Forums » General
VO 1.8.480
Cross-posted from News..
VO 1.8.480 includes:
- Improved Trident texture: Across all systems and platforms, the Trident texture resolution has increased 4x. On PCs with reasonably recent GPUs, using at least the DX11 or GL4 renderers, the resolution has increased 16x.
A lot of other changes are in the works, including development to bring all the recent engine changes back to a state where we can release them into production, and start actually using them (and testing for next-gen content goals). Hopefully a technology release next week, if we're lucky? Stay tuned!
VO 1.8.480 includes:
- Improved Trident texture: Across all systems and platforms, the Trident texture resolution has increased 4x. On PCs with reasonably recent GPUs, using at least the DX11 or GL4 renderers, the resolution has increased 16x.
A lot of other changes are in the works, including development to bring all the recent engine changes back to a state where we can release them into production, and start actually using them (and testing for next-gen content goals). Hopefully a technology release next week, if we're lucky? Stay tuned!
Epic!
Cool, cool. Are we going to be sorting out the Capellas texture anytime soon? Not only does it cause a small frame rate drop even on high end hardware when close (which is a lot more noticeable on low end hardware or devices like Oculus Go), it also looks like a very cheesy toy. A bit darker and possibly some shine would go a long way to making it "better".
Umm.. no? Not exactly?
There's nothing wrong with the capella texture, and some performance trade-offs are going to happen. Especially for ships with really high polygon counts, that are so large they require a high resolution texture (at least, with our existing / historical asset technology).
But, as you may have heard, we've been working on a next-generation engine update for the last 14 months. That definitely has bearing on a lot of the things you're asking about, but not in the "way" that you're asking them: it isn't exactly a "fix".
There's nothing "broken" about the performance, that I'm aware of (trade-offs were known, prior to release, and deemed acceptable at the time). But yes, by enhancing the total engine performance you may find it works better? But it is device and situation dependent.
If there's a specific major issue that you want to raise, that I'm unaware of, then that would be suited to Bugs.
There's also nothing specifically wrong with the way it looks, but it is limited by the lack of "High Dynamic Range" support, the historic shader library (used for a lot of assets), and the artistic goals for the object. It isn't representative of the intended visual look, but it is what it is for now. We ship what we have to ship.
As the engine itself fundamentally changes, we're more likely to re-assess large groups of assets as a whole (whole shader-families at a time, or like "all lighting", major topics), but that's a case-by-case thing, and I am not making any promises or implications of when that will occur.
Keep in mind that we're also limited by platform technology. Vulkan support on the Go has been.. a bit of a historical uncertainty, and is missing some constructs that specifically target fill-rate performance, like Fixed Foveated Rendering. The same is true on mobile as a whole, where Mali (ARM GPUs) have no support for MultiDrawIndirect, but Qualcomm GPUs do (that's more of a CPU performance thing than fillrate, but it just illustrates the lack of homogeneity of the platform, when it comes to advanced performance).
I don't have the resources to do a perfect asset-tuning, individually, for every platform (or even device, as some companies do). So, we ballpark it, and test it, as best we can, and it is basically guaranteed that it will not perform optimally for everyone, everywhere, at all times. Anyone who expects otherwise is in the wrong place. Basically, if it's slow close to the Capella, then don't fly close? Or if there's really a major issue, then please bug-report that.
Epic probably spend millions of dollars tuning Fortnite for mobile, I don't have that luxury. It'll be as good as we can "ballpark" it, on some of the devices, some of the time.
There's nothing wrong with the capella texture, and some performance trade-offs are going to happen. Especially for ships with really high polygon counts, that are so large they require a high resolution texture (at least, with our existing / historical asset technology).
But, as you may have heard, we've been working on a next-generation engine update for the last 14 months. That definitely has bearing on a lot of the things you're asking about, but not in the "way" that you're asking them: it isn't exactly a "fix".
There's nothing "broken" about the performance, that I'm aware of (trade-offs were known, prior to release, and deemed acceptable at the time). But yes, by enhancing the total engine performance you may find it works better? But it is device and situation dependent.
If there's a specific major issue that you want to raise, that I'm unaware of, then that would be suited to Bugs.
There's also nothing specifically wrong with the way it looks, but it is limited by the lack of "High Dynamic Range" support, the historic shader library (used for a lot of assets), and the artistic goals for the object. It isn't representative of the intended visual look, but it is what it is for now. We ship what we have to ship.
As the engine itself fundamentally changes, we're more likely to re-assess large groups of assets as a whole (whole shader-families at a time, or like "all lighting", major topics), but that's a case-by-case thing, and I am not making any promises or implications of when that will occur.
Keep in mind that we're also limited by platform technology. Vulkan support on the Go has been.. a bit of a historical uncertainty, and is missing some constructs that specifically target fill-rate performance, like Fixed Foveated Rendering. The same is true on mobile as a whole, where Mali (ARM GPUs) have no support for MultiDrawIndirect, but Qualcomm GPUs do (that's more of a CPU performance thing than fillrate, but it just illustrates the lack of homogeneity of the platform, when it comes to advanced performance).
I don't have the resources to do a perfect asset-tuning, individually, for every platform (or even device, as some companies do). So, we ballpark it, and test it, as best we can, and it is basically guaranteed that it will not perform optimally for everyone, everywhere, at all times. Anyone who expects otherwise is in the wrong place. Basically, if it's slow close to the Capella, then don't fly close? Or if there's really a major issue, then please bug-report that.
Epic probably spend millions of dollars tuning Fortnite for mobile, I don't have that luxury. It'll be as good as we can "ballpark" it, on some of the devices, some of the time.
Well you're doing a fantastic job ! I'm amazed at the immersive quality and buttery smoothness on the Go when you consider you're rendering two HD displays at 72Hz on a mobile GPU.
Hey, glad you're enjoying it :). We'll hopefully be able to release some improvements for the Go before long.