Usually new games with latest's graphics are extremely shallow, its not until years later once these tools become mainstream that they become efficient.
Often the reason why the first game to use new tools was able to be the first to launch rather than coming later is that it could be created quickly. For a game to be created quickly is correlated with being shallow.
I don’t know what’s true in this case but that is not always true.
Some of the best songs ever written, were written in a matter of minutes.
Sometimes inspiration can come very quickly. That can be just as true with mathematics as it can with music.
Imho
Most of the time making a computer game goes into actually making it, not inventing what you want to make.
So it's not comparable to songs or math equations in the way you're comparing it. It's more comparable with something like building a building: You may get great inspiration, but the time it takes to actually make a game/build a building is mostly determined by how large and complex you want it to be.
Usually new games with latest's graphics are extremely shallow, its not until years later once these tools become mainstream that they become efficient.
Often the reason why the first game to use new tools was able to be the first to launch rather than coming later is that it could be created quickly. For a game to be created quickly is correlated with being shallow.
I don’t know what’s true in this case but that is not always true.
Some of the best songs ever written, were written in a matter of minutes.
Sometimes inspiration can come very quickly. That can be just as true with mathematics as it can with music.
Imho
Most of the time making a computer game goes into actually making it, not inventing what you want to make.
So it's not comparable to songs or math equations in the way you're comparing it. It's more comparable with something like building a building: You may get great inspiration, but the time it takes to actually make a game/build a building is mostly determined by how large and complex you want it to be.
Like a progressive die, roll former or a hydro form, there are lots of bugs and kinks to work out along the way. The more stages, the more problems.
Sometimes it can take days or maybe even weeks to figure out a way around a roadblock, but then in a burst of inspiration, you solve the problem almost instantly.
That has been some of my experience.
edit: sometimes you even find the solution by accident.
I think one thing that Tool & Die Making and Game Development share, is that they are both "not an exact science"
Unreal Engine 5 will easy things to AAA studios. The engine is ready to work with AAA quality as standard, but, still you have to develop all the art, including: landscapes, characters, animations, music... and it all in a AAA quality. *A single character may require a senior artist full time on it for a few months, or more...
On the other hand, UE imposes its systems and editors regarding gameplay. So well you can tweak things, but in the end don't expect much innovation.
Hey but Unreal Engine even gives you source code... Yes, but its 20 years old code with lot of ammendments and you need a few engineers to do things on it. To give you an idea, I have seen some methods in UE with around 3.000 lines.
Unreal Engine 5 will easy things to AAA studios. The engine is ready to work with AAA quality as standard, but, still you have to develop all the art, including: landscapes, characters, animations, music... and it all in a AAA quality. *A single character may require a senior artist full time on it for a few months, or more...
On the other hand, UE imposes its systems and editors regarding gameplay. So well you can tweak things, but in the end don't expect much innovation.
Hey but Unreal Engine even gives you source code... Yes, but its 20 years old code with lot of ammendments and you need a few engineers to do things on it. To give you an idea, I have seen some methods in UE with around 3.000 lines.
This is what I am curious about. My understanding is that switching midstream to UE5 will cost significantly more time and money due to the artwork which is where all the money will go.
Whereas sticking with an engine that is still current is much more cost efficient and time efficient.
Using an engine that has been out a few years has all the problems solved, much of the code is public, graphics can be bought then customized. Programmers are already familiar with the engine so no additional learning curve.
I wish more people that are familiar with high end engines would speak up because I am curious to their thoughts on this.
Will MMO's that are pretty far into development that switch to UE5 see any cost benefit at all? Or is this just a time delay that will ultimately be a massive money sink.
Unreal Engine 5 will easy things to AAA studios. The engine is ready to work with AAA quality as standard, but, still you have to develop all the art, including: landscapes, characters, animations, music... and it all in a AAA quality. *A single character may require a senior artist full time on it for a few months, or more...
On the other hand, UE imposes its systems and editors regarding gameplay. So well you can tweak things, but in the end don't expect much innovation.
Hey but Unreal Engine even gives you source code... Yes, but its 20 years old code with lot of ammendments and you need a few engineers to do things on it. To give you an idea, I have seen some methods in UE with around 3.000 lines.
This is what I am curious about. My understanding is that switching midstream to UE5 will cost significantly more time and money due to the artwork which is where all the money will go.
Whereas sticking with an engine that is still current is much more cost efficient and time efficient.
Using an engine that has been out a few years has all the problems solved, much of the code is public, graphics can be bought then customized. Programmers are already familiar with the engine so no additional learning curve.
I wish more people that are familiar with high end engines would speak up because I am curious to their thoughts on this.
Will MMO's that are pretty far into development that switch to UE5 see any cost benefit at all? Or is this just a time delay that will ultimately be a massive money sink.
Unreal Engine 5 will easy things to AAA studios. The engine is ready to work with AAA quality as standard, but, still you have to develop all the art, including: landscapes, characters, animations, music... and it all in a AAA quality. *A single character may require a senior artist full time on it for a few months, or more...
On the other hand, UE imposes its systems and editors regarding gameplay. So well you can tweak things, but in the end don't expect much innovation.
Hey but Unreal Engine even gives you source code... Yes, but its 20 years old code with lot of ammendments and you need a few engineers to do things on it. To give you an idea, I have seen some methods in UE with around 3.000 lines.
This is what I am curious about. My understanding is that switching midstream to UE5 will cost significantly more time and money due to the artwork which is where all the money will go.
Whereas sticking with an engine that is still current is much more cost efficient and time efficient.
Using an engine that has been out a few years has all the problems solved, much of the code is public, graphics can be bought then customized. Programmers are already familiar with the engine so no additional learning curve.
I wish more people that are familiar with high end engines would speak up because I am curious to their thoughts on this.
Will MMO's that are pretty far into development that switch to UE5 see any cost benefit at all? Or is this just a time delay that will ultimately be a massive money sink.
Mortal Online 2 is using Unreal Engine 4.
I'm not familiar with Unreal Engine 5, but speaking on general level, Epic tries to make the engine changes so that projects using previous version of the engine could update to the next version easily.
Also as far as bugs go, even if new version of the engine introduces some bugs and problems, it will also fix some bugs and problems from previous version. Also in the future it'll be the engine to receive more fixes from Epic. An engine update now should make their game less buggy in the long run.
Usually new games with latest's graphics are extremely shallow, its not until years later once these tools become mainstream that they become efficient.
Often the reason why the first game to use new tools was able to be the first to launch rather than coming later is that it could be created quickly. For a game to be created quickly is correlated with being shallow.
I don’t know what’s true in this case but that is not always true.
Some of the best songs ever written, were written in a matter of minutes.
Sometimes inspiration can come very quickly. That can be just as true with mathematics as it can with music.
Imho
Most of the time making a computer game goes into actually making it, not inventing what you want to make.
So it's not comparable to songs or math equations in the way you're comparing it. It's more comparable with something like building a building: You may get great inspiration, but the time it takes to actually make a game/build a building is mostly determined by how large and complex you want it to be.
Like a progressive die, roll former or a hydro form, there are lots of bugs and kinks to work out along the way. The more stages, the more problems.
Sometimes it can take days or maybe even weeks to figure out a way around a roadblock, but then in a burst of inspiration, you solve the problem almost instantly.
That has been some of my experience.
edit: sometimes you even find the solution by accident.
I think one thing that Tool & Die Making and Game Development share, is that they are both "not an exact science"
Don't think of programming a game as figuring out how to get around one roadblock. Think of it as figuring out how to get around tens of thousands of roadblocks, most of which aren't that hard. A given one might not take very long. Even one that was really hard might lead to you making no progress for a week, then suddenly solving it in five minutes. But you're not going to suddenly solve all of tens of thousands of them all at once.
Usually new games with latest's graphics are extremely shallow, its not until years later once these tools become mainstream that they become efficient.
Often the reason why the first game to use new tools was able to be the first to launch rather than coming later is that it could be created quickly. For a game to be created quickly is correlated with being shallow.
I don’t know what’s true in this case but that is not always true.
Some of the best songs ever written, were written in a matter of minutes.
Sometimes inspiration can come very quickly. That can be just as true with mathematics as it can with music.
Imho
Most of the time making a computer game goes into actually making it, not inventing what you want to make.
So it's not comparable to songs or math equations in the way you're comparing it. It's more comparable with something like building a building: You may get great inspiration, but the time it takes to actually make a game/build a building is mostly determined by how large and complex you want it to be.
Like a progressive die, roll former or a hydro form, there are lots of bugs and kinks to work out along the way. The more stages, the more problems.
Sometimes it can take days or maybe even weeks to figure out a way around a roadblock, but then in a burst of inspiration, you solve the problem almost instantly.
That has been some of my experience.
edit: sometimes you even find the solution by accident.
I think one thing that Tool & Die Making and Game Development share, is that they are both "not an exact science"
Don't think of programming a game as figuring out how to get around one roadblock. Think of it as figuring out how to get around tens of thousands of roadblocks, most of which aren't that hard. A given one might not take very long. Even one that was really hard might lead to you making no progress for a week, then suddenly solving it in five minutes. But you're not going to suddenly solve all of tens of thousands of them all at once.
Same analogy, just bigger, badder, more stages, more floors, more plumbing, more electrical, bla bla bla
I wonder how complicated it is to govern a country? Put a man on the moon?
The logistics involved?
The logistics involved in mass producing an automobile by the millions? feeding people by the billions?
Nobody said that your going to solve all tens of thousands of them at once.
Compared to some jobs, game development sounds pretty fucking easy.
Usually new games with latest's graphics are extremely shallow, its not until years later once these tools become mainstream that they become efficient.
Often the reason why the first game to use new tools was able to be the first to launch rather than coming later is that it could be created quickly. For a game to be created quickly is correlated with being shallow.
I don’t know what’s true in this case but that is not always true.
Some of the best songs ever written, were written in a matter of minutes.
Sometimes inspiration can come very quickly. That can be just as true with mathematics as it can with music.
Imho
Most of the time making a computer game goes into actually making it, not inventing what you want to make.
So it's not comparable to songs or math equations in the way you're comparing it. It's more comparable with something like building a building: You may get great inspiration, but the time it takes to actually make a game/build a building is mostly determined by how large and complex you want it to be.
Like a progressive die, roll former or a hydro form, there are lots of bugs and kinks to work out along the way. The more stages, the more problems.
Sometimes it can take days or maybe even weeks to figure out a way around a roadblock, but then in a burst of inspiration, you solve the problem almost instantly.
That has been some of my experience.
edit: sometimes you even find the solution by accident.
I think one thing that Tool & Die Making and Game Development share, is that they are both "not an exact science"
Don't think of programming a game as figuring out how to get around one roadblock. Think of it as figuring out how to get around tens of thousands of roadblocks, most of which aren't that hard. A given one might not take very long. Even one that was really hard might lead to you making no progress for a week, then suddenly solving it in five minutes. But you're not going to suddenly solve all of tens of thousands of them all at once.
Same analogy, just bigger, badder, more stages, more floors, more plumbing, more electrical, bla bla bla
I wonder how complicated it is to govern a country? Put a man on the moon?
The logistics involved?
The logistics involved in mass producing an automobile by the millions? feeding people by the billions?
Nobody said that your going to solve all tens of thousands of them at once.
Compared to some jobs, game development sounds pretty fucking easy.
Imho
video game design is more like furnishing an empty building. Things like unreal engine etc are the empty building imo. You might need to run some extra services but for the most part your stuck with the building.
Usually new games with latest's graphics are extremely shallow, its not until years later once these tools become mainstream that they become efficient.
Often the reason why the first game to use new tools was able to be the first to launch rather than coming later is that it could be created quickly. For a game to be created quickly is correlated with being shallow.
I don’t know what’s true in this case but that is not always true.
Some of the best songs ever written, were written in a matter of minutes.
Sometimes inspiration can come very quickly. That can be just as true with mathematics as it can with music.
Imho
Most of the time making a computer game goes into actually making it, not inventing what you want to make.
So it's not comparable to songs or math equations in the way you're comparing it. It's more comparable with something like building a building: You may get great inspiration, but the time it takes to actually make a game/build a building is mostly determined by how large and complex you want it to be.
Like a progressive die, roll former or a hydro form, there are lots of bugs and kinks to work out along the way. The more stages, the more problems.
Sometimes it can take days or maybe even weeks to figure out a way around a roadblock, but then in a burst of inspiration, you solve the problem almost instantly.
That has been some of my experience.
edit: sometimes you even find the solution by accident.
I think one thing that Tool & Die Making and Game Development share, is that they are both "not an exact science"
Don't think of programming a game as figuring out how to get around one roadblock. Think of it as figuring out how to get around tens of thousands of roadblocks, most of which aren't that hard. A given one might not take very long. Even one that was really hard might lead to you making no progress for a week, then suddenly solving it in five minutes. But you're not going to suddenly solve all of tens of thousands of them all at once.
Same analogy, just bigger, badder, more stages, more floors, more plumbing, more electrical, bla bla bla
I wonder how complicated it is to govern a country? Put a man on the moon?
The logistics involved?
The logistics involved in mass producing an automobile by the millions? feeding people by the billions?
Nobody said that your going to solve all tens of thousands of them at once.
Compared to some jobs, game development sounds pretty fucking easy.
Imho
video game design is more like furnishing an empty building. Things like unreal engine etc are the empty building imo. You might need to run some extra services but for the most part your stuck with the building.
Unless your special within your industry. Most players are average, some are special.
Usually special is a mix between skill and luck.
Some luck was involved in putting that first man in the moon and it could of easily gone the other way.
Same analogy, just bigger, badder, more stages, more floors, more plumbing, more electrical, bla bla bla
I wonder how complicated it is to govern a country? Put a man on the moon?
The logistics involved?
The logistics involved in mass producing an automobile by the millions? feeding people by the billions?
Nobody said that your going to solve all tens of thousands of them at once.
Compared to some jobs, game development sounds pretty fucking easy.
Imho
I just got to tour the NASA facility in Houston and it was a real treat. The logistics involved with this are amazing and inspiring. It was an awesome experience.
I was involved once in the design and prototyping of a military chuck wagon that could cook food for 250 men in 20 minutes.
The logistics involved with a military. Then we can look back at people like Genghis Khan.
The whole premise of Nanite meshes with extreme detail taking up a ton of space is incorrect, unreal compresses the mesh to a high degree which in most cases will be at a similar, and often even smaller file size than that of a regular mesh, this ofcourse varies highly and is also very dependent on the actual triangle count.
As for productivity, this is obviously not meant to be code productivity increase, so thats not where you will find that the actual increase in production will happen, but instead its on graphical assets. For the past many years artists has had to create an extremely detail 3D mesh, theb take that high detail and bake that data into a texture called a normal map, they would then create a low poly 3D mesh with a fraction of the poly count of the high detailed mesh, and put the normal map texture onto it to “simulate” extra detail.
This takes a lot of time. The whole topology has to be proper for it to look correct. With nanite you can create a high poly mesh and use that instead directly. this doesnt mean normal maps are redudant, but they can be used for procedural fine detail texture mapping instead.
This isnt to say that there are no drawbacks with Nanite, there are. you cant use Nanite with transparent materials (currently they are working on that), and you cant use deformable meshes either, aka Characters, unless the character has rigid body parts which arent deformable, then you CAN work around that by attaching the meshes to the character skeleton bones. Pretty sure they want to work on making skeletal meshes a possibility as well eventually.
Nanite also has an initial high performance cost, so lower end, and older cards will have issues running Nanite - though nanite arent extremely performance heavy, it wont run well ona 1050ti for example, with that said, anything that is being added to a scene past that point will have barely any performace impact on the game at all.
There are more things that one as a developer has to consider when buimding their scene to make sure that the performance stays high, such as nanite meshes which overlaps can cause performance issues due to something called overdraw, but is honestly mostly just and edge case.
I know that they have already improved performance across the board in some of their non-early access builds, which can be downloaded as open source from github, but if its enough to make it so that a 1050ti can run it properly.. idk.
Lumen on the other hand def requires a vetter graphics card and i dont see Lumen being used by what would be considered mid range all that much until a few gpu generations down the road, though it does look nice ?.. and def performs a LOT better than raytracing.
You realize this is a forum, its the entire purpose of this section of the site is to comment and debate ideas.
People don't need degrees or titles to identify problems. There is an entire list of top programmers that all dropped out of college. Some of the founders of the biggest tech companies all were dropouts most did so very young with very little knowledge in the industry. I am sure they had their fair share of morons trying to tell them their ideas were not "qualified". Funny how the people with 50 years of experience didn't create these companies.
But you are not one of them. Like Umberto Eco said about social media:
“Social media gives legions of idiots the right
to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine,
without harming the community. Then they were quickly silenced, but now
they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner."
Hehe yeah. Makes me think about a similar attitude with that "covid" epidemic, where suddenly the Internet is full of armchair epidemiologists who know better than the real doctors - the only difference with a video game engine is that the attitude usually doesn't cost human lives in the case of the game engine.
Some of you guys are in no position to determine who is and who isn't an "idiot".
Watching the video of Ashes of Creation where they explain the decision to move to UE5, all they are talking about is all the graphics improvements. They say how the delay was a difficult decision but worth it. They don't talk about any time savings or productivity improvements at all. This is a graphics update that will cost time PERIOD.
So these people earlier in the thread trying to shut down debate saying not to question anyone about the massive time delay UE5 will add. Trying to convince people that all the new tools will give massive productivity boosts and save time are ridiculous.
If this was a massive time saver, then saving time would be all the devs would be talking about.
I can't see this as positive or negative, the new engine sounds better but this has been another time sink. Clearly there are benefits and it makes more sense to convert now than later but If UEVI came out next year would they consider converting to that before launch as well? It is understandable that posters are questioning this decision, hopefully they can get back on track now.
I don't think the difference between Unreal Engine 4 and Unreal Engine 5 is going to make or break a game like Mortal Online or Ashes of Creation.
I don't know of anyone who is into those games who is there for the graphics.
I agree, who is saying Ashes of Creation before the change had bad graphics. So now with the new engine they will be spending more time and money on graphics just to release. Even with this extra time/money being spent it will add delays. The only question is how long the delays will be.
There is also the question of if its even worth it from the standpoint that all attention will now be spent on graphics vs gameplay. We have seen this road before.
i think everyone know the engine will improve many things but can it improve the core ideas the game is made with. Sometimes it might, but it isnt a replacement for good ideas.
so when you get yet another level 1-50 level grinder with 4 dungeons and 3 raids, well it dont matter what engine you have , does it?
I've already mentioned that engines aren't the "rooms", content, or ideas, they're the tools to build those things. They don't improve ideas. New engine versions may remove barriers and improve tech allowing ideas to be better implemented, but they don't actually change the concept.
Time for a car analogy lol. Say you're a mechanic in a shop. Your shop has been using hand tools and ramps to work on vehicles. The owner installs hydraulic lifts and installs an air system for power tools. That doesn't make the mechanics smarter or better at diagnosing. It allows them to perform better maintenance more efficiently. The shop basically got an engine upgrade that benefits the shop and the customer.
I think your car analogy is not even close to on par with these engine upgrades. These engine upgrades are all about graphics and have very little to do with speeding up production. Again trying to say this is going to increase production like a hydraulic lift would do on day 1. However these engines are all about eye candy no-one is using them to increase workflow.
A better car analogy would be a car shop that decides to focus on new paint jobs, chroming out the car, adding new upholstery to the seats and all the tools to do that. Meanwhile completely giving up on the core parts of the car itself the mechanical parts and electronics. They should really call these 3d graphical engines, because that's exactly what they are.
Who on this universe thinks the newest updated graphical game with the latest "graphical" engine and features is actually going to deliver a new better MMO faster and less expense to make than its equivalent older version? The mere suggestion you are saying you believe this to me is completely ludicrous.
I've already mentioned that engines aren't the "rooms", content, or ideas, they're the tools to build those things. They don't improve ideas. New engine versions may remove barriers and improve tech allowing ideas to be better implemented, but they don't actually change the concept.
Time for a car analogy lol. Say you're a mechanic in a shop. Your shop has been using hand tools and ramps to work on vehicles. The owner installs hydraulic lifts and installs an air system for power tools. That doesn't make the mechanics smarter or better at diagnosing. It allows them to perform better maintenance more efficiently. The shop basically got an engine upgrade that benefits the shop and the customer.
I see a game engine as like something that is called a "roll former"
The roll former is the base machine on which you place a number of custom shaped rollers that will produce a custom shape.
You use the base machine, with any combination of rollers to produce any kind of shape.
The rollers change, the base machine stays the same. Until the next evolutionary improvement.
You don't work in software development or automotive repair do you. Body Shops don't do engine work. Body shops do body work. If you complain about your car running poorly at the body shop they'll point you to the auto shop. Even in car dealerships they're separate departments.
We've had game developers, like Blueturtle, explain how they increase productivity. The promotional videos themselves explain how they improve productivity. I've explained before how the engines I use increase productivity.
On top of that this is a visual medium and graphics quality matters. Graphics performance certainly matters as I mentioned in the post you quoted, but you just dismissed everything because you feel differently. Your post is all about feelings and no facts. Talk about completely ludicrous, but whatever. Go with your feelings.
Pot meet Kettle? You seem a bit short on real facts here buddy.
As far as Body shops vs engine work, how about car manufacturers? They have to produce both in their product. This is a case where the car designers who want to make it look pretty are winning over the side that want real quality performance.
As far as 1 person saying that inside UE5 there is a tool that increases productivity. Yeah well its all relative, I haven't heard a convincing case about upgrading to UE5 that it will have IMMEDIATE and substantial productivity boost short term versus some long term benefit MAYBE. They say there is a tool that might save part of their team some time, what is not said is how many other team members are going to cost time. At the C-suite level, it doesn't matter if 1 person sees a boost if the entire project has a net loss. The final product is all that matters not some inconsequential tiny tool that might be used in it somewhere.
As far as graphics, yeah sure if you want to make a case that its worth it too upgrade from a graphical point of view, then make that case. But trying to say this is actually going to save TIME in both the short run and long run is an absolute joke. Never have I seen a game release faster by pushing more graphics. Everyone who deals with MMO's knows more graphics = more time, people and money.
There has been people that have weighed in that seem knowledgeable about UE5 that say its going to increase time due to graphics.
Have you even heard that a game will release faster because of a new graphical engine? At this point its just nonsense you are spewing.
Whether the time delay is worth the graphics increase is an entirely different debate.
I think where people are saying there is a productivity boost is because people are speaking at different things and misunderstanding what is being said.
If lets say graphics was on a sliding scale 0-10, where 10 is the most current.
Some are saying the new engine allows people to be more productive in making level 10 graphics. Where as if you tried to make level 10 graphics on an older engine it would take longer. I agree with this statement is likely true.
However if you were using an older engine you would not even be trying to build a level 10 MMO because its not practical. Instead you would be focusing on a level 8 graphics game. A level 8 game is much faster to build then a level 10 game regardless of the engine you choose.
So overall building a level 10 graphics game with UE5 is going to take more time and resources to build then building a level 8 graphics game with UE4. Many people are saying they would rather have a level 8 graphics game with the extra time put into gameplay mechanics rather than waste it on graphics improvements.
Anyone saying building a level 10 graphics with UE5 is going to save time overall in production is just LOL.
No doubt, that is what happens when one demands playing "wrapped up" games, such an absurd and obsolete idea, correct? CSGO IS THE BEST PC GAME I HAVE EVER PLAY THE GAME
I am not sure if you are an adbot, but as that game (good one btw) is so old I doubt you could be.
Here we go again: "I know better than those who know!"... sigh...
Yeah around and around you go spinning as usual. Instead of being able to make a logical counterpoint, try to attack the person making it instead. Nice tactic but its old and stale.
I have yet to hear a single person that knows what they are talking dispute my main point that overall upgrading the engine and increasing the graphics will result in a massive time delay not a productivity increase.
Comments
So it's not comparable to songs or math equations in the way you're comparing it. It's more comparable with something like building a building: You may get great inspiration, but the time it takes to actually make a game/build a building is mostly determined by how large and complex you want it to be.
Sometimes it can take days or maybe even weeks to figure out a way around a roadblock, but then in a burst of inspiration, you solve the problem almost instantly.
That has been some of my experience.
edit: sometimes you even find the solution by accident.
I think one thing that Tool & Die Making and Game Development share, is that they are both "not an exact science"
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
On the other hand, UE imposes its systems and editors regarding gameplay. So well you can tweak things, but in the end don't expect much innovation.
Hey but Unreal Engine even gives you source code... Yes, but its 20 years old code with lot of ammendments and you need a few engineers to do things on it. To give you an idea, I have seen some methods in UE with around 3.000 lines.
This is what I am curious about. My understanding is that switching midstream to UE5 will cost significantly more time and money due to the artwork which is where all the money will go.
Whereas sticking with an engine that is still current is much more cost efficient and time efficient.
Using an engine that has been out a few years has all the problems solved, much of the code is public, graphics can be bought then customized. Programmers are already familiar with the engine so no additional learning curve.
I wish more people that are familiar with high end engines would speak up because I am curious to their thoughts on this.
Will MMO's that are pretty far into development that switch to UE5 see any cost benefit at all? Or is this just a time delay that will ultimately be a massive money sink.
I'm not familiar with Unreal Engine 5, but speaking on general level, Epic tries to make the engine changes so that projects using previous version of the engine could update to the next version easily.
Also as far as bugs go, even if new version of the engine introduces some bugs and problems, it will also fix some bugs and problems from previous version. Also in the future it'll be the engine to receive more fixes from Epic. An engine update now should make their game less buggy in the long run.
I wonder how complicated it is to govern a country? Put a man on the moon?
The logistics involved?
The logistics involved in mass producing an automobile by the millions? feeding people by the billions?
Nobody said that your going to solve all tens of thousands of them at once.
Compared to some jobs, game development sounds pretty fucking easy.
Imho
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Most players are average, some are special.
Usually special is a mix between skill and luck.
Some luck was involved in putting that first man in the moon and it could of easily gone the other way.
Very brave men.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The logistics involved with a military. Then we can look back at people like Genghis Khan.
True genius.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The whole premise of Nanite meshes with extreme detail taking up a ton of space is incorrect, unreal compresses the mesh to a high degree which in most cases will be at a similar, and often even smaller file size than that of a regular mesh, this ofcourse varies highly and is also very dependent on the actual triangle count.
Can find more infor both about data size, and anything else related to nanite here: https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.0/en-US/RenderingFeatures/Nanite/
As for productivity, this is obviously not meant to be code productivity increase, so thats not where you will find that the actual increase in production will happen, but instead its on graphical assets.
For the past many years artists has had to create an extremely detail 3D mesh, theb take that high detail and bake that data into a texture called a normal map, they would then create a low poly 3D mesh with a fraction of the poly count of the high detailed mesh, and put the normal map texture onto it to “simulate” extra detail.
This takes a lot of time. The whole topology has to be proper for it to look correct.
With nanite you can create a high poly mesh and use that instead directly.
this doesnt mean normal maps are redudant, but they can be used for procedural fine detail texture mapping instead.
you cant use Nanite with transparent materials (currently they are working on that), and you cant use deformable meshes either, aka Characters, unless the character has rigid body parts which arent deformable, then you CAN work around that by attaching the meshes to the character skeleton bones. Pretty sure they want to work on making skeletal meshes a possibility as well eventually.
Nanite also has an initial high performance cost, so lower end, and older cards will have issues running Nanite - though nanite arent extremely performance heavy, it wont run well ona 1050ti for example, with that said, anything that is being added to a scene past that point will have barely any performace impact on the game at all.
There are more things that one as a developer has to consider when buimding their scene to make sure that the performance stays high, such as nanite meshes which overlaps can cause performance issues due to something called overdraw, but is honestly mostly just and edge case.
I know that they have already improved performance across the board in some of their non-early access builds, which can be downloaded as open source from github, but if its enough to make it so that a 1050ti can run it properly.. idk.
Lumen on the other hand def requires a vetter graphics card and i dont see Lumen being used by what would be considered mid range all that much until a few gpu generations down the road, though it does look nice ?.. and def performs a LOT better than raytracing.
Oh it isn't just those who don't agree with us?
So these people earlier in the thread trying to shut down debate saying not to question anyone about the massive time delay UE5 will add. Trying to convince people that all the new tools will give massive productivity boosts and save time are ridiculous.
If this was a massive time saver, then saving time would be all the devs would be talking about.
Here is the link to the thread with video,
https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/496489/ashes-of-creation-is-upgrading-to-unreal-engine-5#latest
There is also the question of if its even worth it from the standpoint that all attention will now be spent on graphics vs gameplay. We have seen this road before.
so when you get yet another level 1-50 level grinder with 4 dungeons and 3 raids, well it dont matter what engine you have , does it?
I think your car analogy is not even close to on par with these engine upgrades. These engine upgrades are all about graphics and have very little to do with speeding up production. Again trying to say this is going to increase production like a hydraulic lift would do on day 1. However these engines are all about eye candy no-one is using them to increase workflow.
A better car analogy would be a car shop that decides to focus on new paint jobs, chroming out the car, adding new upholstery to the seats and all the tools to do that. Meanwhile completely giving up on the core parts of the car itself the mechanical parts and electronics. They should really call these 3d graphical engines, because that's exactly what they are.
Who on this universe thinks the newest updated graphical game with the latest "graphical" engine and features is actually going to deliver a new better MMO faster and less expense to make than its equivalent older version? The mere suggestion you are saying you believe this to me is completely ludicrous.
The roll former is the base machine on which you place a number of custom shaped rollers that will produce a custom shape.
You use the base machine, with any combination of rollers to produce any kind of shape.
The rollers change, the base machine stays the same. Until the next evolutionary improvement.
Which in roll forming, ain't very often anymore
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
As far as Body shops vs engine work, how about car manufacturers? They have to produce both in their product. This is a case where the car designers who want to make it look pretty are winning over the side that want real quality performance.
As far as 1 person saying that inside UE5 there is a tool that increases productivity. Yeah well its all relative, I haven't heard a convincing case about upgrading to UE5 that it will have IMMEDIATE and substantial productivity boost short term versus some long term benefit MAYBE. They say there is a tool that might save part of their team some time, what is not said is how many other team members are going to cost time. At the C-suite level, it doesn't matter if 1 person sees a boost if the entire project has a net loss. The final product is all that matters not some inconsequential tiny tool that might be used in it somewhere.
As far as graphics, yeah sure if you want to make a case that its worth it too upgrade from a graphical point of view, then make that case. But trying to say this is actually going to save TIME in both the short run and long run is an absolute joke. Never have I seen a game release faster by pushing more graphics. Everyone who deals with MMO's knows more graphics = more time, people and money.
There has been people that have weighed in that seem knowledgeable about UE5 that say its going to increase time due to graphics.
Have you even heard that a game will release faster because of a new graphical engine? At this point its just nonsense you are spewing.
Whether the time delay is worth the graphics increase is an entirely different debate.
If lets say graphics was on a sliding scale 0-10, where 10 is the most current.
Some are saying the new engine allows people to be more productive in making level 10 graphics. Where as if you tried to make level 10 graphics on an older engine it would take longer. I agree with this statement is likely true.
However if you were using an older engine you would not even be trying to build a level 10 MMO because its not practical. Instead you would be focusing on a level 8 graphics game. A level 8 game is much faster to build then a level 10 game regardless of the engine you choose.
So overall building a level 10 graphics game with UE5 is going to take more time and resources to build then building a level 8 graphics game with UE4. Many people are saying they would rather have a level 8 graphics game with the extra time put into gameplay mechanics rather than waste it on graphics improvements.
Anyone saying building a level 10 graphics with UE5 is going to save time overall in production is just LOL.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
So welcome to the forums!
I have yet to hear a single person that knows what they are talking dispute my main point that overall upgrading the engine and increasing the graphics will result in a massive time delay not a productivity increase.