- Sep 17, 2005
The idea it can "only" be used on static environments seems like a big limitation. Until you realise that describes 95% of a scene in any game. I mean unless you're making a big physics based world then most geometry can be static aside from things like the character, foliage and debris. All of which are relatively cheap and can be combined with nanite existing in other materials. And most of those are already very high quality in most games like character modelsAre you talking about Engines or games?
Also Nanite can only be used on static meshes.
As I said devs literally hold back, the high polys they make could crash a DCC let alone the GPUs in the current gen consoles.
Nanite is amazing technology and probably more engines will have similar technologies, but other engines and developers arent being left in the dust.
Clever culling could produce anything you see in Unreal Engine 5 the Nanite workflow is what Epic are most proud of with that tech.
If we look at dynamic objects I dont really see anything in Unreal other engines couldnt do.
The Nanite triangle budget is what makes this engine so amazing right now.
Give GSC pretty much any of the AAA engines and they would produce a very similar if not exactly the same looking game.
Note that engines very rarely actually dictate how graphically amazing a game looks.
People just think that because they dont understand the concept of a game engine.
The area for games that they need to improve mostly is the quality and quantity of detail in the environment. Something like TLOU2 looks amazing, but the detail in the environment of STALKER 2 is next level and they both have similar post apocalyptic environments
I think for other games to keep up they'll need a solution similar to Nanite