Support NeoGAF

[Toadthemushroom]

No, it defaults to "high" (2) for those attributes for console and to "medium" (1) for handheld, according to OP:

Cheers, that's not too bad, I think so long as the exact same effects are present I wouldn't be bothered by stuff like, a drop in shadow resolution when switching to the 6" 720p display from my TV. It'll look natural.

Actually, the need to use the UE4 screenPercentage setting makes me think the actual framebuffer is always 1080p, even in handheld mode (this would make the transition between console and handheld modes easier for devs). What UE4 does is simply reduce it's internal rendering resolution from 100% (1080p) to 66% (720p).

This means the HUD would always be "drawn" in 1080p, right? I'm not sure how much I'd like this, I was hoping developers would be forced into redrawing a HUD for each mode, but I can see automatic downsampling of interface elements leading to tiny text and menus like a lot of Vita games get when devs just shrink down an interface made for big TVs.

 

[10k]

Had a look at the Switch docked profile against the UE4 reference guide and I've listed the settings I could find, with each setting and bolded the one Switch uses.

I'm no software developer so hopefully I haven't mixed anything up

Low = 0
Medium = 1
High = 2
Epic = 3

Shadow Quality:-

sg.ShadowQuality 0

r.LightFunctionQuality=0
r.ShadowQuality=0
r.Shadow.CSM.MaxCascades=1
r.Shadow.MaxResolution=512
r.Shadow.RadiusThreshold=0.06
r.Shadow.DistanceScale=0.6
r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=0

sg.ShadowQuality 1

r.LightFunctionQuality=1
r.ShadowQuality=2
r.Shadow.CSM.MaxCascades=1
r.Shadow.MaxResolution=1024
r.Shadow.RadiusThreshold=0.05
r.Shadow.DistanceScale=0.7
r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=0.25

sg.ShadowQuality 2

r.LightFunctionQuality=1
r.ShadowQuality=5
r.Shadow.CSM.MaxCascades=2
r.Shadow.MaxResolution=1024
r.Shadow.RadiusThreshold=0.04
r.Shadow.DistanceScale=0.85
r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=0.8

sg.ShadowQuality 3

r.LightFunctionQuality=1
r.ShadowQuality=5
r.Shadow.CSM.MaxCascades=4
r.Shadow.MaxResolution=1024
r.Shadow.RadiusThreshold=0.03
r.Shadow.DistanceScale=1.0
r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=1.0


Post Processing Quality:-


sg.PostProcessQuality 0

r.MotionBlurQuality=0
r.BlurGBuffer=0
r.AmbientOcclusionLevels=0
r.AmbientOcclusionRadiusScale=1.7
r.DepthOfFieldQuality=0
r.RenderTargetPoolMin=300
r.LensFlareQuality=0
r.SceneColorFringeQuality=0
r.EyeAdaptationQuality=0
r.BloomQuality=4
r.FastBlurThreshold=0
r.Upscale.Quality=1
r.Tonemapper.GrainQuantization=0

sg.PostProcessQuality 1

r.MotionBlurQuality=3
r.BlurGBuffer=0
r.AmbientOcclusionLevels=1
r.AmbientOcclusionRadiusScale=1.7
r.DepthOfFieldQuality=1
r.RenderTargetPoolMin=350
r.LensFlareQuality=0
r.SceneColorFringeQuality=0
r.EyeAdaptationQuality=0
r.BloomQuality=4
r.FastBlurThreshold=2
r.Upscale.Quality=2
r.Tonemapper.GrainQuantization=0

sg.PostProcessQuality 2

r.MotionBlurQuality=3
r.BlurGBuffer=-1
r.AmbientOcclusionLevels=2
r.AmbientOcclusionRadiusScale=1.5
r.DepthOfFieldQuality=2
r.RenderTargetPoolMin=400
r.LensFlareQuality=2
r.SceneColorFringeQuality=1
r.EyeAdaptationQuality=2
r.BloomQuality=5
r.FastBlurThreshold=3
r.Upscale.Quality=2
r.Tonemapper.GrainQuantization=1

sg.PostProcessQuality 3

r.MotionBlurQuality=4
r.BlurGBuffer=-1
r.AmbientOcclusionLevels=3
r.AmbientOcclusionRadiusScale=1.0
r.DepthOfFieldQuality=2
r.RenderTargetPoolMin=400
r.LensFlareQuality=2
r.SceneColorFringeQuality=1
r.EyeAdaptationQuality=2
r.BloomQuality=5
r.FastBlurThreshold=7
r.Upscale.Quality=3
r.Tonemapper.GrainQuantization=1


Texture Quality:-

sg.TextureQuality 0

r.Streaming.MipBias=2.5
r.MaxAnisotropy=0
r.Streaming.PoolSize=200

sg.TextureQuality 1

r.Streaming.MipBias=1
r.MaxAnisotropy=2
r.Streaming.PoolSize=400

sg.TextureQuality 2

r.Streaming.MipBias=0
r.MaxAnisotropy=4
r.Streaming.PoolSize=700

sg.TextureQuality 3

r.Streaming.MipBias=0
r.MaxAnisotropy=8
r.Streaming.PoolSize=1000


Effects Quality

sg.EffectsQuality 0

r.TranslucencyLightingVolumeDim=24
r.RefractionQuality=0
r.SSR=0
r.SceneColorFormat=3
r.DetailMode=0
r.TranslucencyVolumeBlur=0
r.MaterialQualityLevel=0

sg.EffectsQuality 1

r.TranslucencyLightingVolumeDim=32
r.RefractionQuality=0
r.SSR=0
r.SceneColorFormat=3
r.DetailMode=1
r.TranslucencyVolumeBlur=0
r.MaterialQualityLevel=1

sg.EffectsQuality 2

r.TranslucencyLightingVolumeDim=48
r.RefractionQuality=2
r.SSR=0
r.SceneColorFormat=3
r.DetailMode=1
r.TranslucencyVolumeBlur=1
r.MaterialQualityLevel=1

sg.EffectsQuality 3

r.TranslucencyLightingVolumeDim=64
r.RefractionQuality=2
r.SSR=1
r.SceneColorFormat=4
r.DetailMode=2
r.TranslucencyVolumeBlur=1
r.MaterialQualityLevel=1

Yoooo high settings for the Switch by default, eh?

 

[LordRaptor]

This means the HUD would always be "drawn" in 1080p, right? I'm not sure how much I'd like this, I was hoping developers would be forced into redrawing a HUD for each mode, but I can see automatic downsampling of interface elements leading to tiny text and menus like a lot of Vita games get when devs just shrink down an interface made for big TVs.

I'm not especially familiar with UE4 and how it implements UI, but I would be very surprised if it was radically different to most UI middleware which works much like HTML elements do and let you specify whether you want any given elements size to be absolute, relative or percentile based.

 

[justsomeguy]

Nobody asked you to dumb down yourself, just the topic.

This person won't be a junior for long. That's harsh but hilarious.

 

[Maintenance]

Could anyone render some demo at highest settings and then render it at the Switch settings?

Its a Youtube video bound to get many many views

Pretty please....

There's one already.

Spoiler

/s

 

[Ridley327]

Those Tekken 6 ports are bespoke versions specifically made for that hardware. If they make a Tekken game on the Switch they aren't just gonna take the arcade game and flip a few settings.



You say they're straightforward, but that indie game runs at 30fps with framedrops on PS4 and I have to use close-to-lowest settings on my PC to get it running at a stable framerate.

To be fair, he did qualify it with "relatively!"

 

[Peltz]

For those concerned that non-Nintendo developers will have sub-720 games on the handheld screen, remember that most PS3 and Xbox 360 games ran at sub-720p and still looked very good when upscaled on a full 1080p display. Sure, they weren't totally clean, but they definitely looked good, even on a large display.

Upscaling from a similar resolution to only a 720p 6-inch screen is likely to have even cleaner-looking results.

I think the concerns that games will look bad at sub-native resolutions in handheld mode is a bit premature.

 

[vasametropolis]

But can it run Doom ?

We probably won't see it, but after playing it on PC I was extremely impressed. If they want a showcase title, id might be able to deliver it. That game is WELL optimized on its target platforms.

 

[BigEmil]

For those concerned that non-Nintendo developers will have sub-720 games on the handheld screen, remember that most PS3 and Xbox 360 games ran at sub-720p and still looked very good when upscaled on a full 1080p display. Sure, they weren't totally clean, but they definitely looked good, even on a large display.

Upscaling from a similar resolution to only a 720p 6-inch screen is likely to have even cleaner-looking results.

I think the concerns that games will look bad at sub-native resolutions in handheld mode is a bit premature.

Last gen games looked ugly as hell even for it's time around 2005, those won't look good now aswell even on the Switch with PPI very low for today's standards

Sub native resolution games on Vita looked bad noticabally, if running at native res 544p on Vita 5" screen it has a 220 PPI, eh for 2011 release

Native res 720p on Switch 6.2" screen roughly only 240 PPI according to google.
Not great in todays standards with a bigger screen it needs a higher PPI to look good nowadays so i wouldn't want sub-native resolutions at Switch at all, they should keep 720p standard

 

[Durante]

I see an opportunity here to glean a ton of information, or plausible conclusions.

That's not really there.

The most interesting and viable conclusion to draw from this (over what was already known from prior leaks) IMHO is that undocking and docking, from the point of view of a game, are minimally invasive procedures. It seems likely that the game is merely notified of the status change and can respond as it sees fit.

 

[Skittzo0413]

We probably won't see it, but after playing it on PC I was extremely impressed. If they want a showcase title, id might be able to deliver it. That game is WELL optimized on its target platforms.

Isn't DOOM one of the few Vulkan-ready games currently out there? If Nintendo (or Bethesda/Id) wants to showcase anything related to their Vulkan certification DOOM would be a solid candidate.

Spoiler

It also plays a bit like Metroid Prime at times to me so there's that too.

 

[vasametropolis]

Isn't DOOM one of the few Vulkan-ready games currently out there? If Nintendo (or Bethesda/Id) wants to showcase anything related to their Vulkan certification DOOM would be a solid candidate.

Spoiler

It also plays a bit like Metroid Prime at times to me so there's that too.

I don't disagree, I just don't like hoping for any third party titles. It would be nice to see it.

 

[The Hermit]

You say they're straightforward, but that indie game runs at 30fps with framedrops on PS4 and I have to use close-to-lowest settings on my PC to get it running at a stable framerate.

I tried running that game at lowest settings at 4k and couldn't,I though it was a bug or something, since I run DOOM at 4k@60 at medium.

 

[Thraktor]

I think making the disparity so great wasn't a good idea. they could have went from 2.5x to just 2x and saved some disparity.

Assuming that the clock speeds are more limited by portable mode than docked mode (which would seem very likely), then by changing from a 2.5x to a 2x factor all you'd be doing is reducing the performance in docked mode.

subnative on handheld does not look good.

Vita has a couple of it and while the games are great it really does not look flattering.

How good sub-native games look depends on a number of factors:

- How sharp the screen is in the first place
- How big a drop in resolution there is
- What, if any, anti-aliasing is being used
- How good the image scaling is

Basically, if you take a 400p game with no anti-aliasing and scale it up using a poor quality scaler it's going to look awful. If you take a 600p game with really good AA and run it through a decent scaling algorithm then you'd barely notice it's not native.

Sub native resolution games on Vita looked bad noticabally, if running at native res 544p on Vita 5" screen it has a 220 PPI, decent for 2011 release

Native res 720p on Switch 6.2" screen roughly only 240 PPI according to google.
Not great in todays standards with a bigger screen it needs a higher PPI to look good nowadays so i wouldn't want sub-native resolutions at Switch at all, they should keep 720p standard

Regarding the bolded, literally the opposite is true. There's a reason iPads have lower PPI than iPhones, and large monitors and TVs have lower PPI again. People view larger screens from further distances, so PPI doesn't need to be as high.

It's 720p. 

Actually, the need to use the UE4 screenPercentage setting makes me think the actual framebuffer is always 1080p, even in handheld mode (this would make the transition between console and handheld modes easier for devs). What UE4 does is simply reduce it's internal rendering resolution from 100% (1080p) to 66% (720p).

There would be an 720p->1080p->720p upscale-dowscale process going on, but I just tested it on a 5.5" 720p phone and it's not really noticeable (actually, it makes the jaggies a bit less pronounced).

I doubt the framebuffer is always any particular resolution. The Switch APIs probably accept any resolution FB in either mode, and simply scale to 1080p when docked and 720p otherwise, or just output as-is if they're already at the correct resolution. UE4 wouldn't have any reason to do any unnecessary internal scaling, and probably just outputs at whatever resolution the FB is in (or does internal software scaling if they feel they can do a better job than the hardware scaler).

 

[EVH]

I think its more likely we see Doom than Skyrim, at least regarding ease of porting process.

Also, the settings talk could be just to differenciate the scenarios and withou any actual visuak gain, so do not get excited.

 

[Durante]

I doubt the framebuffer is always any particular resolution. The Switch APIs probably accept any resolution FB in either mode, and simply scale to 1080p when docked and 720p otherwise, or just output as-is if they're already at the correct resolution. UE4 wouldn't have any reason to do any unnecessary internal scaling, and probably just outputs at whatever resolution the FB is in (or does internal software scaling if they feel they can do a better job than the hardware scaler).

What M3d10n describes is what actually happens in the current implementation, not what could/should/might happen.

 

[tkscz]

Could anyone render some demo at highest settings and then render it at the Switch settings?

Its a Youtube video bound to get many many views

Pretty please....

Well.... Here is the trailer for Seasons of Heaven which is going to be a Switch exclusive which is running UE4 (yes I know it's currently running on PC but it's all we have).

 

[jett]

I tried running that game at lowest settings at 4k and couldn't,I though it was a bug or something, since I run DOOM at 4k@60 at medium.

DOOM uses an engine made and tuned for DOOM.

Between that game and SFV, a relatively simple game filled with low-res textures (on ps4 some textures are lower quality than the lowest PC setting), dithered shadows and 30fps background NPCs (all to reach 60fps on PS4), I don't think UE4 is all that great performance wise. Feels a bit like UE3, in that it was meant for 30fps on consoles.

And SFV dropped frames on PS4. Or it did at launch anyway, not sure if that was ever fixed.

 

[PdotMichael]

Well.... Here is the trailer for Seasons of Heaven which is going to be a Switch exclusive which is running UE4 (yes I know it's currently running on PC but it's all we have).

It's like having nothing.

 

[AusRoachman]

Doom would be a great showcase game to show the world that Nintendo doesn't just want kiddie games on there system . A portable doom OMG would buy day 1 .

 

[L Thammy]

Could anyone render some demo at highest settings and then render it at the Switch settings?

Its a Youtube video bound to get many many views

Pretty please....

Actually, would you be able to open the settings for some UE4 game and adjust the settings on the INI files to match these?

 

[Skittzo0413]

Actually, would you be able to open the settings for some UE4 game and adjust the settings on the INI files to match these?

The settings for a full game will be different from game to game so I doubt they would match up all that well. The default UE4 settings for these levels (1, 2) might tell us more. Maybe for something like the elemental demo.

It could be interesting to compare the elemental demo with these settings to the Shield TV footage.

 

[CrustyBritches]

Isn't DOOM one of the few Vulkan-ready games currently out there? If Nintendo (or Bethesda/Id) wants to showcase anything related to their Vulkan certification DOOM would be a solid candidate.

I could be off here, but doesn't DOOM largely play the same in OpenGL 4.5 as Vulkan on Nvidia hardware?

Geforce 940M is 28nm Maxwell and comes with 384 shader cores, 1072MHz core, and 64-bit memory clocked at 2000MHz. It's theoretical output is 823GFLOPS. It hits 39FPS avg/33FPS min @ 1280x720 Low Preset and 31FPS avg/26FPS min @ 1366x768 Medium Preset.

 

[Peltz]

Last gen games looked ugly as hell even for it's time around 2005, those won't look good now aswell even on the Switch with PPI very low for today's standards

Well you sure showed me.

 

[_machine]

I doubt the framebuffer is always any particular resolution. The Switch APIs probably accept any resolution FB in either mode, and simply scale to 1080p when docked and 720p otherwise, or just output as-is if they're already at the correct resolution. UE4 wouldn't have any reason to do any unnecessary internal scaling, and probably just outputs at whatever resolution the FB is in (or does internal software scaling if they feel they can do a better job than the hardware scaler).

That's not the case though; r.screenPercentage does not control the output resolution at all, so if that were the case you wouldn't see r.screenPercentage used there and rather the configs would affect output resolution. r.screenPercentage also doesn't control anything related to Slate/UMG (UI renderer), so it would still render UI elements in whatever the output resolution is configured, and render 3D camera in 66% of that.

Between that game and SFV, a relatively simple game filled with low-res textures (on ps4 some textures are lower quality than the lowest PC setting), dithered shadows and 30fps background NPCs (all to reach 60fps on PS4), I don't think UE4 is all that great performance wise. Feels a bit like UE3, in that it was meant for 30fps on consoles.

And SFV dropped frames on PS4. Or it did at launch anyway, not sure if that was ever fixed.

UE4 should not be judged by a few examples yet, especially given SFV's relatively small budget and given that as a multiplatform engine, it hasn't even reached maturity yet (I know from experience shipping a title with the engine last year and from talking with guys from Lionhead). Of course it will most likely be outperformed by custom-fit engines, but in general it has the basis for a very good performance (though it does also have the overhead associated with a versatile multiplatform engine, making 60fps a tad harder to reach), but needs time, more games and ongoing work on the console-side (this especially applies in the case of SFV).

 

[jett]

Actually, would you be able to open the settings for some UE4 game and adjust the settings on the INI files to match these?

Street Fighter V on low settings running at a glorious 1062x598 (66% of 720p).

 

[casey_contra]

Street Fighter V on low settings running at a glorious 1062x598 (66% of 720p).

I'm fine with something like this.

 

[PdotMichael]

That's not the case though; r.screenPercentage does not control the output resolution at all, so if that were the case you wouldn't see r.screenPercentage used there and rather the configs would affect output resolution. r.screenPercentage also doesn't control anything related to Slate/UMG (UI renderer), so it would still render UI elements in whatever the output resolution is configured, and render 3D camera in 66% of that.

Well, it would simplify the developement process if devs only need to take care of the console mode first and the engine will do the rest for mobile mode.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

So, basically, UE4 supports a kind of dynamic graphical adjustment on Switch depending on whether its in dock or portable mode? That seems like a pretty sensible solution, which seems to point to some kind of priority of maintaining performance between both modes, though I wonder just how many other middleware solutions will put this into practice.

Really hope this doesn't bode ill for native resolutions in handheld mode, though, since you are going to notice the hell out of anything sub-native on a screen that size.

See, this was something along the lines of what I was hoping for with the handheld mode. If games are able to actually adjust their graphical settings between the two modes, especially beyond resolution changes, that should help with performance while the GPU is downclocked. Admittedly, I imagine that would be far less likely with in-house, console dev engines, but it's at least something.

Edit:

Street Fighter V on low settings running at a glorious 1062x598 (66% of 720p).

Funny thing is, this screenshot as minimised on my 40 inch screen actually looks pretty decent for the size (a centimetre or so larger than my Galaxy A5 in all directions), though the text quality leaves something to be desired.

 

[Easy_D]

Street Fighter V on low settings running at a glorious 1062x598 (66% of 720p).

That arguably looks nastier than the SFIV port to the 3DS

Edit: Actually, it doesn't

 

[_machine]

Well, it would simplify the developement process if devs only need to take care of the console mode first and the engine will do the rest for mobile mode.

That's what it seems to do, but as M3d10n mentioned, it looks to be outputting at whatever internal resolution the developer has chosen, so technically it may still be outputting a 1080p buffer (with the UI actually rendered in 1080p) in the handheld configuration.

Also, be warned that comparisons in existing games may wary wildly; the default configurations may have been changed in the existing games and the final look depends greatly on how the game is actually constructed. As an example from a game I worked on, here's two screenshots representing Low and Ultra. Now the game wasn't built to support low enough lightmaps, which explains the severe degradation in shadows on certain assets, but low also generally doesn't come with much of performance improvement over the medium settings (due to processing overhead), which fixes almost all of the notable issues on low. But as a comparison for switch, that'd be really useless, as some aspects you most definitely wouldn't scale down (since they have very minimal impact on performance, despite the default settings on UE) and the game's target is so different that it'd require quite a bit refactor to support that mode properly.

 

[Enduin]

Funny thing is, this screenshot as minimised on my 40 inch screen actually looks pretty decent for the size (a centimetre or so larger than my Galaxy A5 in all directions), though the text quality leaves something to be desired.

Yeah it's just under 7 inches on my screen minimized and outside of the crazy bad show it's not too bad. Though I would seriously hope they would do more than that and actually try and make it looks great on the system, but it's not the most terrible looking thing ever.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Yeah it's just under 7 inches on my screen minimized and outside of the crazy bad show it's not too bad. Though I would seriously hope they would do more than that and actually try and make it looks great on the system, but it's not the most terrible looking thing ever.

Not sure if 'show' should be subs or shadow, though I understand either way.

Still, I would say this actually proves the point that really low settings could actually work pretty well on the small screen. The problem that then arises - and the real source of debate since DF's report - is whether or not the system is capable enough for the full screen versions to also be passable as well.

 

[KingSnake]

I did a quick and very amatorish job at playing with the settings on a sample project. I kept the resolution the same for all. I wanted to see just the effects' impact.

Edit: This isn't how it will look on Switch.

Epic (3):

High (2):

Medium (1):

 

[neodeano]

Hm a wolf in sheep's clothing? Get it in the home then SCD it up?
Or a sheep in wolf's clothing? Loving the find OP.

 

[Skittzo0413]

I did a quick and very amatorish job at playing with the settings on a sample project. I kept the resolution the same for all. I wanted to see just the effects' impact:

Anything to note about framerate? Also for some reason to me a lot of the high image looks a lot better than parts of the epic image. Probably personal tastes though.

Anyway, if this is representative of the Switch even at all (which it seems to be, at least a bit) this is perfectly fine to me. As long as the framerates aren't crap.

 

[Easy_D]

I did a quick and very amatorish job at playing with the settings on a sample project. I kept the resolution the same for all. I wanted to see just the effects' impact:

Honestly, if it can do materials like that in portable mode, I'd be okay.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

I did a quick and very amatorish job at playing with the settings on a sample project. I kept the resolution the same for all. I wanted to see just the effects' impact:

Is there anything lower than medium you can provide? Still, interesting stuff - the most noticeable stuff to me seems to be the metallic surfaces, and the jaggies.

 

[Seik]

Street Fighter V on low settings running at a glorious 1062x598 (66% of 720p).

Shadows are terribad but I'd be totally fine getting bodied on the go with graphics like that, overall. On a 7 inch screen it would be even less apparent.

 

[Piscus]

Someone should port the Unreal 4 demo to both switch home and switch portable settings and and upload it to YouTube.

 

[foltzie1]

It's not like you can press a PORT TO button and have games running on other platforms.

Presets mean nothing depending on the product.

Hopefully it means the NS will be abble to run stuff if the dev cares to try.

Umm, of course it isn't as simple as pressing a Port To button, but when using a multi-platform engine, there is a button that is functionally, "Start to Port" when you create a new build with the new device target.

You'll probably have some errors that need to be addressed, but if the engine is good you might have a running port with just a new export.

 

[Waji]

Anything to note about framerate? Also for some reason to me a lot of the high image looks a lot better than parts of the epic image. Probably personal tastes though.

Anyway, if this is representative of the Switch even at all (which it seems to be, at least a bit) this is perfectly fine to me. As long as the framerates aren't crap.

I agree. Also like the high over epic. Actually it happens often, not the first I see someone react like this.

For the frame rate, I'm not a 60fps crazy so 30 for anything would be enough.
But the more the merrier...

 

[LordKano]

I did a quick and very amatorish job at playing with the settings on a sample project. I kept the resolution the same for all. I wanted to see just the effects' impact:

Docked is 2 and Portable is 1, right ?
So, that's essentially more jaggies and missing reflexions. Since it's on a smaller screen, that could be fine.

 

[Thraktor]

What M3d10n describes is what actually happens in the current implementation, not what could/should/might happen.

That's not the case though; r.screenPercentage does not control the output resolution at all, so if that were the case you wouldn't see r.screenPercentage used there and rather the configs would affect output resolution. r.screenPercentage also doesn't control anything related to Slate/UMG (UI renderer), so it would still render UI elements in whatever the output resolution is configured, and render 3D camera in 66% of that.

Ah, I stand corrected. Isn't that a bit... odd? You're basically losing detail by scaling twice, but getting a supersampled UI. It doesn't seem like a worthwhile trade-off, even ignoring any performance impact from the scaling itself. Is this just the simplest way of implementing the resolution difference (from a UE4 config point of view), or are these just dummy variables for the sake of dummy variables, as they expect every developer to choose all these settings manually, anyway?

I did a quick and very amatorish job at playing with the settings on a sample project. I kept the resolution the same for all. I wanted to see just the effects' impact:

Getting a bit off topic, here, but I find it quite interesting that the material properties change so much from one setting to the other (eg the reflectivity of the doors). I'd expect some differences in how things like this are implemented (eg cube maps on low settings, SSR on higher settings), but the general material properties should be roughly the same regardless of settings, and it's certainly odd that the door on the left goes from diffuse to reflective and back to diffuse again as you go up the settings.

 

[Jonneh3003]

I wonder if any first party games will utilise Unreal Engine 4, would be strange for Nintendo but was it Next Level games that was employing for people with experience with the engine?

 

[KingSnake]

Anything to note about framerate? Also for some reason to me a lot of the high image looks a lot better than parts of the epic image. Probably personal tastes though.

Anyway, if this is representative of the Switch even at all (which it seems to be, at least a bit) this is perfectly fine to me. As long as the framerates aren't crap.

I can check the framerates, but I have a i7 6700k and a 980ti, I don't know how relevant it can be?

Honestly, if it can do materials like that in portable mode, I'd be okay.

Materials are set to High on Epic and High and Medium on Medium. I don't know if that will work on Switch, we don't have info about it.

Is there anything lower than medium you can provide? Still, interesting stuff - the most noticeable stuff to me seems to be the metallic surfaces, and the jaggies.

Docked is 2 and Portable is 1, right ?
So, that's essentially more jaggies and missing reflexions. Since it's on a smaller screen, that could be fine.

This isn't how it will look on Switch, this is just to reflect the differences between the different effects settings.

 

[LordOcidax]

Interesting

 

[JonnyDBrit]

This isn't how it will look on Switch, this is just to reflect the differences between the different effects settings.

Uh, I realise, I was asking because I was curious if there were lower graphics settings available for demonstration. If I misunderstood how the UE4 settings relate to the project's settings then I apologise.

 

[_machine]

Ah, I stand corrected. Isn't that a bit... odd? You're basically losing detail by scaling twice, but getting a supersampled UI. It doesn't seem like a worthwhile trade-off, even ignoring any performance impact from the scaling itself. Is this just the simplest way of implementing the resolution difference (from a UE4 config point of view), or are these just dummy variables for the sake of dummy variables, as they expect every developer to choose all these settings manually, anyway?

No? I'm not sure if you actually got what we meant, but here's an example setup:

The engine output resolution (as in the final framebuffer the engine delivers to the API or directly to the screen) in both cases is 1080p and the internal resolution refers to the render resolution of the 3D camera projection:
Docked: Internal Resolution is 1920x1080 and SlateUI is 1920x1080, so both are natively rendered in the output resolution.
Handheld: Internal Resolution is 1280x720 (thus the 0.66 resolution scale) and SlateUI is 1920x1080.

The "twice scaling" should by all means be a non-issue (the engine doesn't handle downscaling the 1080p framebuffer for the handheld screen) and keeping the internal resolution the same can simply be an easier way of keeping things in line (especially when it comes to creating a pixel perfect, single-configuration UI in UMG).

EDIT: fixed the handheld resolution

 

[KingSnake]

Uh, I realise, I was asking because I was curious if there were lower graphics settings available for demonstration. If I misunderstood how the UE4 settings relate to the project's settings then I apologise.

Yes, there is one level lower (Low). I can grab a screenshot from this a bit later.