close to a good PC gaming rig as past consoles were. This will hold graphical progress back to some degree.