Announcement

Collapse

The Infinity Blade Forums Have Moved

We've launched brand new Infinity Blade forums with improved features and revamped layout. We've also included a complete archive of the previous posts. Come check out the new Infinity Blade forums.
See more
See less

UE4 will use Lightmass for its lighting system!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    As long as it's available on PC I don't mind

    Comment


      #17
      This thread scared the *** out of me!

      Comment


        #18
        I hate baked lighting. I seriously doubt they would ditch voxel lighting, they were probably forced to add lightmapping back onto the table thanks to consoles. Epic was telling both Sony and Microsoft to make their next gen consoles more powerful a while back, no? This is probably why.

        What's really disappointing about that aspect is it will likely stifle innovation from bigger companies, because they refuse to make true PC games. These days it only seems to be the smaller studios that are making good games that are not a rehash of something that's already been done. It's once again going to be left up to indies and smaller studios to innovate.

        Honestly, I haven't been impressed by games lately. Even the ones getting good reviews. While pretty, they mostly had static environments and didn't do anything that hasn't already been done before. I'm tired of cinematic non interactive(aside from shooting) games.

        In short, lighting systems that depend on static environments(among other things) are holding everything back.

        Comment


          #19
          I don't think there's any dynamic GI in the PC version. This is evident from all the Fortnite footage out there.

          Comment


            #20
            I agree with ambershee, because the article doesn't have any clear indication that there will be SVOGI for PC. The folks here are just expressing their own intrepretations. Some guy said here that both solutions will be there, but it is very likely that SVOGI will be removed in future versions of UE4, similar to the UIScene stuff that UE3 used to have. At some point, both Scaleform and UIScene were available, but then the latter got phased out. Another example is the terrain tool (Landscape). The old tool is still there but it is definately going to be removed once development on Landscape is finalized and becomes stable.

            So I really want both solutions to be kept (SVOGI and Lightmass), but I personally don't think that will be the case, and that's why I wanted someone from Epic to confirm that claim.

            From the article:

            The key differentiating factor between last year's demo and this newer iteration is that the Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination (SVOGI) lighting system hasn't made the cut. Instead, Epic is aiming for very high quality static global illumination with indirect GI sampling for all moving objects, including characters.
            To me, that sounds more like removal of SVOGI rather than keeping it. There is no statement in the article that says "but we'll keep SVOGI for PC". In my opinion, I think there is no valid reason, whatsoever, to not support any kind of dynamic GI given that others have done it on the current gen, let alone future gen (PS4/Xbox720). If SVOGI is not feasible, then do something else. I will use UE4 when released to the public, regardless of the lighting solution, it is just the fact that it is going to be really disappointing to have to deal with the baking process for another decade.

            Comment


              #21
              I believe the next gen consoles cant run UnrealEngine 4 very well. The tech demo showing off engine features does show off Dynamic GI.

              Comment


                #22
                "[SVOGI] was our prototype GI system that we used for Elemental last year. And our targets, given that we've had announced hardware from Sony, that's where we're going to be using Lightmass as our global illumination solution instead of SVOGI,"
                Sigh... notice how he says the hardware from Sony, that's WHERE they will use lightmass. NOT WHY they use Lightmass now... it's just that platform, and probably other comparably weak platforms, where it will be used. So the way I read this is that the high end PCs, like the one running the Infiltrator demo will have SVOGI all the way.
                The only bad part about this is that it suggests that SVOGI is not scaling very well and therefore has to be replaced with lightmass on lower end systems. Which is a problem because we will have to wait longer untill the tech can be used exclusively even on PC games.

                Having said that the introduction to this article: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1...E4_support.php
                says that
                We'll have more from Sweeney and Rein on today's other announcements in a future article.
                So I think its best to wait for their professional article/interview instead of speculating about that rather confusing Eurogamer article.

                Comment


                  #23
                  If this shuts up the kiddies whining about how they can't make their precious game using UE3 because they MUST have UE4's lighting, then I'm happy.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Henrik View Post
                    If this shuts up the kiddies whining about how they can't make their precious game using UE3 because they MUST have UE4's lighting, then I'm happy.
                    Because we all have render farms...

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by seenooh View Post
                      I agree with ambershee, because the article doesn't have any clear indication that there will be SVOGI for PC. The folks here are just expressing their own intrepretations. Some guy said here that both solutions will be there, but it is very likely that SVOGI will be removed in future versions of UE4, similar to the UIScene stuff that UE3 used to have. At some point, both Scaleform and UIScene were available, but then the latter got phased out. Another example is the terrain tool (Landscape). The old tool is still there but it is definately going to be removed once development on Landscape is finalized and becomes stable.

                      So I really want both solutions to be kept (SVOGI and Lightmass), but I personally don't think that will be the case, and that's why I wanted someone from Epic to confirm that claim.

                      From the article:



                      To me, that sounds more like removal of SVOGI rather than keeping it. There is no statement in the article that says "but we'll keep SVOGI for PC". In my opinion, I think there is no valid reason, whatsoever, to not support any kind of dynamic GI given that others have done it on the current gen, let alone future gen (PS4/Xbox720). If SVOGI is not feasible, then do something else. I will use UE4 when released to the public, regardless of the lighting solution, it is just the fact that it is going to be really disappointing to have to deal with the baking process for another decade.
                      If it doesn't have the fully dynamic GI lighting like they were showing I don't see much reason to use UE4

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Henrik View Post
                        If this shuts up the kiddies whining about how they can't make their precious game using UE3 because they MUST have UE4's lighting, then I'm happy.
                        Gee, that's a nice attitude to have from a "world of possibilities". Are you saying you can't think of a good use for non-baked indirect lighting? What's the problem? If you had someone specific in mind when you made that statement perhaps you should have made that clear.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          There's nothing to make clear when different people have been insisting they're too good for UE3 ever since since they got one glimpse of the Elemental demo. It just strikes me as the classic knee jerk reaction to the littlest taste of the possibility of something newer or better on the horizon. The ones who are ready to jump ship in these situations will likely get nothing done, and those who work with what they have get something done. Simple as that, that's my opinion and I don't apologize for expressing it.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
                            If it doesn't have the fully dynamic GI lighting like they were showing I don't see much reason to use UE4
                            As of now, I see UE3 = UE4 - New editor UI. But we have to wait and see until they finalize the full feature set before public release and make the judgement.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Henrik View Post
                              If this shuts up the kiddies whining about how they can't make their precious game using UE3 because they MUST have UE4's lighting, then I'm happy.
                              Ok, so you actually think that's a valid reason for not having dynamic GI and abandon the boring process of unwrapping assets for lightmaps and baking?

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Henrik View Post
                                There's nothing to make clear when different people have been insisting they're too good for UE3 ever since since they got one glimpse of the Elemental demo. It just strikes me as the classic knee jerk reaction to the littlest taste of the possibility of something newer or better on the horizon. The ones who are ready to jump ship in these situations will likely get nothing done, and those who work with what they have get something done. Simple as that, that's my opinion and I don't apologize for expressing it.
                                So you're criticizing people that had been vested in using UDK/UE3 and then saw some flashy eye candy and instantly wanted it instead of what they had planned to use? Fair enough I suppose. I'm not really active on these forums.

                                Personally I've been waiting for technology/hardware to catch up to my ideas for over a decade. It's true I could have made lesser games in the meantime, but I've never been interested in making a game that's already been made or only utilizing select parts of my vision. I've been content to slowly work on my own engine and continue studying papers as they come out. I was experimenting with GPU raytracing(which is not a solution a good solution, path tracing is better) before terms like GPGPU, OpenCL or CUDA were around.

                                Seeing that UE4's Voxel Lighting was inspired by one of the same papers that caught my eye, I'm naturally wondering if it's something that could save me a lot of time and focus more on gameplay implementation instead of the technical aspects. I've evaluated every engine I can get my hands on and so far determined I'll have to start from scratch. They're all lacking different things, UE4 might just have most of the features in a single engine I need. Obviously indirect lighting isn't the only aspect, I have other concerns, I'm not positive UE4 would fit all of my needs either and I could still arrive at the same conclusion.

                                I also haven't been impressed with the "AAA" titles that have been coming out lately. It just seems like the only trend has been increasing polygon counts and texture sizes while gameplay remains much the same as it has for years or in some cases have lost a lot of depth that used to exist.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X