• 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.

Unreal Engine 4 Thread

That's great. But only if its efficient, unlike PhysX which eats many GPU resources.

I will try it when they fix the fluids and tell you if it runs well. BTW VXGI for UE4 was delayed for a week and I am sure it will need a Maxwell card to run it just like Apollo demo which will minimise the number of testers for it.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
PhysX Flex is for nVidia-only graphical effects, if I'm not mistaken? A general solution that supports AMD cards too would be nice. Otherwise wouldn't that fall into the same problem that PhysX has always had -- really bad CPU performance, or locking out part of the market?

At the moment you need an nVidia, moreover Kepler or above. (Though obviously performance will vary then depending on the power of your card). It's CUDA 3.0 based.

It is very neat though, to have a general solution for solids/liquids/gases through one path. I imagine there will be vendor agnostic systems similar to it in the not too distant future.

One thing that isn't obvious in the videos released so far is that up close, even with surface rendering, liquids can look quite 'blobby' - you can see the spherical or ellipsoidal silhouette of the particles making up the liquid surface. I don't just mean in the UE4 implementation - I mean even in the standalone demo, with more proper surface rendering. At distance it's not apparent because the particles are sub pixel size, but up close it becomes evident. Some kind of hierarchical system that varies particle size depending on distance - particle sizes are fixed right now - or a better surfacing approach might be able to deal with that though. The former might require a fair bit of power, though, to throw around a lot more smaller particles when closer to a liquid surface.
 

Blizzard

Banned
At the moment you need an nVidia, moreover Kepler or above. (Though obviously performance will vary then depending on the power of your card). It's CUDA 3.0 based.

It is very neat though, to have a general solution for solids/liquids/gases through one path. I imagine there will be vendor agnostic systems similar to it in the not too distant future.

One thing that isn't obvious in the videos released so far is that up close, even with surface rendering, liquids can look quite 'blobby' - you can see the spherical or ellipsoidal silhouette of the particles making up the liquid surface. I don't just mean in the UE4 implementation - I mean even in the standalone demo, with more proper surface rendering. At distance it's not apparent because the particles are sub pixel size, but up close it becomes evident. Some kind of hierarchical system that varies particle size depending on distance - particle sizes are fixed right now - or a better surfacing approach might be able to deal with that though. The former might require a fair bit of power, though, to throw around a lot more smaller particles when closer to a liquid surface.
Hmm so some sort of LOD equivalent for smoke/liquids might be needed, essentially. I really feel like realistic liquid simulation is a pretty low priority as far as requirements for games go, though. Maybe in 5 years, or if someone made a puzzle game about liquids.
 
At the moment you need an nVidia, moreover Kepler or above. (Though obviously performance will vary then depending on the power of your card). It's CUDA 3.0 based.

It is very neat though, to have a general solution for solids/liquids/gases through one path. I imagine there will be vendor agnostic systems similar to it in the not too distant future.

One thing that isn't obvious in the videos released so far is that up close, even with surface rendering, liquids can look quite 'blobby' - you can see the spherical or ellipsoidal silhouette of the particles making up the liquid surface. I don't just mean in the UE4 implementation - I mean even in the standalone demo, with more proper surface rendering. At distance it's not apparent because the particles are sub pixel size, but up close it becomes evident. Some kind of hierarchical system that varies particle size depending on distance - particle sizes are fixed right now - or a better surfacing approach might be able to deal with that though. The former might require a fair bit of power, though, to throw around a lot more smaller particles when closer to a liquid surface.

Indeed, in the video I didn't notice that, but in the standalone demo this was very visible. Their flex liquid behaviour and particles interaction are based on sphers interactions. In the video i suppose they are using a tremendous amount of tiny sphers connected together to get betetr results, they seem like polygons, the more and the smaller they are , the better are the results. Nvidia is limiting the maximum number of of them in the demo and UE4 integration to avoid overheat. I think they need more optimization for it because using a small amount of them can get you such unwanted results.
 

Sini

Member
Purdy
5yQ8J20.gif

https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?58385-Koola-s-stuff&p=221911&viewfull=1#post221911
 
That's the same person who did some architectural visualization work previously. They're insanely talented, hard-working, knowledgeable, or possibly all three. :p

https://www.youtube.com/user/koooolalala/videos
It's work like this that makes me wish Nvidia would hurry up with fixing SLI for VR.

I'd like to see anyone skeptical about VR put on a Crescent Bay / equivalent quality headset with environments like this. That .gif and a lot of those environments are mindblowing, imagine actually being in it.
 

Bollocks

Member
lol just saw that I failed to pay the licence since October, yet I can still download 4.6.1.
lets see if I can also download 4.7 :D
 
Doesnt that cave have a bunch of artist placed point lights in it to simulate GI bounces? It would be pretty intelligent to remove those first before turning on VXGI.
 

wwm0nkey

Member
I have a pretty good grasp on Classes and Functions thanks to my programming class I'm taking and I decided to give BluePrint a test.....I can actually program now rather than just make some levels! lol

I'm only learning Java right now but would like to know how much harder it would really be to use C++ here or if it's really needed for a smaller project?
 

Bollocks

Member
C++ is not really that different from Java. As far as UE4 goes there's not really that much difference, it comes down to personal preference.
I'm a programmer but use Blueprints to get a hang of the engine, I like that it's really easy to play around and test stuff but it can become a mess real quick with all those lines if you don't actively keep house.
Also there's no fast way to comment out blueprint logic to test drive different solutions.
With code it's easy but then you're prone to compile errors something I try to avoid because it can get in your way.
So that's how I currently do it.
 

wwm0nkey

Member
C++ is not really that different from Java. As far as UE4 goes there's not really that much difference, it comes down to personal preference.
I'm a programmer but use Blueprints to get a hang of the engine, I like that it's really easy to play around and test stuff but it can become a mess real quick with all those lines if you don't actively keep house.
Also there's no fast way to comment out blueprint logic to test drive different solutions.
With code it's easy but then you're prone to compile errors something I try to avoid because it can get in your way.
So that's how I currently do it.
Main difference is syntax right?

I do like BluePrints for the info it gives me while my game is running, helps fix things easily.

All I got done was a damage/death system and enemy class, it's not much but I "get it" now and I'm ready to make more stuff soon :)
 
Main difference is syntax right?

I do like BluePrints for the info it gives me while my game is running, helps fix things easily.

All I got done was a damage/death system and enemy class, it's not much but I "get it" now and I'm ready to make more stuff soon :)


Between c++ and Java there is a bit more more of a difference. C++ is more difficult to use and you need to take care of memory management.
 

Bollocks

Member
Not sure how I feel about the revamped Blueprint Editor, I actually liked the separate windows, they all had their own specific purpose, now everything is crammed into 1 window.

Love the git support though and everything else in this release. full source is nice
 

Mik2121

Member
Just went back to my subscription. It's been so long since they released 4.6!
Anyway, the updates look great. Can't wait to download the latest version as soon as I get home.
 

Tain

Member
I've only gotten HTML5 output to work on the SideScrollerTemplate so far, but hey, it looks good, runs decent, and even has gamepad support.

The new UI does trip me up though. I keep quitting the entire editor after making changes to a blueprint.

Feels nice to have full FOV VR back. VR preview works but the weight of the editor causes me to dip under the 75fps bar, so I stick to Standalone.
 

Blizzard

Banned
Looks vastly much more natural and more appealing with it off than on.
Unless the guy messed up and meant the first image each time has it turned on and the second one has it turned off.
I think I would agree, but with the crazy postprocess blur (temporarl?) AA / chromatic aberration / whatever, it's hard to get a precise idea of what's going on with the image quality. :p
 

Chris_C

Member
Looks vastly much more natural and more appealing with it off than on.
Unless the guy messed up and meant the first image each time has it turned on and the second one has it turned off.

I was going to say the same thing.

Last night I was dreaming about building a scale-accurate VR rendering of the Enterprise D. Need more talent.
 

_machine

Member
Ooh, lots of yummy stuff in 4.7. Love the foliage stuff, workflow for coders has improved a lot and there's plenty of useful small features. We still have some issues with a few broken blueprints, but Epic is on it so hopefully those issues will be fixed soon.
 
In case someone missed that, HBAO+ branch is available for more than a day now, but wait for the 4.7 update to get it and compile it.
 

_machine

Member
Can someone upload a exe with VGXI enabled for non sub users to try? Would be cool
I don't think there are any good examples yet; the cave comparison there was a poor example as some of the lights there were supposed to mimic GI and that makes the GI both work poorly as well as be super slow. I'll see if I can do a test scene with it, but I'm quite busy with our own game so might not have time for it.
 
Are there any decent tutorials out there for making a shooter from the ground up? I have virtually no experience programming and I'm trying to get into it.
 
Does anyone here have a good understanding of C++, or Blueprint scripting within UE4? I have a question for advanced users, about something I'd like to incorporate into a project.

I'd love if anyone who thinks they might be able to help to shoot me a PM, or if anyone can point me in the direction of someone who could, I really need some personal hand holding.
 
No, not the drop shadow, the boxes blur the world behind them.

Ah I get cha, guess you're going to want to create a material that is transparent yet has obstructive blur features. Apply that material and shape to HUD areas.

I've got the concept, however I have no idea how to achieve it.

Maybe duplicate the transparent glass material and adjust some if it's properties in the blueprint editor.
 

anteevy

Member
Hmm not sure this is possible with UMG, I couldn't even get my text to glow with it. You might just add some static mesh components (planes) to your camera with a blurring material, but it's quite a hack.
 
Top Bottom