But it would definitely improve the textures.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What happened to Unreal Engine 4?
- Thread starter lefantome
- Start date
- Status
But it would definitely improve the textures.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Particle counts are wayyyy down.
PC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD9CPqSKjTU&feature=player_detailpage#t=145s
PS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8saq9O4pWPQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=7s
Was the unreal engine on ps4 running on 4gb or 8gb
I think the GPU is more important in both cases, someone more knowledgeable than me could comment on that.
I don't know, there were some badly textured spots.
It really does look almost like they forgot to texture that arch.
Damn that's rough.
Agni's Philosophy confirmed to be running on PS4 hardware? I saw the conference video.
WTF is going on with the low res texturing in the third image? Holy shit that's a major step backwards.
I remember Kagari saying it was supposed to be.
What would be the point of running old video that they've already shown countless times already?
XtremeXpider
Member
I hope 4GB->8GB can allow better textures.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Im a bit confused on the tflops. How many tflops is the ps4 gpu vs a gtx 680 which was running on the pc
I hope 4GB->8GB can allow better textures.
So how exactly did Sony answer Epic's love letter if they're downgrading their work?
Unless this demo was a obvious rush job.
Considering that certain parts don't even have textures I'm willing to bet that Epic slapped this together very quickly.
iceatcs
Junior Member
Likely rush job. If the rumours true, they must have only done it less than 20 days.
phosphor112
Banned
Yeah, what were the specs for the engine on PC?
XtremeXpider
Member
16GB but UDK need a lot of ram, I guess.
"The UE4 demo is running on PC, specifically an Intel Core i7 processor with an NVIDIA GTX680 and 16GB of RAM"
EDIT: Beaten
Anyone that has played Gears 3 cant possibly believe that a next gen system with 8GB ram will have textures 100x worst than an xbox 360 game with 512MB and vastly slower ram
And Gears 3 is an actual game, not a tech demo (same for Kameo, all pics are in game)
It is just a rushed early demo they put together for the show probably
Maninthemirror
Banned
Gtx680 alone costs more than $450, the pc built around it would be $1000 but I bet in 3 years unreal games on ps4 will look better then that demo
It was the same case 6 years ago a $1000-$1500 pc would have had better gfx than a 599 console
Either 2GB or 4GB (depends on which model of GTX680 they used).
EDIT: Didn't account for system RAM.
Have you seen the interview done by Geoff with Mark Rein from Epic? He seemed to be really happy with the newly announced 8GB.
This demo does seem rushed. The textures or shadows cannot simply be that taxing on hardware. At least, I don't think so. Unless they went for more light over the textures.
The original tech demo on PC also had crap textures in places.
More light should have produced more shadows.
Yes.. The thing is that there are shadows in other parts of the demo, but where there aren't, they are pretty much turned off(and isn't this also where the bad textures were? looking at the pictures above.)
Edit: The point I am trying to make is that this looks unoptimized and very rushed. I mean, really you guys think that they could not have added textures to this part to be more specific?
nephilimdj
Member
Reminds me of the crysis 3 tech demo being shown last year, half those effects looked so much better back then
Portugeezer
Member
680 is high end regardless, just because it's not the best doesn't make it bad or anything.
It's also around $500, you get what you pay for I guess.
Yes.. The thing is that there are shadows in other parts of the demo, but where there aren't, they are pretty much turned off(and isn't this also where the bad textures were? looking at the pictures above.)
Edit: The point I am trying to make is that this looks unoptimized and very rushed. I mean, really you guys think that they could not have added textures to this part to be more specific?
I get what you're saying.
Killzone 4 looked more impressive, and it was in it's alpha stage.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
Could someone explain why Carmack isn't the one who the industry goes to for an engine, and Epic is? I'm asking because I'm just in the dark about what happened to him trying to compete with the Unreal engine after all this time, but I guess past Quake 2 engine its been total domination by Epic.
I respect Carmack for his work back in the day, but I really don't think he's been dominant for many years. RAGE had poor-to-mediocre reception, Brink was one of my only Steam purchases I've ever really wished I hadn't bought, and so on. On the other hand I think there are at least a couple of UE3 games that are fairly well regarded, similarly with the Crysis series, and both Epic and Crytek have had success selling their engines to various markets while Carmack hasn't ever aimed for that route as far as I know.
Unreal Engine is easy to use, it has a lot of tools that cover a lot of bases and it's easy for artists and level designers to hack together something decent.
Unreal Engine became the most popular licensed engine because Epic made that their business. Id doesn't aggressively license the way Epic does.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Regardless of what they did to it, this thing in motion looked highly impressive, especially the part with lava, snow and breaking ice. There's also a solid chance that this time it was running at full 1080p as opposed to 1920x540 as it was in case of Elemental (go download video off of nvidias website if you don't believe me, it's clearly half res)
Pachterballs
Banned
this is such a "duh" comment.
but it summarises any thing that can be said about the engine - well, it works and scaled down to the ps4 and looks great. nit picking or no nit picking
ALBOFIGHTER
Member
I hope the demo was rushed cause it's much worst then pc version. It probably doesn't use realtime GI either for ps4 so that's another downgrade and it shows. They better optimize this engine to look better and work well at 60 fps cause most studios will use this engine so it's very important.
I take it you haven't seen the new KZS demo. Beacause quite honestly outside Crysis 3 there is absolutely nothing on the PC that comes even close to KZS.
Given how KZ4 pre-alpha footage designed around 3.5GB GDDR5 had more particle effects than the Elemental demo, all I can say that it looks like a rushed port job.
After Mark Rein came in and expressed his elation to Geoff (GT) about Sony's decision to go with 8GB GDDR5, it became clear that the demo was not built around that kind of spec.
I suggest waiting for E3 for a better showing. While it may not be exactly like what was shown off in the original PC release with GTX680, it should be markedly better than what we saw at that press conference.
Disagree. I thought Second Son's skin shader was better than KZSF's (NPCs) and Panta Rhei was truly something to behold (which is why I am very sceptical).
After Mark Rein came in and expressed his elation to Geoff (GT) about Sony's decision to go with 8GB GDDR5, it became clear that the demo was not built around that kind of spec.
I suggest waiting for E3 for a better showing. While it may not be exactly like what was shown off in the original PC release with GTX680, it should be markedly better than what we saw at that press conference.
Disagree. I thought Second Son's skin shader was better than KZSF's (NPCs) and Panta Rhei was truly something to behold (which is why I am very sceptical).
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I wouldn't consider it to be a downgrade already, more like the original demo was running on a PC, and this was running on actual PS4 devkit, which means they are still porting to it.
I doubt any games were running on a dev kit in the demo.
I doubt any games were running on a dev kit in the demo.
bgassassin
Member
Supposedly: i7, 16GB DDR3, GTX 680
Let's say this rough build is the actual performance we get. Is that bad?
As rough as this looked, it's alot closer to matching the tech demo than it was for UE3.
shinobi602
Member
Seems like a rush job from Epic to get UE4 running on PS4 in time for the show.
I really don't see the PS4 having trouble with the elemental demo we saw.
I really don't see the PS4 having trouble with the elemental demo we saw.
Pachterballs
Banned
things will ALWAYS get better+ more optimised.
It is high end, but when I think "crazy top end", I think "3 4gbs GTX 680s".
Or maybe their particule system is massively unoptimized and so resourceful that it was killing the console.
Like that benchmark with the versus fight with robots that runs pretty bad cause it's full of silly effects everywhere and doesn't even look that impressive. tech demos are more about stress effects and trying to put the more thing they can, that having an optimized pretty result.
Like that benchmark with the versus fight with robots that runs pretty bad cause it's full of silly effects everywhere and doesn't even look that impressive. tech demos are more about stress effects and trying to put the more thing they can, that having an optimized pretty result.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
Where are the "haha I told you ps4 would outperform PC at launch" people? They're not in this thread for some reason. Probably busy posting downsampled 800x600 gifs of the KZ demo and calling it better looking than Crysis 3.
Of course a GPU at 2x the tflops is going to outperform another. I keep seeing all this DDR5 talk and while yes, it helps, you're not going to see impossibilities occur. Regardless, there's plenty of time for this to be polished for all of the platforms, and I'm sure it'll look even better. Especially considering its in development. I have no doubt the PS4 version will look better than the PS4 shots in the OP. By how much though, not sure.
Of course a GPU at 2x the tflops is going to outperform another. I keep seeing all this DDR5 talk and while yes, it helps, you're not going to see impossibilities occur. Regardless, there's plenty of time for this to be polished for all of the platforms, and I'm sure it'll look even better. Especially considering its in development. I have no doubt the PS4 version will look better than the PS4 shots in the OP. By how much though, not sure.
Portugeezer
Member
Maybe it's just me, but I was surprised by the PS4's performance. Just a few months ago many many people thought it would only match a medium PC because console companies couldn't get a good price if they had any better.
PS4 checked the next gen boxes, it runs the next gen middleware engines. PS4 is close to a current high end (judging from the tech demos it runs), it's not the highest of course, no console ever will match the best PC's you can match and in a year or two the gap will be even bigger.
My PC is a 5850 1GB, Phenom II X4 840, 4GB DDR3. PS4 out performs it, and if they get it at £300 - £400 then it will be cheaper alternative to upgrading my gaming PC. And looking at the Steam surveys, many PC gamers don't match PS4 capabilities so they will also need to upgrade their PC once the next gen consoles increase lowest common denominator.
- Status