Real time rendering with unreal 4... Is there any point to vray anymore?

[Neilg]

we had the vray-proxy , instancing . irradiance map . light cache .......

nowadays hardware are not the issue,

lol. computers are going to need to get about 25x faster before i stop using any of those things.

[^Lele^]

So, when we had very good interpolated GI (say, the IRMap) which rendered, for the given complexity, very quickly, we all complained of splotches, inaccuracies in corners and so on.
Now that UE4 takes HOURS to bake the lighting and shaders (provided one spent the weeks authoring them just right!), and provides for a VERY broadly interpolated GI, and screen space ambient occlusion, it's right to have the very visible errors?
Color me very confused.

[3LP]

That's exactly why I started another thread few days ago asking if it was possible to bypass the GI calc from UE4 and manage all that in Vray, using UE4 only as a viewer for Vray's output.

Stan

[im.thatoneguy]

Color me very confused.

It's very clear. I want it perfect, and at 120 fps.

There is a history though of using third party GI lightmap baking tools. Even Unity's light baker for a long time was a third party plugin (and terrible).

[^Lele^]

It's very clear. I want it perfect, and at 120 fps.

360, Alioscopic and in 16k.
Why curtail expectations, i wonder. ^^

[cheerioboy]

That's exactly why I started another thread few days ago asking if it was possible to bypass the GI calc from UE4 and manage all that in Vray, using UE4 only as a viewer for Vray's output.

Stan

I'd love this as an option.

[Dave_Wortley]

Taking baking in Max has a long way to go... A lot of these texture baking things could massively speed up your regular renders as well if it was all automatically queued up.

[Oleg_Budeanu]

Taking baking in Max has a long way to go... A lot of these texture baking things could massively speed up your regular renders as well if it was all automatically queued up.

Well actually you can use Deadline software to make a queue of render-to-texture jobs.
It would be really cool if ChaosGroup started to investigate towards collaborating with Epic and maybe even making a separate render engine for UE4 based on VRay approach (maybe simplified).
UE4 REALLY lacks a nice , understandable interface for GI calculations , as well as i believe it is not really optimized for archviz needs - as it is game engine for the first place.
Though as you might have noticed - marketing world really starts to love UE4 and realtime presentations , and i hope that ChaosGroup will hop up on that train and will give it nice boost !
Oh hopes, hopes...

[jasonhuang1115]

Really hope to see a transferable shader support between UE4 and Maya/Max. Don't really care about viewport in Maya but would be great to use UE4 for fast real-time visualization stuff with Vray shaders built in Maya/Max. And when high-rez/quality output is needed, one can still render the scene out with full GI from Maya/Max.

[Oleg_Budeanu]

https://forums.unrealengine.com/show...tive-apartment
quite good result, though guy is quite funny with this :

From my experience with other render engines, I could tell, Lightmass is better and faster than the famous biased solution from vray (IrrMap + Light Cache) and such good as unbiased methods (Bruteforce).

[^Lele^]

hihi, yeah.
Overly dark corners, and splotchiness (although it's clearly a top-notch job) aren't an issue anymore, BECAUSE it's unreal engine.
Forget the little detail that it took a 24 phisical/48 logical cores xeon around an hour to bake the lighting for that fairly sparse environment, and his claims may get into the realm of credibility. ^^
But hey, opinions!

[Oleg_Budeanu]

True VRay fan words !

[^Lele^]

Well, i can't seriously fathom what an LC + IRMap would have to come up against, to render for that time on such a machine, and get those results.
Surely not something so topologically simple.
When you think that in 2013, for Oblivion, one frame of LC for the Canyon would take around 30 seconds on hardware FAR less potent than that beast, and a full frame with BF primary, and a few hundred million polys, and a few tens of GBs of textures went in under 45 minutes, you get why i am derisive about the claims...
There is NO limit to how slow one can make a tool to show another in a better light, you see.
As i said, without hard numbers, it's just opinions, and those can't be debated at all.

[Oleg_Budeanu]

Yeah i completely agree with you , this is not a competitive quality and time consume for sure. I think about Unreal as about a marketing tool. It is great to make interactive presentations on big screen , where you will not see that crapy GI and such kind of stuff , which is not really important when client is swirling whole scene with animated trees , cars and etc in real time. Most important is impression , impressed buyer = a good sale - that's where Unreal will help !

[^Lele^]

On that we agree.
But I think the thread well derailed from the original topic, by now.