Its been common place in CG for over a decade, but only recently come onto the scene for games. There are already a few current gen console games that have shipped with it. I could be wrong but I believe Halo 4 uses it? In terms of current gen its not that expensive, but you would expect to have a few GPU MS overhead.
Also just to add, I don't think current or next gen games will be truly physical based. I believe its more an interpretation of real world values with a lot less fudging than before.
Generally speaking its a much better way of working and a lot easier to get surface properties to look correct.
Are you sure? Last I checked, they didn't have a Diffuse roughness property in place, and their cloth shader lacked a Schlick component to the fuzzy property.
Baking means slower iteration time, more work to get lightmaps setup. It makes it harder to have a game with a day/night cycle, or changing weather. and It limits the scopes of some games.
I see physically based shaders as a good thing. There will be less iteration trying to tweak the diffuse/spec to make it just right once there is some good documentation created. I can see lists of surfaces with their real life physical properties being compiled.
Yes baking bit more slow, but as far it works I would prefer solution which works rather some high end solution which limited in its usage with other parts of technology.
Sometimes problem with dynamic only solution - you need to place lots of lights, and with deferred shading you able to do so, but in a way they not overlaps other lights... Well in some engines you could bake some low res data for indirect lighting, and remove lights, but directional data is way to low res even for mid-range distance, but all this totally not a problem with baked solution.. Place as many you need and bake..
As about day night cycle they could bake AO and reflection occlusion plus some data for indirect lighting and combine it with dynamic diffuse cubemaps generated from the environment texture (physical sky?) in run time, who knows))
I do believe in epic they have plenty of smart guys who know what they doing, at least my experience with UE3 tells me this)))
Yes baking bit more slow, but as far it works I would prefer solution which works rather some high end solution which limited in its usage with other parts of technology.
Sometimes problem with dynamic only solution - you need to place lots of lights, and with deferred shading you able to do so, but in a way they not overlaps other lights... Well in some engines you could bake some low res data for indirect lighting, and remove lights, but directional data is way to low res even for mid-range distance, but all this totally not a problem with baked solution.. Place as many you need and bake..
As about day night cycle they could bake AO and reflection occlusion plus some data for indirect lighting and combine it with dynamic diffuse cubemaps generated from the environment texture (physical sky?) in run time, who knows))
I do believe in epic they have plenty of smart guys who know what they doing, at least my experience with UE3 tells me this)))
The point they're trying to make I think, is that we can very easily (and much faster) bake out a Lightmap in a 3rd party program like Max or Maya and overlay it on our material manually later on, or write a streamlined script.
It's one of those things that is 'nice to have' in your engine, but not the most necessary thing in terms of 'built in solutions', maybe a few years ago, and I think up today, many Japanese Dev's still use this 'old' method, and the results show usually for me, even the shabbiest Jap games on my PC on the lowest settings have some nice Lightmaps.
I'm not shooting down Epic's solution in this case mind you, but I can't tell you how many times I would put the Lightmap on the Production quality and still get aliasing on it, even if took me about 8 hours on my home PC.
It's not iterative, you don't have "on hands preview", yes, you can bake it on lower quality settings (although it's not always a sure fire way to check) but unless your job in the pipeline is to be the 'that' guy that keeps an eye on with a checklist of size/UV/ect THIS specific imported mesh needs to get a nice performance savvy bake that looks good, many artists are just going be wasting weeks upon weeks of time on their 'folio, trying to get a nice bake for each mesh solution.
I don't understand why we can't have both? Want to wait 8 hours for the bake because you're porting your game to a last gen console? OK. Want to create a dynamic high quality scene for a personal project on your site? Cool. Want to mix the two because you're making an Indie game on PC and want to rush a beta preview? Neat.
It's not like having the two is going to cause a Thermo-Nuclear war in the first place, unless I missed something.
Wouldn't it be possible to have the SVOGI in the high end PC games and in the editor but when you have to target the lower end PCs and console ports just bake off of the SVOGI system at a fraction of the typical time with some slightly raised parameters?
You can afford non interactive update rates. I mean, you would still get those in your editor's viewport afterall, but for the consoles and low end ports it's ending up as a lightmap anyway.
I don't think that just because lightmaps are coming back we will necessarily suffer through the horrendous itteration times of this gen. Maybe console games will be a bit less dynamic, but IDK.
It's not exactly realtime, but its using realtime techniques similar to what Cry3 uses for it's realtime GI, however, Bluestone has the option to increase various parameters/#-of-bounces to get that awesome offline lighting look.
You might think, well yeagh, 3 seconds is still not intaractive enough.
But keep in mind, most development PCs that will run UE4's editor will have the power for realtime SVOGI in their viewport, and I would imagine you could extend SVOGI to bake what you see in the viewport (But enhanced) to a lightmap in seconds/minutes similar to or (more likely) better than how the 2-year-old beta-ass BlueStone app does.
Geomerics makes a really good case for why lightmaps still have a lot of room for improvement, and lot of life left in them and why thats not necessarily a bad thing. They use very similar points, and I have posted some of their explinations/presentations on this earlier in the thread.
I love your suggested solution, it would be the best of both worlds. I just really want to know if SVOGI in UE4 has been completely killed, and if so, why? Is it actually not practical for a game environment? Too expensive?
So lightmaps in UE4 for consoles? Wasn't Epic saying that the new engine is all about speeding up workflow? The thousands of hours wasted per game creating lightmaps uvs and rendering lighting is a step backwards. Unless I am reading into the recent article wrong, this is a poor choice by Epic in my mind. I'd rather have some issues with the realtime lighting like light bleeding, then have artists waste their time with UV's and rendering.
I love your suggested solution, it would be the best of both worlds. I just really want to know if SVOGI in UE4 has been completely killed, and if so, why? Is it actually not practical for a game environment? Too expensive?
I dont think anyone said they have removed SVOGI from the engine. Back when UE4 was announced they said they would be compatible with mobile which meant we knew they would have to work with something like lightmaps on the lower end. (I had no idea that 'lower end' included PS4 until this morning)
Either way, the wording in all the quotes I have read so far dont indicate that they have cut it from the engine, but rather replaced it with offline lightining on the PS4. IDK though its not clear.
It would be nice if some of the polycounters who have access to UE4 would simply confirm that SVOGI made the cut, although that's most likely not as simple as it sounds...
At least it would put several NeoGAF threads to rest.
Are you sure? Last I checked, they didn't have a Diffuse roughness property in place, and their cloth shader lacked a Schlick component to the fuzzy property.
I can't be 100% sure as Crytek is not most open company in the world about what are they doing. But they already have many things in place (filmic HDR, gamma corrected linear lighting). What they really lack at this point is proper material editor, where we can edit shaders.
There's something that is bothering me a bit, see if you can spot it, if not then it's just me...
I see 2 things that you might be talking about, the reflections aren't matching up completely perfectly, and there's key shadows missing in some spots, there's no soft shadows near the feet or body low to the ground. There's typically darker shadows when something is near to the ground or hovering slighting off the ground. Like a car at sunset, even if the sunlight is hitting almost everywhere under the car, there will be the darkest shadows on the ground behind the wheels under the car.
I can't imagine that Epic would promote their use of svogi in a 20 minute in-engine walkthrough demo as their keystone technique (which is their only in-engine demo), release this engine to developers where they have already started making games with it (i.e. Daylight), and then suddenly deprecate the technique in their next release. Have they ever done this before?
Technically, svogi is extremely scalable, because it allows you to lower the voxel resolution and number of cones traced for lower-end hardware - and still have decent quality dynamic gi.
I see 2 things that you might be talking about, the reflections aren't matching up completely perfectly, and there's key shadows missing in some spots, there's no soft shadows near the feet or body low to the ground. There's typically darker shadows when something is near to the ground or hovering slighting off the ground. Like a car at sunset, even if the sunlight is hitting almost everywhere under the car, there will be the darkest shadows on the ground behind the wheels under the car.
Lol, of course it matters, we've all already agreed upon the fact that this is pretty much mind blowing, so now we can point out those very few things that to us feels like could use improvements...
The Infiltrator demo is impressive, but this is NOT running on next gen console hardware. I would be curious to know if this tech demo is using SVOGI. If I had to guess, I bet it is. In that case it is pretty irrelevant as a game using it would have to be PC only.
I was disappointed to learn the new consoles will not be able to handle UE4's Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI). This was honestly the thing i was looking forward to the most out of the engine.
"[SVOGI] was our prototype GI system that we used for Elemental last year. And our targets, given that we've had announced hardware from Sony, that's where we're going to be using Lightmass as our global illumination solution instead of SVOGI," senior technical artist and level designer Alan Willard told Eurogamer"
"The key differentiating factor between last year's demo and this newer iteration is that the Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI) lighting system hasn't made the cut."
Im sure UE4 will be a step up from UE3, but I think everyone, including Epic, was really hoping the next gen console system specs would be better. I am wondering if they will even include the SVOGI in the final version of UE4 at all, especially if switching between the two in editor creates conflicts and requires a change in workflow.
The Infiltrator demo is impressive, but this is NOT running on next gen console hardware. I would be curious to know if this tech demo is using SVOGI. If I had to guess, I bet it is. In that case it is pretty irrelevant as a game using it would have to be PC only.
I was disappointed to learn the new consoles will not be able to handle UE4's Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI). This was honestly the thing i was looking forward to the most out of the engine.
"[SVOGI] was our prototype GI system that we used for Elemental last year. And our targets, given that we've had announced hardware from Sony, that's where we're going to be using Lightmass as our global illumination solution instead of SVOGI," senior technical artist and level designer Alan Willard told Eurogamer"
"The key differentiating factor between last year's demo and this newer iteration is that the Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI) lighting system hasn't made the cut."
Im sure UE4 will be a step up from UE3, but I think everyone, including Epic, was really hoping the next gen console system specs would be better. I am wondering if they will even include the SVOGI in the final version of UE4 at all, especially if switching between the two in editor creates conflicts and requires a change in workflow.
I guess we will have to wait and see what Microsoft say about SVOGI as the have not said anything about their next console specs yet, maybe at E3 we might get some details.
I hope they'll at least keep the PC version of the engine intact. Infiltrator demo is looking good. And even Primal Carnage: Genesis trailer 1 looks very impressive too.
I can't be 100% sure as Crytek is not most open company in the world about what are they doing. But they already have many things in place (filmic HDR, gamma corrected linear lighting). What they really lack at this point is proper material editor, where we can edit shaders.
Yeah, don't count on that, they allowed people to edit their shaders in Crysis 1 iirc, through some pseudo HLSL code which was messy.
One of the dev's at CryTek also regularly updates the Crysis 1's shaders through community updates on the forums, again, it's all pseudo HLSL, so half of the stuff is hard to read, but again, last I checked, alot of the shader stuff is 'cheap' on the fly thing, the only reason for example their updated SSS solution looks super nice is because you have direct control over the shadows in Material format.
But the more important aspects of true physical correct still doesn't exist sadly even for in their pre-built solutions.
So lightmaps in UE4 for consoles? Wasn't Epic saying that the new engine is all about speeding up workflow? The thousands of hours wasted per game creating lightmaps uvs and rendering lighting is a step backwards. Unless I am reading into the recent article wrong, this is a poor choice by Epic in my mind. I'd rather have some issues with the realtime lighting like light bleeding, then have artists waste their time with UV's and rendering.
Most likely, Epic knows something other peeps don't. I'm thinking it's a Console limitation once more, not surprised honestly, if they're already slightly behind in terms of face value graphics for an entire scene...
I think you guys already produced enough evidence to conclude that SVOGI is not being used in the Infiltrator demo. If it was turned on it would be extremely hard to spot (I saw only one place in the whole demo where something resembling ambient occlusion is visible, namely the big hoses next to the entrance to the tunnel where the infiltrators is being spotted... and that may well be direct shadows from multiple lights).
Also, if they had used it it would have been listed in the feature list on the GeForce site, if nothing else to convince studios that it would scale up to locations as vast as the city scene at the end.
Now that's only one algorithm in a whole lot of next-gen things that the engine has, and I'm sure they'll add a replacement dynamic GI solution (anything less would be a big egg in their face given that both FB3 and CE3 have one).
Yeah, don't count on that, they allowed people to edit their shaders in Crysis 1 iirc, through some pseudo HLSL code which was messy.
One of the dev's at CryTek also regularly updates the Crysis 1's shaders through community updates on the forums, again, it's all pseudo HLSL, so half of the stuff is hard to read, but again, last I checked, alot of the shader stuff is 'cheap' on the fly thing, the only reason for example their updated SSS solution looks super nice is because you have direct control over the shadows in Material format.
But the more important aspects of true physical correct still doesn't exist sadly even for in their pre-built solutions.
Most likely, Epic knows something other peeps don't. I'm thinking it's a Console limitation once more, not surprised honestly, if they're already slightly behind in terms of face value graphics for an entire scene...
Yet Cryengine doesn't use lightmaps on current gen consoles...I mean, lightmaps can be great for certain qualities, but the time lost for creation is terrible. My point is that Epic has been talking about tools and workflow being more important then graphics for this next generation, yet, lightmaps.
..why? Wasn't the entire point about UE 4 how dynamic and easy to use it was and how much it cut down on time needed to get lighting and pretty much everything right?
Going back to light baking seems ridiculously stupid, if consoles can't handle it let them stick with using UE 3.5 or some shit
Yet Cryengine doesn't use lightmaps on current gen consoles...I mean, lightmaps can be great for certain qualities, but the time lost for creation is terrible. My point is that Epic has been talking about tools and workflow being more important then graphics for this next generation, yet, lightmaps.
I know, but the problem is they had to omit alot of stuff to make it work, IIRC as early as Crysis 2, they showed videos in which alot of the advanced dynamic stuff would have the word (PC) next to it, and anything that didn't mean it was workable on all platforms.
So even if it was dynamic, they had to do some sacrifices here and there, and most likely in Epics case, Lightmaps are cheapest second option, outside of dropping down settings.
Don't forget that many unsavvy console gamers tend to care more about how their games looks compared to rival platforms, so don't be surprised if there is an entire debate about this down the line at one point.
doubt it, it just got released to licensees recently. I would be interested if they kept UE3 as the main UDK build for an extended period of time
fully dynamic lighting with GI is not really possible on even current pc tech. look at their demo machine for the elemental with GI it was some beast with like 3 gpus or something. its not exactly affordable for most consumers.
that and some politics (as usual)... no svogi in at least this version of ue4.
but those particles are sick, and the physically based materials im in.
fully dynamic lighting with GI is not really possible on even current pc tech. look at their demo machine for the elemental with GI it was some beast with like 3 gpus or something. its not exactly affordable for most consumers.
interesting, i stand corrected. however it runs at like 3 fps on my 660.
cant really speak to cryengine I havent had enough personal experience with it.
Cryengine 3 is fully dynamic lighting, but you have to assign vis portals which tell the engine what is indoor and what is outdoor and its kind of prone to lighting artifacts. I think what Epic had in mind with its dynamic GI solution was something more powerful and user-friendly. Its a shame it didn't make the cut for the new PS4 hardware (and probably xbox 720 too).
From a consumer standpoint no one will care though. If millions of people upgrade there iPhones and tablets every year without really understanding the difference in technology, the same will happen with the new consoles. I don't see it hurting sales for games, but it defiantly sucks for developers and artists who don't want to worry about lightmaps and static shadow baking. These things really are a pain in the arse to work with and slow production times down.
They've only offically said SVOGI is out when talking about the PS4, we don't know if they meant it is out completely or just for consoles and lower end hardware. We don't know if it's out all together. Lightmaps will be used for more than just the PS4 from what it sounded like.
To be fair lighting is completely different in those. PC shot has a could shadow from a light function so everything is in shade. I think this grab from the walkthrough is a better comparison when there's no visible cloud shadow at the moment.
My biggest gripe outside of GI would be it's reflections. Although svogi ones don't seem to have high enough res for crisp ones like mirror, I'd take those over screen space ones any day.
I haven't really been following this too closely, or even entirely understand it all; but if they aren't, then what are they using for Fortnite? Since that's supposed to have a dynamic day/night.
from wiki:
Fortnite is an upcoming game from Epic Games. It is centred on a scavenge by day and fight by night scenario. It will be the first game from Epic to utilize Epic's Unreal Engine 4 and is currently set for release in 2013.
Fortnite is described as a co-op sandbox survival game and is about exploration, scavenging gear, building fortified structures, and fighting waves of encroaching monsters. Players will work together to scavenge items they can use for building by day to build their fort, and by night defend it from the monsters. Building will be a core mechanic in the game, and there will be "a lot of loot" buried within. Players can build and edit each wall of their fort with a 3x3 grid, laydown stairs, roofs, and windows, sculpting them to suit a particular need.
It doesn't need a full day night cycle, just day, Sunset, and night. You can fade between those light maps and make it work. We don't know if it's fully dynamic.
Replies
http://seblagarde.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/dontnod-specular-and-glossiness-chart/
Its been common place in CG for over a decade, but only recently come onto the scene for games. There are already a few current gen console games that have shipped with it. I could be wrong but I believe Halo 4 uses it? In terms of current gen its not that expensive, but you would expect to have a few GPU MS overhead.
Also just to add, I don't think current or next gen games will be truly physical based. I believe its more an interpretation of real world values with a lot less fudging than before.
Generally speaking its a much better way of working and a lot easier to get surface properties to look correct.
Yes baking bit more slow, but as far it works I would prefer solution which works rather some high end solution which limited in its usage with other parts of technology.
Sometimes problem with dynamic only solution - you need to place lots of lights, and with deferred shading you able to do so, but in a way they not overlaps other lights... Well in some engines you could bake some low res data for indirect lighting, and remove lights, but directional data is way to low res even for mid-range distance, but all this totally not a problem with baked solution.. Place as many you need and bake..
As about day night cycle they could bake AO and reflection occlusion plus some data for indirect lighting and combine it with dynamic diffuse cubemaps generated from the environment texture (physical sky?) in run time, who knows))
I do believe in epic they have plenty of smart guys who know what they doing, at least my experience with UE3 tells me this)))
[ame="
It's one of those things that is 'nice to have' in your engine, but not the most necessary thing in terms of 'built in solutions', maybe a few years ago, and I think up today, many Japanese Dev's still use this 'old' method, and the results show usually for me, even the shabbiest Jap games on my PC on the lowest settings have some nice Lightmaps.
I'm not shooting down Epic's solution in this case mind you, but I can't tell you how many times I would put the Lightmap on the Production quality and still get aliasing on it, even if took me about 8 hours on my home PC.
It's not iterative, you don't have "on hands preview", yes, you can bake it on lower quality settings (although it's not always a sure fire way to check) but unless your job in the pipeline is to be the 'that' guy that keeps an eye on with a checklist of size/UV/ect THIS specific imported mesh needs to get a nice performance savvy bake that looks good, many artists are just going be wasting weeks upon weeks of time on their 'folio, trying to get a nice bake for each mesh solution.
I don't understand why we can't have both? Want to wait 8 hours for the bake because you're porting your game to a last gen console? OK. Want to create a dynamic high quality scene for a personal project on your site? Cool. Want to mix the two because you're making an Indie game on PC and want to rush a beta preview? Neat.
It's not like having the two is going to cause a Thermo-Nuclear war in the first place, unless I missed something.
Take my money! So over programming! Wish they gave us a release date!
You can afford non interactive update rates. I mean, you would still get those in your editor's viewport afterall, but for the consoles and low end ports it's ending up as a lightmap anyway.
I don't think that just because lightmaps are coming back we will necessarily suffer through the horrendous itteration times of this gen. Maybe console games will be a bit less dynamic, but IDK.
Here is a pretty sweet GPU based lightmapper that can render GI in seconds with light volumes. (<Blog Post)
Its two years old, but it works this fast:
[ame="
Indirect light 1st pass: 3 seconds (512 rays)
Indirect light 2nd pass: 15 seconds (2512 rays)
(Indirect bounces use light volumes)
It's not exactly realtime, but its using realtime techniques similar to what Cry3 uses for it's realtime GI, however, Bluestone has the option to increase various parameters/#-of-bounces to get that awesome offline lighting look.
You might think, well yeagh, 3 seconds is still not intaractive enough.
But keep in mind, most development PCs that will run UE4's editor will have the power for realtime SVOGI in their viewport, and I would imagine you could extend SVOGI to bake what you see in the viewport (But enhanced) to a lightmap in seconds/minutes similar to or (more likely) better than how the 2-year-old beta-ass BlueStone app does.
Geomerics makes a really good case for why lightmaps still have a lot of room for improvement, and lot of life left in them and why thats not necessarily a bad thing. They use very similar points, and I have posted some of their explinations/presentations on this earlier in the thread.
I love your suggested solution, it would be the best of both worlds. I just really want to know if SVOGI in UE4 has been completely killed, and if so, why? Is it actually not practical for a game environment? Too expensive?
[ame="
Lukewarm Media's Primal Carnage Genesis
[ame="
Zombie Studio's Daylight
[ame="
Epic's Fourtnight
[ame="
I dont think anyone said they have removed SVOGI from the engine. Back when UE4 was announced they said they would be compatible with mobile which meant we knew they would have to work with something like lightmaps on the lower end. (I had no idea that 'lower end' included PS4 until this morning)
Either way, the wording in all the quotes I have read so far dont indicate that they have cut it from the engine, but rather replaced it with offline lightining on the PS4. IDK though its not clear.
It would be nice if some of the polycounters who have access to UE4 would simply confirm that SVOGI made the cut, although that's most likely not as simple as it sounds...
At least it would put several NeoGAF threads to rest.
Dat 'smooth-all' smoothing group:
I see 2 things that you might be talking about, the reflections aren't matching up completely perfectly, and there's key shadows missing in some spots, there's no soft shadows near the feet or body low to the ground. There's typically darker shadows when something is near to the ground or hovering slighting off the ground. Like a car at sunset, even if the sunlight is hitting almost everywhere under the car, there will be the darkest shadows on the ground behind the wheels under the car.
Technically, svogi is extremely scalable, because it allows you to lower the voxel resolution and number of cones traced for lower-end hardware - and still have decent quality dynamic gi.
Then it's not just me, yes you nailed it...^^
if all those small things pointed out were correct, what would be left
I was disappointed to learn the new consoles will not be able to handle UE4's Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI). This was honestly the thing i was looking forward to the most out of the engine.
"[SVOGI] was our prototype GI system that we used for Elemental last year. And our targets, given that we've had announced hardware from Sony, that's where we're going to be using Lightmass as our global illumination solution instead of SVOGI," senior technical artist and level designer Alan Willard told Eurogamer"
"The key differentiating factor between last year's demo and this newer iteration is that the Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI) lighting system hasn't made the cut."
Im sure UE4 will be a step up from UE3, but I think everyone, including Epic, was really hoping the next gen console system specs would be better. I am wondering if they will even include the SVOGI in the final version of UE4 at all, especially if switching between the two in editor creates conflicts and requires a change in workflow.
I guess we will have to wait and see what Microsoft say about SVOGI as the have not said anything about their next console specs yet, maybe at E3 we might get some details.
[ame="
I hope they'll at least keep the PC version of the engine intact. Infiltrator demo is looking good. And even Primal Carnage: Genesis trailer 1 looks very impressive too.
[ame="
In another note, as far as I know Geomerics has managed to port Enlighten to PS4, and they seem to also have a good relationship with Epic...
One of the dev's at CryTek also regularly updates the Crysis 1's shaders through community updates on the forums, again, it's all pseudo HLSL, so half of the stuff is hard to read, but again, last I checked, alot of the shader stuff is 'cheap' on the fly thing, the only reason for example their updated SSS solution looks super nice is because you have direct control over the shadows in Material format.
But the more important aspects of true physical correct still doesn't exist sadly even for in their pre-built solutions.
Most likely, Epic knows something other peeps don't. I'm thinking it's a Console limitation once more, not surprised honestly, if they're already slightly behind in terms of face value graphics for an entire scene...
Also, if they had used it it would have been listed in the feature list on the GeForce site, if nothing else to convince studios that it would scale up to locations as vast as the city scene at the end.
Now that's only one algorithm in a whole lot of next-gen things that the engine has, and I'm sure they'll add a replacement dynamic GI solution (anything less would be a big egg in their face given that both FB3 and CE3 have one).
Yet Cryengine doesn't use lightmaps on current gen consoles...I mean, lightmaps can be great for certain qualities, but the time lost for creation is terrible. My point is that Epic has been talking about tools and workflow being more important then graphics for this next generation, yet, lightmaps.
its out all together.
Going back to light baking seems ridiculously stupid, if consoles can't handle it let them stick with using UE 3.5 or some shit
So even if it was dynamic, they had to do some sacrifices here and there, and most likely in Epics case, Lightmaps are cheapest second option, outside of dropping down settings.
Don't forget that many unsavvy console gamers tend to care more about how their games looks compared to rival platforms, so don't be surprised if there is an entire debate about this down the line at one point.
fully dynamic lighting with GI is not really possible on even current pc tech. look at their demo machine for the elemental with GI it was some beast with like 3 gpus or something. its not exactly affordable for most consumers.
that and some politics (as usual)... no svogi in at least this version of ue4.
but those particles are sick, and the physically based materials im in.
Relevant because steambox platform emergence etc.
:shifty: Really?
During the last E3 event, the UE3 Samaritan demo ran off not one or two, but three GeForce GTX 580. At the 2012 E3, however, UE4 ran an impressive Elemental demo using only just one GTX 680thats right, one.
Source: http://vr-zone.com/articles/unreal-engine-4-is-more-powerful-but-requires-less-horsepower/16216.html#ixzz2P58WMWDF
And that is the older PC Elemental that looks much better. And what about the Cryengine?
cant really speak to cryengine I havent had enough personal experience with it.
From a consumer standpoint no one will care though. If millions of people upgrade there iPhones and tablets every year without really understanding the difference in technology, the same will happen with the new consoles. I don't see it hurting sales for games, but it defiantly sucks for developers and artists who don't want to worry about lightmaps and static shadow baking. These things really are a pain in the arse to work with and slow production times down.
Demo 1 found here. (Requires OpenGL 4.3)
Demo 2 found here. (Requires DX11)
Just if someone wasn't sure of diffrence.
My biggest gripe outside of GI would be it's reflections. Although svogi ones don't seem to have high enough res for crisp ones like mirror, I'd take those over screen space ones any day.
That's a completely different lighting setup lulz.
you just don't ^^
Dat pointlight
I haven't really been following this too closely, or even entirely understand it all; but if they aren't, then what are they using for Fortnite? Since that's supposed to have a dynamic day/night.
from wiki:
With PRTs or something like Geomeric's solution. Lots of pre-process time but pretty flexible after its all computed.