Nanite will probably use whatever the best hardware feature is on a given platform to optimize the process -- but they've stated the core is software compute and not tied to specific hardware.
"The core" here is presumably their GPU compute based micropolygon rasterizers. You still need to actually push all these polygons into a frame prior to rasterizing them, via compute or h/w or whathaveyou. And this is where mesh shaders can be pretty much required.Nanite will probably use whatever the best hardware feature is on a given platform to optimize the process -- but they've stated the core is software compute and not tied to specific hardware.
"The core" here is presumably their GPU compute based micropolygon rasterizers. You still need to actually push all these polygons into a frame prior to rasterizing them, via compute or h/w or whathaveyou. And this is where mesh shaders can be pretty much required.
True, though I'm pretty sure TLoU 2 is 25-30 hours long.The 30 + hour comment...isn't that different from this gen. This gen it would be extremely hard to build a 30 hour game with the fidelity of TLoU2.
EDIT: To be clear, I know not everyone has their expectations through the roof. But some do, and that's where my concern comes from.
EDIT 2: I should've made this clearer before as well: this is about the pressure devs will face (and I mean the hateful and/or armchair kind) because some people believe the tech demo is what AAA games will look like from the start of next-gen.
I have a feeling this is why Sony aren't shouting from the rooftops about it, due to expectations of their launch games.
Mesh shaders are essentially compute with some great additions targetting geometry processing specifically. You can "emulate" them via compute but the efficiency will be lower. So while you can just as well do this without mesh shaders - chances are that you'll get a sizeable speed up when using them.They've suggested otherwise, as if a complex surface is layered directly into the frame buffer by a compute process which handles all the geometry internally.
This is already the case and that doesn't impacted VG that much.One company, probably Rockstar or Naughty Dog will set some kind of insane precedent, probably through some unholy levels of crunch, and players will start expecting that kind of output from all developers.
It was not running on PS5 contrary to the UE5 demo..
I'll be very honest, the UE5 demo completely changed my ideas about how games are supposed to look. Intellectually, I understand that not all games and devs will reach that benchmark, but when I was watching Ghost of Tsushima state of play video, I couldn't help notice the low poly rocks, the low textures, and the incorrect lighting. And Ghost of Tsushima is a phenomenal looking game. The devs have outdone themselves. It's just that I've started to notice issues I never did because of the UE5 demo.
In 2002, I remember playing the newly released return to castle wolfenstein. And it blew me away. I thought it was impossible for a game to look better. Of course, now it's difficult to ignore the game's blocky, low detail graphics.
Something similar has happened to me after the UE5 demo. All of the flaws of current gen graphics, that my brain filtered out, now stand out in stark relief.
How is this any different to a set-piece in UC4 with more visual bells and whistles? If anything, it looks less impressive by virtue of how on-rails and ~ cinematic ~ it is. Why can't we remind ourselves that the impact of these graphical leaps last mere weeks – if not days – in the hearts and minds of most players?
I'm well aware this is purely to show off tech, but man, what a trite way to do so. I've played this game; you've played this game; we've ALL played this game. It's hella boring in 2020 and beyond. So from that perspective, I definitely agree with what Yogi is saying.
I vastly prefer it shown in a demo like this that tries to frame it into a game we all know and thus can easier see what gains this tech brings than doing an on rails demo.How is this any different to a set-piece in UC4 with more visual bells and whistles? If anything, it looks less impressive by virtue of how on-rails and ~ cinematic ~ it is. Why can't we remind ourselves that the impact of these graphical leaps last mere weeks – if not days – in the hearts and minds of most players?
I'm well aware this is purely to show off tech, but man, what a trite way to do so. I've played this game; you've played this game; we've ALL played this game. It's hella boring in 2020 and beyond. So from that perspective, I definitely agree with what Yogi is saying.
I thought the art director of GOW just stated that it's impossible to do this kind of fidelity for the whole game. Or is my reading comprehension failing me?Or Sony's confident and knows their fp games will be of similar level.
The detail isn't as strong as the Unreal demo (and the game was poorly received) but yes we have had this in gaming.
If you take it as a given that we will see some people have such expectations (we most definitely will), you could just be comfortable in the knowledge that your expectations are more measured, and be happy.I worry we'll see expectations that are impossible to meet, or comments about games that should've used UE5 instead because they don't look as great as the tech demo. For a lot of studios, it might be better to implement similar features into new iterations of their proprietary engines; for other popular engines like Unity, they'll also do their own thing; and it can even be an unfair comparison between Unreal Engine games, as the System Shock Remake doesn't need everything Gears 5 has - and they're both UE4 games.
Is that anthem?? That game had TERRIBLE lod and FPS
The detail isn't as strong as the Unreal demo (and the game was poorly received) but yes we have had this in gaming.
Personally I wasn't impressed by the demo as it doesn't advance game-play. It was just better shadows and lighting. We have already seen wall running and flight in rich environments.
Physics and AI: 2 frontiers that developers continuously ignore in favor of increasingly diminishing returns in lighting and texture detail.
Did you ... not read the OP?
Im pretty comcerned as well, the expectations are going to go through the roof and good fucking luck rigging and animating movie quality characters with those kinds of meshes. One company, probably Rockstar or Naughty Dog will set some kind of insane precedent, probably through some unholy levels of crunch, and players will start expecting that kind of output from all developers.
Did you ... not read the OP?
Im pretty comcerned as well, the expectations are going to go through the roof and good fucking luck rigging and animating movie quality characters with those kinds of meshes. One company, probably Rockstar or Naughty Dog will set some kind of insane precedent, probably through some unholy levels of crunch, and players will start expecting that kind of output from all developers.
Personally I wasn't impressed by the demo as it doesn't advance game-play. It was just better shadows and lighting. We have already seen wall running and flight in rich environments. So yeah managing expectations next gen is going to be very important.
It's only as such for logistical reasons though, eg because Sony didn't want players to fly the character off tangent and into the walls etc. This demo was originally intended to be payable at GDC after all, including this end flight sequence.
So take what you've seen here, eg the speed and velocity of travel, the environment complexity, the scope of the scene, and then imagine that in playable form, or in a much larger space. Suddenly you have high velocity flight and travel possible at a density and fidelity simply not possible last gen.
The detail isn't as strong as the Unreal demo (and the game was poorly received) but yes we have had this in gaming.
Plus, with UE5 releasing late 2021 we likely won't see any AAA UE5 games until 2023 or even later. The demo was 1440p at 30fps as well and people has been asking for 4K and 60fps, so it's easy to assume that the focus at least early on for many devs will be resolution and framerate, which means no UE5 visuals:/Well, people are really hitting that the demo is the new norm.
Lots of people will be disappointed.. Especially since we are really about to hit the new gen and there will still be a lot of cross gen titles until 2022.
Did EA ever divulge info on what that demo was running on? This is a good example why some people are bit skeptical of tech demos
If you really look at it, the character is not moving that quickly through the environment. They added blurring around the edges to give the appearance of speed.
The detail isn't as strong as the Unreal demo (and the game was poorly received) but yes we have had this in gaming.