I thought it’s widespread knowledge that the “upgrade” to UE5 mainly brought a lot of performance loss compared to UE4 while having a signature blurry (or whatever) style which actually worsens the perceived quality.
For example expedition 33, while it’s style is awesome, it’s performance is absolutely not. It should run flawless on ps5 and on superior pcs but still doesn’t and the fps range is not in line with the hardware capabilities.
I hate to be the one to say it but an ambitious game made by a small team is a shit game to use as an example. They did not have the budget to optimize and the game is full of small technical flaws.
Who ever told you that UE4 is better than UE5 is wrong, even without Lumen or Nanite.
Also most games in UE4 only used 2k textures and in UE5 8k textures are used. The assets are heavier in general.
I don’t think it’s a shit example. It’s the latest I experienced. It’s a good game but hampered technically. Nobody needs to tell me, I’ve been gaming since before dos and grew up with it; I’ve also been working in it for a few decades.
Look; you could just have a bigger or more gpus with more ram in a pc but if the end result does not significantly look better the question is for what all the effort is.
And that’s what happened with UE5.
Yes, maybe in a few years it might look different but it’s also been some time and hasn’t really been worth any of the performance impact.
And - as said - I see quality impact in UE5 games which I personally can not comprehend in an supposed upgrade.
However, feel free to disagree.
Maybe it’s my background in datacenters: of course you can always meet demand with more raw power but it’s a losing fight and the intelligent progress is to optimize and use resources in a clever way.
SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev 13 hours ago
You are the first person I have ever heard say UE5 sucks. Why?
Strider@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
I really am? (no sarcasm here, honest surprise)
I thought it’s widespread knowledge that the “upgrade” to UE5 mainly brought a lot of performance loss compared to UE4 while having a signature blurry (or whatever) style which actually worsens the perceived quality.
For example expedition 33, while it’s style is awesome, it’s performance is absolutely not. It should run flawless on ps5 and on superior pcs but still doesn’t and the fps range is not in line with the hardware capabilities.
SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev 4 hours ago
I hate to be the one to say it but an ambitious game made by a small team is a shit game to use as an example. They did not have the budget to optimize and the game is full of small technical flaws. Who ever told you that UE4 is better than UE5 is wrong, even without Lumen or Nanite. Also most games in UE4 only used 2k textures and in UE5 8k textures are used. The assets are heavier in general.
Strider@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I seem to have struck a nerve there, apologies.
I don’t think it’s a shit example. It’s the latest I experienced. It’s a good game but hampered technically. Nobody needs to tell me, I’ve been gaming since before dos and grew up with it; I’ve also been working in it for a few decades.
Look; you could just have a bigger or more gpus with more ram in a pc but if the end result does not significantly look better the question is for what all the effort is.
And that’s what happened with UE5.
Yes, maybe in a few years it might look different but it’s also been some time and hasn’t really been worth any of the performance impact.
And - as said - I see quality impact in UE5 games which I personally can not comprehend in an supposed upgrade.
However, feel free to disagree.
Maybe it’s my background in datacenters: of course you can always meet demand with more raw power but it’s a losing fight and the intelligent progress is to optimize and use resources in a clever way.