No Unreal 5 thread?

Kind of surprised no one is talking about Unreal 5's press release.

What's everyone's opinions so far?

I'm still favor Unity for their strong points (community, documentation, games to market, flexibility) but lets talk about Unreal, I guess.

I think that it just looks like Unreal doing Unreal. Extremely niche tech demos with multimillion dollar budgets, while the 5 means very little in terms of changes to the core engine. Just a new number to market, and some addons to pretend like its new. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

All the while it has extremely long loading times, is an absolute beast incapable of working on low end systems well, and every game distinctly looks like it is running on Unreal.

So that's the bad (for me).

As for the good, their in engine level editor stuff is WAY better than Unity. WAY WAY WAY better. Like it's not even close.

Unity's terrain system is so bad it might as well not exist and probuilder is not nearly sufficient.

That's what my opinions are. You all?

 

UE5 terrain system does not have something crazy like a one click solution (which we get on asset stores), but it has all the necessary and important tools which artists require to create all types world... I have no complain with the terrain in terms of sculpting, but placement wise, things not aligning to the slopes and terrain layers limited to just 8 textures is just a huge headache for me!!! And yes unity editor is slow as hell in bigger scenes... Unreal's modelling tools are realy great and is way faster for prototyping then probuilder.... Unity must take some notes from it

 

I keep an eye on 5's press because the engine has a lot of adherents whom I respect. It also seems like confidence using Unreal would expand my contracting options in archviz and film. Every time I think, "maybe now is the time to learn," however, I'm back to putting it off because of some dealbreaker. Currently, it's the lack of Apple Silicon editor support, which Unity was really fast and competent at supporting, and because Nanite does not work on Metal at the moment. Maybe in 5.1, maybe then, maybe.

I've been watching vids of experienced users interacting with the engine as a stopgap. The prospect of reasoning about blueprints the way they do makes my eyes recede in their sockets, so I keep looking out for Unreal's rumored new scripting language. That seems to be a much longer term prospect than I was originally expecting, though, and I'm not getting any younger. That's tech for you.

 

Let's be honest here, UE5 is a HUGE milestone.
Yesterday I installed the 5.0 release, new project-> VR Template->20 minutes to compile shaders, chose my Oculus 2 and "build and ran" the project, it automatically installed all Android libraries, all project settings for Oculus, compiled the file and pushed it to my head set, and it worked, first time, no errors.

Beautiful graphics, huge amounts of free stuff and a 1 million dollar threshold on profits and license...then there's Nanite/Lumen/Metahuman.... Unreal wants me to succeed in my projects, they put a lot of money/effort into helping Indie studios. The best part..1 shader pipeline....Oh it seems Unreal is moving towards industry standards in virtual production, the next Segway for aging game developers, like me ;-).

I can develop in both, Unity and Unreal at the same time, using each for the strengths on each platform.

 

CDProjektRED ll migrate to Unreal 5.

Just saying...

But, to sumarize: UE5 = pro tool

Unity = amateur tool to sell plugins on asset store.

Is it for now.

 

Cd project red got a pile of cash from Unreal do use their engine in a small side game so that unreal can brag that CD project red uses them.

I’m not trying to be cynical here, but unreal as always presented themselves that used cars dealer promising the world and delivering very little.

They spend more money on tech demos than they do development.

 

It's more or less how I think. An Engine needs to be functional and stable. I find Unreal very unstable - maybe not for big studios that have their own engineers (they produce patches, extra engine tools). For small companies, indies, Unreal is something - in my opinion - very bad.

I need a stable, comfortable system to produce something and learn from. Individual developers can do very little with the rare tools that exist today and they are still limited. Is there a barrier to be overcome or several...

 

Since when The Witcher 4 is a small side game?

And what about Bioware and Mass Effect 4? Is that a small side game too?

 

Any source on this? Because their version of the story let us believe otherwise:

 

I know it would be a 'side game' that still generates fabulous profits for the company or its executives... (I doubt they will revert to developers' salaries - as USUAL in this 'midle' - games).

 

When I say side game I’m going off of the press release.

and of course I can be wrong, with how bad the launch of cyberpunk went it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re looking to abandon their in-house.

but still, it is extremely rare for studios to walk away from an in-house engine.

I mean look at Bethesda.

 

To clarify, what I think is happening with CD project red is unreal came up to them and Cut a deal to have a third-party team use unreal develop a Witcher game so they can put a feather in their cap.

Witcher 4 To the best of my knowledge is still using CD project red in-house engine.

and why wouldn’t they?

it would take just as much effort to teach everyone unreal as it would to patch up and improve their engine, While being able to maintain 100% profits.

 

Do you work at CD Project RED? I highly doubt you can speak for them. And they say they are working closely with EPIC to develop the next big open world game. So I choose to believe what the actual company is publicly saying. Bioware is also switching to Unreal for the next Mass Effect. These are not small side projects. These are one of the biggest names and games around.

My guess is that they are switching because their in-house engines, namely RED and Frostbite, are dumpster fires. Frostbite is well known to be a nightmare to work with unless you're working on Battlefield. And the latest iteration of Battlefield still has massive technical problems, even to this day. Most people who developed and maintained the engine have since left DICE and EA. Same with CD Project RED, they have an incredibly high turnover between projects which does not create a good environment for in-house engine development. The never-ending technical issues with Cyberpunk, even to this day, signal that the engine is in a poor state.

Apples to oranges comparison. Bethesda's engine does many things no other engine on the market can handle. It's why no true Skyrim killer exists. And just because historically AAA industry has not gone from in-house to mass market engines doesn't mean it can't happen now. RED and Frostbite don't do anything Unreal can't do. In fact, Unreal is likely to be a better fit with Tencent and Fortnite billions bolstering up its feature set and general usability. And in a world of shareholders demanding ever-increasing profits, outsourcing engine development and developer training entirely can make sense. It's much easier to hire with Unreal in mind, too.

Some sources in the studio please, because you're claiming the exact opposite of what CD Project RED are communicating:

https://www.pcgamer.com/cd-projekt-explains-why-the-witcher-4-is-using-unreal-engine-5/

 

Big companys. They can pay for work with UE5. For large companies, in my opinion, it's an excellent engine. They can abuse its advanced technological features. Something more rare and difficult to see in small companies (AAA games, with complex mechanics, etc). UE5 is great for these big companies. For indies, small companies, I think Unity is superior for stability with good rendering performance.

 

It is sitting on my hdd and I haven't touched it yet. Oh, wait. It is sitting on my SSD actually. Insane install size like usual, and trying to install it onto HDD didn't go well. It stuck and after a half an hour, I terminated the install process.

IN my experience, Unreal has awful programming api (and always had awful programming api), and anything else they offer does not change that. One good example of that is that one of the local unreal prophets could not tell how to implement AssetPostProcessor which is a trivial thing in unity. Their fascination with Blueprints doesn't help either.

 

@PanthenEye I really don’t know why you are phrasing everything so hostile.

I already said that is what I got from the press release from unreal.

if there is an article confirming that Witcher four us using unreal 5, Great!

I am always happy to be corrected, not that I was making some kind of hard stance about it.

although, I will concede that my past attempts at unreal may have fostered a contempt In my tone that I don’t mean to convey.

 

Wonder, isn't that something similar? Basically, it allows even artists to establish their import flow.
https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.0/en-US/dataprep-overview-in-unreal-engine/

Plus, you can write all sorts of asset utilities to batch process any assets/maps. In C++ or blueprints.

And in C++ you prepare commandlets (process without opening editor) to mass import/export/process thousands of assets automatically, i.e. Voice Over with associated facial animation.

If that doesn't help, could you share details? I know Unity's thing only from description

 

The impressive thing about unreal 5 is that it isn't just graphics. They got amazing improvements and new features to animation, audio, world streaming, AI, and to a lesser extent improvements to compression, pathfinding, game size, and a new physics solution.

Animation and audio got a lot of love.
I do believe unity (HDRP in particular) lost the archviz/artists competition with unreal engine. There's very few reasons to pick HDRP over unreal for environment art. (ignoring games)

There's a reason the far majority of artists on art station use unreal. If you search around there's a ton of showcases/videos, where unity has very few.

 

From my experience (something strictly personal) I had it much easier in Unity. And I started with something difficult, but I'm studious, with creating character and control. I did my first 'point and click' using code (C#) not knowing what a variable was, if not in its broadest sense. Of course, I went 'step by step'. But the engine helped a lot, my knowledge about 3d, something older, too.

Obviously I stopped here, that's when I decided to take a lot of steps back and learn the basics of programming. But I decided to learn visual script, even to understand C#, VS is more instructive for me (it helps to understand the logic in practice).

UE uses those 'blue prints' - I'm not familiar with it, but it should look something like Unity's VS (formerly Bolt). I decided to abandon Unreal when my system started to 'crash' when simply moving files between folders. This annoyed me a lot with Unreal, as it was a random problem (it happened randomly). I don't intend to return to Unreal, I think Unity is better for new developers like me. Simple, clear interface - different from EU polluted version 4.27. But that's a personal thing, a personal preference.

Never had a crash with Unity, nothing - nothing that stopped or made my system stop. Maximum are wrong codes accused in the console.

 

I will say that the editor crashes a lot more often in unreal for me. Even yesterday I downloaded Lyra (new sample game) and within few minutes editor crashed on me (while restarting the level, something went wrong I suppose)

 

The only time I’ve ever had unity crash is when I did something stupid.

Kind of surprises me how often I hear people complain about this.

 

The only thing or the only ones that I will continue to defend is that Unity has more efficient tools so that beginners can make a game with good quality in a short time.

A tree is a tree. It (the tree) is not a chariot wheel, it is and will continue to be a tree. We can live in Patagonia Argentina or in the Russian Caucasus, the tree will continue to be a tree. A human is a human, he, by 'definition', except for comorbidities (here I speak of the most general, broad, popular definition) has two legs, two arms - classified as a biped (obviously people with comorbidities are also human). This is so in Saudi Arabia or Uruguay. These are two simple examples of how things can and should be more automated to make work easier. They made tools where we create trees, but we still don't have one to create humans (that's ridiculous, isn't it?). But why did they make one for terrains and not one for humans?

Here comes the stupid logic of the 'market'. In order to master something, you work so that someone else does not have access to technology. Simple as that and that's how this medium works (all 20th/21st century industry media in certain countries work like this). It has nothing to do with 'difficulty making a tool' and only economic interests in not making this tool (creation of humanoid characters). That simple. I ask again, why do we have a tool for making trees, terrains and not one for humans?

That's why Unreal is highly rated, popularly speaking, they own it, they work on it.

Unity is extremely poorly managed - here I'm talking about something absurdly extreme. It's as if they want to fail, as if they work to ruin a good engine. That's an opinion.

 

I have to say, 90% of your post went over my head. Not sure what the middle paragraph is talking about
In terms of ease of use, I used to think unity was easier, but starting to think unreal is due to blueprints and much of what you need is already there for you.

Blueprints/material graph create a lot of possibilities. If your a programmer though, unity might be your go to.
For everyone else, I think blueprints are quite helpful. Also you can do crazy things within the material graph that you just can't do in unity without writing shaders.

The problem with unity is that it hasn't done much since the introduction of SRP.
I'm tired of talking about URP so I'll skip that part.
HDRP gives good graphics and I'm a fan, but it has it's fair share of issues, the biggest being performance. I also have big issues with exposure in HDRP. Large dynamic lighting causes issue.
Unreal engine 5 introduced local-exposure which is a massive improvement. Going from dark to light or vice versa is so much better now and easier to manage.


And then there's the unity core tools (in urp/hdrp/built-in) which have seen very little progress.

This also effected the asset store, which many of us rely on (some of the biggest indie games use asset store tools, for a good reason)
and for anyone that was thinking of creating tools and releasing them -- I'm sure some changed their minds due to the different render pipelines and updates breaking assets.

 

Oh, right. That. Unreal is compiled with C++ exceptions off, and a single error can kill the whole editor outright. That makes debugging editor plugins very fun. Because one mistake can blow up the whole thing. With C# being the 2nd class citizen and a scripting language (in unity), the worst thing that can happen is console error spam. You also CAN freeze the whole editor, but that's much harder to achieve.

 

All good.

But what's the point of having a 'nanite', what's the point of having a good polygon renderer talking about indie games (including small companies)?

Complex games that require a multitude of things, just big companies or if you're a billionaire. That's why the focus on the overall performance of the engine (Dots) is what I think.

What Unreal can provide, if they fix bugs, is something like I mentioned before, possibilities of 'in engine' tools (like MethaHuman).

Maya, $4,000, Adobe, Suite, too... (includes the entire suite here) Zbrush, others etc... Let's go Blender... so, ok. Still, someone to make a character, another, textures, another, scenarios (this thinking about an RPG, for example). Even with all the knowledge in code, we will still make a small project, comparable to large RPGs, of course - and I didn't even get into the sound, music/track, voices, texts, UI, etc. So why am I going to use Nanite or something that allows me to run a billion polygons on the screen?

 

It's a good point. There are limits to what one person can do, on the other hand Nanite is useful even for a single person if they're looking to create environments, arch viz, and so on (artists basically who aren't interested in making full playable games).
For example UE5 offers Virtual Shadow maps which are amazing, far ahead of the normal shadow maps almost all engines have. You don't need to do anything, you just flip from the old shadows to the new one and it works.
Performance is much better when using nanite though since it can do some performance stuff special to nanite.


Another thing is kitbashing, even as a single developer. You can kitbash like crazy in nanite since it's 1 drawcall per material. 21390 meshes placed around the world with 1 material is a single draw call.
In unity I had to combine meshes, do instancing, and so on. And sometimes the former causes issues I have to try working around.

Lumen by far is the thing I'm most interested in, when it comes to graphics.
I ported a somewhat large world to unreal and my entire world had GI, just like that.
It also performs better than I expected on a laptop GTX 1070. The fact I don't have to place a billion reflection probes around the world is something I will appreciate for a millennia.

In the end though, graphics are just one part of what makes a game. Gameplay is still the priority for most gamers, and that's why most indie games are made with unity.

I really think the unity GameObject/component system and C# is carrying it over it's bad decisions, implementations and false/never met promises over the last few years.

Unreal also seems to be actively trying to make life easier for indies. There's good UV tools in-engine, modeling, and a ton of other things that you had to do in external applications.

 

Yes and...err... no

I also think that for 'indies' Unity hasn't been as 'nice' lately, so I used the 'tree' example. But personally I prefer more attention to tools that I know demand other software (character creation, for example) than just having a pretty look. Even for ArchViz, we will have to sweat other software in the Unreal Engine, at least something like a photoshop (although we have excellent free software for 2d, like Krita). In 3D, we have Blender dominating - even so, it will take a lot of time to make something good and adjustable to Unity.

It is not by chance that Unreal launches the metahuman idea - they think of the indies when they do this, because they know how difficult it is to do something with quality, individually. Unity has just entered this 'door', announced a partnership, if I'm not mistaken... but only announced, I haven't seen anything else so far. For now, unity, despite being stable, has only served to 'sell plugins', tools developed by third parties because they found an engine outdated in absolutely everything (personal opinion) stable, but outdated, incomplete, difficult, unfriendly to indies and for those want to learn. Wasn't it just a short time ago that they incorporated Bolt? This is one of the examples. A third party developed Bolt...it became so popular (it was obvious) that Unity decided to incorporate it. The same goes for a 'character creator'. Another thing will be the UI... Unity is absurdly terrible at it, it makes me angry.

But, it's a stable engine. This I can say. Let's see in the future...

 

* ...just about UI... i got some bad times. I come from After Effect, Photoshop... and this UI viewport and this system to atach a buttom...arrrrrrgh...

But, what is hard to me, can be easy to other people.

 

Unity, even with all it's faults, is friendly to indies imo. There's a reason it took over and is the leader for indie games.
The majority, by far, of popular indies(1-5 devs) games are made with unity.
The last few years haven't been great though.
It depends on what type of indie you are though, if you don't like programming, unreal might be easier for you.
Even though unity programming/API is much much easier than, for example, unreal's C++.
You do have to do a lot of things that come 'ready' in unreal, for example some blueprints do things you'll have to program yourself.

Unreal has been doing a lot to be more indie-friendly the last few years.

 

Everyone can and should be making use of it from the very beginning of their projects. That it can show enormous numbers of triangles on screen is only one aspect. There are at least two other aspects that I have discovered or learned about since UE5 was announced.

First, and second most known, is that it optimizes draw calls. When rendering triangles to the screen it will draw all the triangles belonging to a material in a single draw call before moving to the next material.

Second, and least known, is that it has more advanced culling. Internally Nanite divides meshes up into clusters of triangles. If it needs to draw part of a mesh on screen it can do so on a per cluster basis unlike other engines which draw the entire mesh.

For one of the demos the presenter made a donut with the built-in modeling tools. It came out to around 30,000 triangles. He then proceeded to duplicate it 100,000 times. Zero performance impact.

We've had many threads over the years where beginners would start a project, add all of the assets they could find to make their Frankensteinian vision and then start complaining about performance. With Nanite there would be no complaints at all because it would just work out of the box.

 

From what I've been reading, Unity has the new 'DOT' - I don't know what it is, honestly, the language barrier is big and my programming knowledge, shallow, small - but it seems to be something that has an impact on performance on processors . I think Unity is working on a code or compiler capable of making the work more efficient. Too bad we still have so little, at least in the most 'popular' sense, about DOT or I don't know where to look at it.

The portability or communication between software is something that is more recent in general, maybe some facilities have come to the general knowledge, popular, in the last 5 or 10 years - relatively little time, considering that these softwares have always been expensive to acquire ( their licenses).

Some, even today, insist on remaining 'distant', as in the case of Daz Studio - which, for them, will have a bitter price in the future. Blender has gone further, but we must consider its 'investment' limitations.

Even with Nanite, software will still exert pressure to continue to exist. The Unreal will not anytime soon, I suppose, develop tools like an Autodesk, for example. Of course, here I'm just guessing, because the trend is the 'monopolization' of all sectors of industries and their specific branches - in the case of games, from modeling to the final product, its distribution - including. This is a capitalist market trend (without judging here, I just narrate economic facts. Currently, they start their production platforms, Unreal, Ubisoft, EA Games, etc... from production to distribution (a trend and one of the most characteristic of monopolies in the 20th and 21st century).

For Indies, there will still be the price of Autodesk licenses, Adobe, for example. There will still be those who will work on modeling, rather, on the conception of art; another in the texturing, before, in the composition of these textures - another in the animation, another, before, composing these animations, another in the rig/bones (characters) etc. That will still exist, until someone automates the process to make the price of composing a game cheaper in its production - without judging here, I just keep narrating facts. This is a market trend, unfortunately (and this creates problems such as unemployment).

To summarize a little - it is impossible to talk about games - the reality of their production today in the world - without thinking about what I wrote earlier and what I wrote is just a fraction of a tenth of the reality in which we are all inserted, me in Brazil, you in your country another in another country, etc.

Nanite will help few, in fact - only big companies and not small indies. These will, unfortunately, deal as best they can with an increasingly fierce and voracious market, which tends to monopolize everything to centralize 'profits for executives to switch sports cars every year'. And I'm being extremely condescending here.

 

I'm sorry, but how managed to go from optimizing mesh rendering to capitalism?

Nanite or DOTS - both designed to improve performance in the game/team of any size. These are the smaller teams that aren't capable of optimizing rendering or C# OOP performance.
Heck, tiny indies often don't even have time to use a profiler since they're racing to make the game fun and interesting.

 

Unreal can develop the rendering technology it wants, it will only weigh less for the big game industry, not the 'indies'. indies deal with other things like the composition of the game itself, not just 'trillion polygon renderings'... plus, polygons of what, of a city? Who makes the city? Who textures, first, what software is used in the composition of a city, how much effort and time does it take to compose a block of buildings in this city, a building? Lighting, who will work with it? Ambient sound, does it exist, soundtrack, does it exist? UI elements, do they exist, who will do them, how, using what software? etc...

This is what weighs indies (aside from hardware that does a bare minimum) and not the amount - merely that - of polygons or the quality of light. So, I ask again here, 'Nanite for what'? 'Lumen for what'? If it's just these two technologies, seen apart from everything else, then making games will be easy for anyone. But this is just a tiny part of game composition, important, of course, but it doesn't weigh much on indies.

 

But, about Metahuman, here it is, something that I find extremely useful especially for small developers and 'indies'.

Here Unreal hit the nail on the head, if the idea is - I'm further away from Unreal now - if the idea is to build a tool capable of giving everyone the possibility to make characters with the quality and practicality of Matahuman, applause for Unreal. This will even make for indies, it will make their work infinitely faster and qualitatively better. It's like the 'land maker' or any other 'half tool' (and not final, so to speak, of rendering by itself).

 

I just tried Unreal 5. It's pretty bad ass.

 

It is DOTS, not DOT. Data Oriented Technology Stack.

All you need to get basics understanfing, it is on it own dedicated sub forum. Starting from pinned threads.

 

In future, for now my atention are on 'vector3' (basic code)

 

i will write from my own experience. I love unity, it has so much tools that makes my life easy, i think unity is easier than unreal and has more tools, but not just that, some time ago (like unity 4 or 5 version years) when i had to decide between unity or unreal. i first tried unreal in my low end laptop, out of the box unreal ran at 4fps xD while unity was smooth and perfect. I tried unreal 5 some months ago and i have to admit it i felt in love with lumen, right now i have a laptop with a 1050 and it was nice in fact i'm thinking of making my next project in UE5. I really want something like lumen for my next project (nanite for my is kind of useless)

The other thing is, all those games from unreal looks like games made with unreal and i don't like that.

 

Problem I had when playing around with Unreal was stripping assets from builds, it doesn't. I had 1 tree in an empty scene and the build was 3.5 gigs because it included every asset in the project. The workarounds on their forums, reddit, etc say to export the content to an empty project to make a build.

 

Doesn't seem like anything new just further along from before, so I'll get back to DOTS and ECS. At this point it's just iterative isn't it?

 

Unreal does show a lot of vision, they do actually make games and test the things in production
(Its been 10 years and placing an object in the unity scene still puts it at a random position)

I do like working in unity but the "easy to use" times are gone and everything else is extremely basic (Terrain, Text, UI, mesh editing, vertex, shader graph, audio, pathfinding, Light baking...) or has to be solved by a plugin which then always breaks apart mid project, even Unity plugins do break apart. URP just recently got ambient occlusion. Unity has become the 3DS max of engines, where its all patchwork of a ton of unfinished features or requires patchwork from third party assets.

To be fair HDRP looks good and is quite solid right now outside of DX12, non usable terrain and GI but lets be honest C# is by leaps and bounds the main thing that justifies using Unity at this point.

Unity needs to make games where Unity devs actually encounter and have to face issues, not demos where all is custom made and then thrown away and they need a coherent vision how to tie all the features together and actually complete and make them production ready.

Its clear that the goalpost has moved very hard with U5 release and Unity needs to show a strong future vision now before everyone realizes they were betting on the wrong train.

 

There is a setting for this.

 

Hello there, you have it on reverse.
Nanite have significantly higher value to small developers than big developers as bigger companies have no trouble spending more on asset optimization. If they have to spend 2 person's time out of their 100 person team, that's only 2% of their manpower.
On the other hand, when someone in a team of 3 spends their whole precious time on creating 2 to 3 different LOD version of the same asset, you are left with 33% less manpower in finding and addressing more serious issues.

How are you saying gaining 33% manpower is more than gaining 2% manpower?

Besides, it improves rendering performance by default if Nanite is used regardless of your scene setup.

1. Combines every triangle with the same material into a single draw call.
2. Triangle chunks that are not visible will be culled entirely.
   
3. Uses significantly less memory to render.
4. Lesser file size on final build due to the way Nanite file type is compressed.

Again, this is a lot of automatic optimization that will save a lot of time for smaller devs by default.

I can say the same about Lumen (Saves time on GI Baking and setup)
If you've experienced placing probes on your scene, and the time it took to bake, you will see value in this. Small companies does not have a dedicated PC only for baking.

I can also say the same about MetaHuman, this is not an issue for big companies, but even they say they see a huge value in MetaHuman.

 

It's rare that I see someone write so many words to say nothing useful.

 

I don't know where you got the idea that I want something with Nanite. For me, Nanite and nothing are equivalent. I don't even know what you're talking about but I suggest you either read what is written here or pay more attention to what is written. It doesn't matter, for me, Nanite or Dots - for me both will have or will be effective exclusively for big companies. Not for indies or small businesses/companies. Re-read what is written.

 

I'll pass. You're very clearly too opinionated to listen to what anyone has said and frankly I don't care enough about you to want to change your opinion. It's rare I put people on ignore. I hate to do it. But you're not someone I care to deal with. I have limited time. I'll stick to the people who listen and are reasonable to discuss with. You are not.

 

Understand. Nanite its something 'native' or ll be, not a 'option'? Anyway, rarely indies achieve anything similar to even mid-sized studios when it comes to games. But I don't have eyes for everything, the 'little' I know. I - it's a particular preference given my difficulties - I prefer tools like MetaHuman - I don't know where this is currently, I dedicate myself entirely to Unity for the stability of the engine.

 

Wrong, you just write your own words trying to pass as someone else's ideas and that 'doesn't stick' to me. I have no patience for 'reedit warriors'. Your lack of understanding of plain text, in my view, has nothing to do with what I write. Deal with it with others and in other ways. It doesn't matter to me, I don't write for you to understand or agree with something.

 

My opinion is Nanite will be as obscure as John Carmacks streaming textures in five years.

Think about how revolutionary Id Tech’s streaming texture system was supposed to be, now no one even thinks about it.

Nanite is the same way.

I’m a firm believer that the be all end all will always be games to market.

 

I'll try to be more objective, maybe you know more. Let's get to the practice - something I don't have is the experience, although little practice I've acquired with the years in 3D (Max and Maya).

Supposing, an RPG, made by an individual or, a team of 3 people, for example - let's assume they do that, what concerns objects, characters, scenarios in X time - of course and here I will absolutely agree with you - excellent if we don't have to remodel everything in 'low poly' to 'fit' in an engine what you want. But even so, wouldn't it be more effective in terms of time, to have an efficient and good quality tool for characters and terrains, for example? A technology designed to support this with a reduced number of polys, made in the engine itself, native to it, what would dispense with third-party programs?