Just because it can load in high quality assets doesn’t mean that everything has to be 4 billion polygons. You use it sparingly for where it will make the most impact. That doesn’t mean that a mountain in the background that you’ll never get near has to be of the same quality.
Well you can do that but then it isn’t going to run on a steam deck, whether or not you as a developer think that’s a problem depends on what hardware you are targeting.
But you’ve still got the problem of file size. I’ve noticed that if the asset is really big you actually run into streaming issues when loading it in. It looks fantastic, but you probably don’t want your rock to take 10 seconds to load in. If you go look at the matrix demo you’ll see they have a lot of asset reuse because of that.
Nanite isn’t magic it’s neither going to enable you to just throw in 16k resolution textures and just not worry about it there’s always going to be a trade-off. But it’s insane to say that it isn’t a useful feature or that you should never use it.
It probably doesn’t work with interactable objects and other edge cases. And it for sure doesn’t work with trees because they highlighted in the Witcher 4 showcase how they created a version specifically for trees.
Maybe they think they can do a better job, but it definitely does work with plants. It didn’t used to, when it first came out it was limited to just static objects, and it didn’t work on terrain at first which I was thought was a weird restriction, but it works on pretty much everything now.
Wayfinder uses ue5 and runs just fine.
That is the only example I have.
Clair Obscur and Hellblade 2 also ran great on my Steam Deck. And I suspect Fortnite does as well.
My guess is that developers of the other games just pour in high def assets without using any of UE5’s crazy LoD techniques.
Yes, that’s the thing. UE5 CAN run well, if you don’t use most of its fancy features. But then what’s the point of that dumb engine?
Just because it can load in high quality assets doesn’t mean that everything has to be 4 billion polygons. You use it sparingly for where it will make the most impact. That doesn’t mean that a mountain in the background that you’ll never get near has to be of the same quality.
I don’t think that’s really the engines fault.
I thought the entire point of nanite was to allow developers to throw in high quality assets without having to worry about the performance hit.
Well you can do that but then it isn’t going to run on a steam deck, whether or not you as a developer think that’s a problem depends on what hardware you are targeting.
But you’ve still got the problem of file size. I’ve noticed that if the asset is really big you actually run into streaming issues when loading it in. It looks fantastic, but you probably don’t want your rock to take 10 seconds to load in. If you go look at the matrix demo you’ll see they have a lot of asset reuse because of that.
Nanite isn’t magic it’s neither going to enable you to just throw in 16k resolution textures and just not worry about it there’s always going to be a trade-off. But it’s insane to say that it isn’t a useful feature or that you should never use it.
It probably doesn’t work with interactable objects and other edge cases. And it for sure doesn’t work with trees because they highlighted in the Witcher 4 showcase how they created a version specifically for trees.
But ot does work with foliage though.
Maybe they think they can do a better job, but it definitely does work with plants. It didn’t used to, when it first came out it was limited to just static objects, and it didn’t work on terrain at first which I was thought was a weird restriction, but it works on pretty much everything now.
Expedition 33