Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Performance going downhill with latest versions of Unity, Post Processing and SRP

Discussion in 'Universal Render Pipeline' started by Devil_Inside, Dec 2, 2019.

  1. optimise

    optimise

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2014
    Posts:
    2,113
    Hi. Any new update? Seems like this issue is still active.
    https://issuetracker.unity3d.com/pr...253.226465697.1601048404-803593275.1595053364
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2020
    MadeFromPolygons likes this.
  2. Aoedipus

    Aoedipus

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Posts:
    25
    So, I read this thread with great interest. I've been developing a webGL based project in 2019.2, so the mobile issues seemed relevant. I thought LWRP/URP would be a good move, as it's an open-world action rpg styled game with lots of overhead. I've been using the built-in with ppV2. I've now spent the better part of 4 days testing 2018.4 (LWRP, ppv1), 2019.2 (LWRP, ppv2), 2019.4 (URP, built-in pp as well as external ppv2), and 2020.1 (URP, built-in pp). What a frustrating experience it's been! For many of the reasons other's have posted about. TLDR: I'm going with 2019.4 (built-in renderer and ppv2) primarily to get the LTS, new UI, and other bells and whistles. Not for any substantial performance improvements.

    2019 and 2020 URP both swelled my webGL build beyond anything I expected, with the _DevBuild.data.unityweb file nearly doubling in size (from ~25mb to 45+mb), and the allocated memory in browser jumping from ~70mb to > 105+mb). Not only that, camera stacking and built in pp created all sorts of layout and fx weirdness. I decided the disconnect between in-editor and build was not worth my time to try and sort out. in all the LWRP/URP build tests, frame rates bounced around all over the place and any performance gains were negligible at best. Particularly when out of the editor and into the web. I'm sure I've learned something from this experience, but I can't quite yet put my finger on it... (grass is always greener?)
     
  3. Personuo

    Personuo

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Posts:
    129
  4. laurentlavigne

    laurentlavigne

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Posts:
    6,222
  5. Personuo

    Personuo

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Posts:
    129

    Rufat's bloom has two huge problems
    1. He does not have a way to control the luminous position through the brightness threshold, and the bloom effect is very poor
    2. MSAA will perform 2 times reslove

    I bought rufat's 3 products (motion blur, reflection, and post), and finally did not use any of them
     
    DungDajHjep likes this.
  6. DungDajHjep

    DungDajHjep

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2015
    Posts:
    201
    use PostProcessing stack v2 and try Smart lingting 2d
    https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/particles-effects/smart-lighting-2d-112535
     
  7. joshcamas

    joshcamas

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Posts:
    1,276
    You can't use post processing stack v2 in URP
     
  8. Personuo

    Personuo

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Posts:
    129
    Unless the pipeline is modified, all third party posts cannot solve the MSAA multiple reslove problem, I have tried two solutions
    1. use beautify2, activate the direct write camera option, then modify the forward pipeline to comment a few lines of code. (Note that the lut of beautify2 is still 2d,and ,and beautify2 has more than 10000 Variants when you package, this is let me crash)
    2. use urp comes with a post, and then replace the volume you want to modify inside(I do this in urp 8.3,but 2020.2 is 10,every update let me feel that is very costly to maintain)
     
  9. laurentlavigne

    laurentlavigne

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2012
    Posts:
    6,222
    2. very, that's #SRPLIFE
    1. You seem to be after a high level of visual quality, URP isn't designed for that so stick to builtin.
    If you are not convinced and still want *that* life, you need to make a list of what your game is about then prioritize that list. If max framerate is at the top then go URP and don't complain because it'll be a headache, otherwise stick to built-in and buy Amplify.
     
  10. sas67uss

    sas67uss

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2020
    Posts:
    81
    @Andre_Mcgrail

    An important question :
    Do the bug fixes in the latest version of URP apply to previous versions as well? For example, I want to use the unity 2019.4 LTS , which finally supports URP 7.5 . Will the bugs fixed in URP 10 also apply to URP 7.5?

    According to the old tradition, new versions of Unity include two features, one is new features and the other is fixed bugs, which are also applied in previous versions. It is now expected that the bags fixed in the new version of URP will also apply for Unity 2019.4 at least . because they said that URP was including in unity 2019.4 LTS
     
  11. Reshima

    Reshima

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Posts:
    51
    I also wanted to know this. According to the issue tracker, some of the fixes are in versions 10.0.0 and 11.0.0:
    - https://issuetracker.unity3d.com/is...2-which-causes-non-negligable-driver-overhead
    - https://issuetracker.unity3d.com/is...etween-srgb-and-linear-on-urp-default-shaders

    If you look at the package repo for URP, I believe 10.0.0 requires at least 2020.2:
    https://github.com/Unity-Technologi...unity.render-pipelines.universal/package.json

    So I'm not sure if these fixes are supported on 2019.4 LTS as you wouldn't see an "update" to the package, but I'd love to know more.
     
  12. TrentSterling

    TrentSterling

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Posts:
    99
    It's a shame that URP is still so janky with Android. Working on a Quest 2 title and Ive already slapped all the settings as low as they can go. Hard to hit 120hz with just vertex lighting... Oof.
     
  13. studentvz

    studentvz

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2014
    Posts:
    149
    Don't worry, it will be fixed in 2026., maybe.
     
    DungDajHjep likes this.
  14. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Any case numbers? Since anyone and his hamster can go "Eeeh lad. Tis sloooooooooow!" and Unity won't know why :'(
     
    NotaNaN likes this.
  15. optimise

    optimise

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2014
    Posts:
    2,113
    Hi @Devil_Inside. Have u run your test scene again with latest Unity again and how's the performance on Universal Render Pipeline?
     
  16. studentvz

    studentvz

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2014
    Posts:
    149
    Yeah. Submit bug report, get no response, or get a response from a guy who installed unity yesterday and he is like, please move to the latest unity 2026 pre-alpha, it is fixed there but ignore 6324 other bugs on that version. Or get a response likeee we can't reproduce it, we know this is a bug from multiple bug reports, we can't do anything, in other words, please go fix it yourself and show us how to fix it.

    I was a guy with "Eeeh lad. Tis sloooooooooow!" but with a pile of evidence, and a very good bug report. Oh man, if you just saw all the nonsense I got from bug report guys, trying to convince me that this is a problem in my game and that everything is fine. In the end, when I tested 50 unity versions and found a specific version where the issue started, Unity admitted that they did make a change that caused serious performance degradations on older CPU-s but they never updated the issue tracker with that info, they left it to look that this is a problem in my game or weak devices.

    What is with my beautiful bug report 1312223 from 02/2021 that shows serious rendering performance degradation (spikes), not a single response till today? Oh, I wonder why there is no response.

    Now, simple bug reports get resolved, I have some resolved very quickly. But serious ones, good luck with that.

    And URP, rofl, what a wreck. When you hear performance improvement, it will be often the oposite. Even their urp boat attack demo got wrecked, there is a post/thread where they acknowledge that there are performance issues, because, in the beginning, it worked ok. And what did they do about it?

    Look at this guy's post, what did Unity do about it?
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2021
    MGretton and DungDajHjep like this.
  17. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Absolutely nothing at all, after looking at the release notes. This fellow says it better:
    I haven't actually ever used Unity's post effects because they failed my perf tests with V1 let alone V2. I think the newest update is how often volumes can update. Which means Unity is not optimising it but just running it less often. I don't think that should absolve them of the responsibility to optimise. It should be treated like a feature.

    upload_2021-9-29_20-51-46.png
    https://docs.unity3d.com/Packages/c...rsal@12.0/manual/whats-new/urp-whats-new.html

    But does it actually do nothing each frame to the LUT if set to "via Scripting" ? if so then at least you get the grading without the rebuild overhead.
     
    AcidArrow, AlejMC and NotaNaN like this.
  18. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    I've been working the past months with every single version of URP (from 7 to 12.x) as well as PP cause we are starting a new project January 2022 for Nintendo Switch and we need to know if we use URP or our old custom renderer (that runs on top of built-in).
    Both URP and PP are heavily bloated, the CPU overhead is gigantic. Even so their SRP Batcher helps them a bit but can't save them from the gigantic CPU overhead, specially in 2021.2.
    For our testing we used a full commercial game as testbed, not an empty scene with few primitives. The result was astonishingly bad for URP. In 2019.4/URP 7.7 rendering speed was about the same as built-in. Around 40-45fps with URP and 52-53 fps with custom builtin! In 2021.2 however is bad, really really bad. Game runs poorly, never reach beyond 20-25fps with both URP7 and URP 12. I suspect some heavy regressions in comparison to 2019.4 that I don't have the time to investigate more, I already lost few months fighting URP problems and lack of features which I could've been working on other things more important such as my game? It is a shame as having URP sources was nice, I did a couple of internal changes to it, to optimize shadows a bit more (which I provided feedback to URP folks to) but is not usable right now for production, at least for our game requirements. And I won't even mention the problems SRP brought as we are only talking about performance now but that also still a bleeding wound.
    Folks at Facepunch spend a whole year porting Rust to HDRP and then realized it was a giant turtle mess and had to revert everything back again to their custom built-in. And there's others examples of companies that tried URP and had to revert everything back to builtin because still a giant pita now. You get either no features and stable frames in old versions (which is pointless to use) or similar built-in features but completely bloated and inefficient frames (which is also pointless). Someone mentioned that URP code looks smart instead of efficient, it is exactly that.
    My findings are, as soon as you add lighting and shadows to URP, everything goes bezerk. If your game is very simple, and you are either left with built-in/URP stock without any way to optimize built-in pipeline, yes you are better of with URP. Otherwise stick with built-in until URP matures enough which might happen in 2022 or 2023.

    To Unity folks, sorry yeah, you will have to maintain built-in for more years to come. :D
     
  19. AlejMC

    AlejMC

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2013
    Posts:
    149
    On 2019 I had the chance to attend to the Coppenhagen Unite event and one key thing I took out related to this is that for most platforms out there (iOS, Android, Switch, etc) built-in and no DOTS was seriously recommended if no major risks were to be taken.
    We are a small team of 6 inside a huge company with very short production timeframes (couple of months at a time) and for the latest production we just went built-in, even after having used successfully URP before, because we added Switch as a target platform…
    What we did is use as much as possible mesh instancing, property blocks, etc and even manually Draw/Indirect APIs for custom things that would be a bit out of the default unity’s mesh renderer cycle.
    Things that don’t work, for example Ambient Occlusion doesn’t on Android, we just had to shrug it and continue on.
    I don’t think built-in is receiving any sort of fixes, updates or tweaks fyi, I believe it’s just on life support.
     
    protopop and tatoforever like this.
  20. Peter77

    Peter77

    QA Jesus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,589
    This sounds interesting. Do you know where I could read more about it?
     
    hippocoder and NotaNaN like this.
  21. nasos_333

    nasos_333

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Posts:
    13,288
    From all my tests so far in URP, for anything more than extremely simple scenes, standard is faster to exponentially faster than URP, and this is in 2019 and 2020 unity, cant even imagine that this is worse in 2021, Unity should just abandon this srp idea and revert to standard if cant get the performance to be vastly better than is now, especially on image effects.

    SRPs seem like a giagantic step back in every single way.
     
  22. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Built-In is basically a dead duck. You can't even use it on Quest 2 with spacewarp so it's a non starter. The right answer here is for Unity to talk about how we are going to get performance back in the general case. If they can fix the performance gap or explain it, then that's a good future.
     
    studentvz, NotaNaN and tatoforever like this.
  23. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    You can look at over their blog, let me find it for you but I was in contact with them some time ago as they where using my shadows plugin and chat about how to improve things etc. They told me about moving to HDRP and i suggested them to not do it.
    [EDIT] Citation:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/playrust/comments/dbhghk/hdrp_is_performing_worse_than_current_rust/
    PS: The pasted image is from their blog, im looking for it but they have like multiple blogs talking about it.
    This was just before they officially announce they cancelled HDRP port.
    They ended up using the HDRP assets and it actually performed better in built-in.
    upload_2021-12-22_17-20-34.png
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2021
  24. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    My understanding is that URP is terrible at immediate mode drawing hardware, there's no improvement there. Hence why it performs so poorly on the Switch (and similar) hardware. I meant, it doesn't perform poorly but is no better nor even equal (is slightly worse in most situations like dynamic lighting and shadows) than built-in.
    However the new performances issues introduced in 2021.2 make it a not so viable solution for the immediate future.
     
  25. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    Yeah, I won't recommend built-in either if your project start now and you are locked in with for the long run (say 3-4 years). If your projects are smaller like ours or if you need to tap into the hardware at maximum efficiency, URP is not a viable solution now because the "so many introduced overhead that we don't know when they are going to be fixed, if". However the past few months working on it allowed me to know better URP and I enyoiyed working with, it was a breeze, I actually did couple of changes that I've keep in a zip file inside the project (because who knows). It also allowed me write a migration tool that translate all our shaders and materials into URP ones. But my point is that it can't be used now and we are stuck with an old URP version that works but lack features (we don't have the time to implement missing ones) and a new one that is feature rich but has performance issues. :eek:
    PS: Alek put me in contact with some other URP folks, I will provide some slimmer version of my project to investigate the issues.
     
    hippocoder likes this.
  26. castor76

    castor76

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Posts:
    2,517
    News like obtaining Weta Digital, all looks good on outside, but for every day dev folks who just want to use Unity for good old game pure development, it just feels like Unity is spending their resources in the "wrong" way, when engine's core rendering pipeline is STILL not settled for years and years. I know increasing "man power" does not necessary leads to the faster, better development but I just can't stop feeling that Unity's focus is on the other side. It may not be a good example but if you take a look at some 2DRendering development, it has been years since the development started, but still not in full production ready. And I recently obtained information that it is understandably so, since the core team behind the 2DRendering pipeline is less than 3 people at the moment. (last time I checked there was only one man behind it, and then one more was "coming"...
     
    protopop, Meceka and joshcamas like this.
  27. nasos_333

    nasos_333

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Posts:
    13,288
    But the issue is what if they cannot get anywhere near Standard performance, why make all coming games slower by forcing URP for example, when can just revert to Standard support and leave the rest as abandonware to die out, as they should.

    Though i get this feeling that Unity is not at all about gaming anymore, otherwise they would not have the HDRP pipeline that makes zero sense for optimized games for example, so could be something we just not know and the focus is now away from real time and more on movies - architecture visualization etc

    From the image effect performance i see in URP, i just cant see how could possibly go back to Standard performance, the gap is day and night better on Standard.

    And this is in Unity 2019, i now read URP in Unity 2021 has many extra performance issues, which is the exact opposite of URP getting better and only seems to go even further behind Standard.

    I think Standard is the only possible way forward, forcing games to be vastly slower than could be is not really a viable tactic for going forward for sure.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2021
  28. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Your comment alone should be reason enough for Unity staff to respond IMHO, and I hope they do.
     
    o1o101, NotaNaN and nasos_333 like this.
  29. nasos_333

    nasos_333

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Posts:
    13,288
    I have been working on URP for more than a year straight, and definitely the performance of everything i saw comparing to my standard implementations is slower to much slower.

    I think one of the the issues is that URP started as a pipeline for mobile, then they had to add all those features to match standard as an afterthought, so this could be a reason why does not seem to be optimized.

    Generally when i work in Unity 2018 and Standard is like i use a totally different engine, everything is lightning fast in both in game and editing, after that version and pipeline, all seems to go down in performance in general, maybe is the fact that i still use a 5 years old laptop to develop and could see a better performance in latest hardware, but on the other hand my thinking is that if my systems are not fast on that older system (1050GTX) better not release them even, as they should take as little as possible from the actual game, so Unity should follow a similar tactic, not overload the system without testing on the lower end to see what new they many bottleneck.

    Another thing that affect a lot is the speed of new releases, if they release Unity versions with the speed of light, then is only expected to be the least possible optimized and for this problem to build up, should just slow it down and do away with the yearly naming, as this creates the rush to release new broken and slower versions.
     
  30. o1o101

    o1o101

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Posts:
    639
    My experience has been the same, worked with Standard for a long time, worked with URP for a long time. URP is just way slower in almost all aspects. Wish I could revert but, in too deep now, just crossing my fingers things get better.
     
    mgear, joshcamas, NotaNaN and 2 others like this.
  31. burningmime

    burningmime

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2014
    Posts:
    845
    +1. I hate to say this, because I know the team has been working hard, but as of Unity 2021.2, I would not recommend URP to any solo or small-team indie devs. The only thing that's great about it is VFX graph, which is a massive, massive upgrade from Shuriken. Source access is also a huge plus if you have a team large enough to make use of it.

    But in exchange for that, you have asset compatibility issues (mostly solvable, but the material converter workflow is pretty bad with the new dialog), questionable performance (URP can be much better than BIRP if you're "sloppy" with your materials and let the SRP batcher do its thing, but a good mesh bake for static and GPU instancing for dynamic is going to beat SRP batcher), bad shadow projections, a painful experience writing shaders, especially complex ones (shader graph works fine for the simple stuff), and a constantly-shifting API.

    It's not that URP doesn't have potential -- it definitely is a good step. But we're at version 12, and it still feels like a beta in many ways.
     
    protopop, BOXOPHOBIC, NotaNaN and 3 others like this.
  32. Peter77

    Peter77

    QA Jesus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,589
    I read this a lot in the forums.

    Are URP related performance improvements or fixes still being worked on by Unity Technologies?

    I remember when URP was new, they communicated across all channels, if URP is slower than built-in, they consider it as a bug and the ultimate goal would be that URP is going to be fast.

    However, many URP performance related threads go like:
    • Customer: URP performance is slower than built-in.
    • Unity: We're unable to reproduce it. Please submit bug-report with your project.
    • 20 more customers: URP performance is slower than built-in.
    • Radio silence
    This of course isn't improving the situation for anyone working with Unity. So I wonder why performance isn't going forward or in some cases is even regressing more.
    1. Unity Technologies perhaps thinking URP is the fastest renderer already, because they have no (customer) project that runs slower?
    2. Unity Technologies perhaps still working on performance improvements, but all of these target a specific edge-case only, thus the overall performance keeps unaffected?
    3. Unity Technologies perhaps stopped working on URP performance improvements and fixes for unknown reasons?
    4. Performance is no priority, because other URP issues are considered more important at the moment?
    5. They do work on it, performance improvements are just coming at a slower rate?
    6. Unrealistic customer expectations?
    In either case, it would definitely help if they could share their performance plans with us or if they don't have plans to improve performance, share that as well, so we can look for alternative renderers.
     
  33. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    Yes agreed!!!once more stability, bug fixes, performance optimizations, and all the features on the productboard https://portal.productboard.com/uni...sual-effects/tabs/3-universal-render-pipeline get completed and released I don't find any reason to use built-in again
     
  34. nasos_333

    nasos_333

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Posts:
    13,288
    The issue is that so far they are adding features and performance going down due to that, so widening the gap between the Standard performance that is already better to much better. So this scenario may never come to be realized from how things are going so far.
     
  35. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    Just in case, this is my game running on the Switch hardware with dynamic light and shadows, volumetric lighting and multiple complex shading models:
    IMG_1320.JPG IMG_1323.JPG IMG_1321.JPG

    On heavy scenes it drops to 50-51 but there's also a lot that I can optimized to make it flat flat 60 everywhere (drawcalls, overdraw, dynamic resolution, etc). With URP (7.x to 12.x) in 2021.2 it barely reach 20-25 fps and I was using the same URP Lit shader everywhere. On built-in I was using more post process and more shading models and it was still faster. Although, URP 7 in 2019 is not as bad around 40fps in general but still considerably slower than my custom built-in and spot shadows where only tested, with point shadows that number will go even lower. But is not just on the Switch hardware, even in the Editor it feels slow and sloppy. Shader compilation is like 10x faster in 2019 compared to 2021.2.
    Still there's like a couple of things you can add to built-in to make it even faster that current URP versions, like computing all lighting in the forward base pass or add material IDs in one of the free Gbuffer channels to skip lighting selectively (avoids the 4 layers skip limit), sample all shadows (not just directional) on surfaces that are not affected by lights such as baked scenes (I posted a video about this few weeks ago). Organize drawcalls in clusters/cells, combine materials or make all your OnRenderImage stacked in an ubershader with least amount of passes possible.
    That being said, those are things that not everyone can do, you need some graphics knowledge to do it but is just an example of extra things you can do with built-in that will make the performance gap between URP and built-in a lot larger than it is.
     
    BOXOPHOBIC, o1o101 and Lars-Steenhoff like this.
  36. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    11,631
    What actually happened though is that if someone did a semi sloppy port of their built-in project to URP everyone (including community members) would cry, "this isn't an apples to apples comparison because URP has so many more features by default" and would be dismissed.

    Which isn't exactly unfair, but on the other hand, I have a pretty optimized game for built-in and after I sloppily ported it to URP (sloppily -> 1 full day of work), performance was halved, and I didn't even get all the stuff running (for example my planar reflections weren't working, replacement shaders weren't working etc) and I was getting like +10ms slower than built-in.

    At which point I gave up.

    If I had submitted that as a bug report, I don't think it would be unreasonable for Unity to dismiss it, it would have been a bad port.

    On the other hand, after being told how inefficient built-in is, I was expecting that even with a sloppy port I would have gotten much better results than this. Or to put it another way, with these preliminary results, it seemed to me that the best results I could have hoped for, after weeks of porting and maybe changing things around to play to URPs strength, I would have gotten on par performance with built in at best, maybe.

    So why would I put in so much effort? There aren't even any features I find desirable, and there are multiple drawbacks.

    I'm saying all this to conclude that: there probably aren't a lot of optimized built-in projects that were "properly" ported to URP, because making that port is a ton of work and URP is unappealing.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2021
  37. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest


    This game was made in URP for switch PC and consoles and runs perfectly fine
    And also there were many posts and other threads about performance comparisons with built-in and URP and both perform very similar
     
  38. o1o101

    o1o101

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Posts:
    639
    While I do not doubt URP does run better in many scenarios, the main thing here seems to be consistency. If URP was actually better performing across the board, why are a big portion of its users reporting performance regressions?
    I don't think its merely a set up issue or something like beginner confusion. Also doesn't seem to be just differences with the SRP batcher either, as the legacy batching methods also seem to run worse.

    I haven't recorded any concrete numbers yet but plan on doing some comparisons after the holidays.
     
    Deleted User likes this.
  39. buFFalo94

    buFFalo94

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Posts:
    273
    I don't know but I think most people except things to work as they did in built-in just after finished the conversion
    That's not going to happen mate (maybe at some point in the future)
    There's a lot of work involved to get performance back after converting from URP to built-in
    The volume system and the post processing is heavy in URP it's well known
     
  40. joshcamas

    joshcamas

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Posts:
    1,276
    Mind explaining what work needs to be done to get performance back when switching to URP, other than simply disabling features that weren't slow in builtin? (in my case point light shadows and I still went back to 2020.1 since it was noticeably faster for me).
    Also, it's clearly not just developers being lazy if facepunch spent months trying to switch and gave up.
     
  41. castor76

    castor76

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Posts:
    2,517
    Well said. I feel like the reasons are for all of what you said, but I feel like URP has already hit its bottle neck in terms of what it can do for overall performance. so it is mostly reason 2, but we are pretty much at the point where huge performance improvement can't be expected so reason 6 goes with it. For me and for a lot of others, it is lack of feature completeness, bugs and instability nature of the URP (still going on) that is causing a lots of pain. Like someone mentioned here, it is version 12... 12 !!! I mean it has been years and years since SRP came about, but still not "completed" in terms of feature par or performance par with previous built in. To add things a bit worse, the release and update of URP even they are in the package form, became very slow due to update seems to only come about twice a year. Which makes this whole "package" update feels like redundant.

    I discovered that URP was not production ready when I finished last builtin project so I gave up using it for 3D, and moved to 2D development, but boy... after 5 years of 2DRenderer development, its state is even worse then 3D....
     
  42. DungDajHjep

    DungDajHjep

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2015
    Posts:
    201
    It feels like they've set a goal too big, with great ideas, but can't finish it.
     
  43. bart_the_13th

    bart_the_13th

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Posts:
    498
    Exactly.
    If the claim that URP is production ready is true, then the expected result after the port (be it sloppy or not) would be, the game will run with at least the same performance with all the bonus feature URP has to offer. But currently, even after turning off every URP features after the port, the performance is still worse than the built in (before port)
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2021
  44. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    No body expect here things to work automatically, we only expect it to be as they where marketed "faster and better than built-in". Also we spend months testing all URP versions from 2018 up to 2022, we even added few changes to URP 12 (couple of optimizations in the shadow pass and slices reservation code) to suit better our art direction but performance was not better, not even equal. I would've choose URP for this project if at least performance was similar, it was not, not even close.
     
    Devil_Inside and joshcamas like this.
  45. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    Is funny, the very first thing I did was exactly that, a sloppy port but no post process, only one shader everywhere (the stock Lit shader), not even UI and performance was slightly slower than built-in. When I started adding UI layers, PP layers, lights with shadows URP started to show its true colors, it got really slow. I never got to the point of adding similar shading models than my current built-in models (such as skin, hair, eyes, refraction, etc) because using the stock URP lit shader was already way too slow.
     
    Devil_Inside and AcidArrow like this.
  46. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    Built-in is what, 7-8 years old renderer and still kick "modern HDRP/URP" arses by a large marge. imagine what could've become built-in if they put all that time improving it. Like i don't know, improving forward (compute all lights in the base pass) or add a visibility buffer etc. Things that can be changed inside and won't break projects or force people to rewrite all their shading models, having 3 render paths completly different and keep everything unified... man oh man...
     
  47. castor76

    castor76

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Posts:
    2,517
    I totally agree. But I also go with the Unity if they want to do something new. That's ok, but LWRP, URP, HDRP stuff.. is taking way tooooo long to get to where it needs to be. If an Engine company wants to change their rendering pipeline, I think it should develop it internally until they are ready and then release it. The problem is that Unity kept saying that builtin is going to be deprecated in the "near" future, and pushed their SRP too early leaving most of us in the chaos.

    I was in like.. "should I use built in? (cause it was better)" but "no... because it will be deprecated and I would not be able to use it for updating the project" for the last 4 years or so.
     
    tatoforever and bart_the_13th like this.
  48. PutridEx

    PutridEx

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2021
    Posts:
    1,136
    Reading this made me excited for what if.. no SRP, single RP, literal years worth of improvements to built-in, what it would be like right now.

    To top it off, majority of all games ever made in unity use built-in, it's proven, it works, all types of games, from all kinds of genres.

    Personally, I think they really messed up with URP. Development is unbelievably slow. Still missing so many graphical features compared to built-in, and the whole shader variants issue, which they only started to work on in 2021.2 - the fact it was even there for that long says a lot about the current state of URP and the priorities of the team behind it.

    The fact that before 2021, urp had no point light shadows. No deferred renderer. No depth prepass, how many years did they work on it?

    All the shader issues, the asset store breakage, splitting the community over 3 different render pipelines.
    Years of improvements could've been put into built-in, but what we get is URP. A worse version of the built-in RP.

    I like that the C# code for the render pipeline is now out there, I'm sure many graphic developers will love it, but all in all, it was executed unbelievably badly.


    I don't use URP often, for obvious reasons, and stick with HDRP -- which I like, but it has its fair share of problems. although, imo its nowhere near the mess that URP is (which is btw supposed to be the successor to built-in ).

    For the last good while I've been working on an open world/forest in HDRP, and I love the visuals, but I'm facing some issues related to scene loading, and most importantly memory usage.

    I keep thinking URP will be much better soon, next update, but I find myself saying that every update, when I find out it's still not there.
    Reason I care about URP is because I see it as the replacement for built-in, but it's quality is still not there.

    I wish I wasn't so negative, and URP made a lot of progress in 2021.2 with all the features, but it's been a long time, there's still a lot missing, and much of what's already here is often lower in quality compared to what built-in already has, or at best, similar in quality.

    with built-in, you had many tools to make up for the things it didn't have, like a volumetric fog/light system. In URP, many of these assets aren't available, so you can't make up for what it's missing or lower quality features.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2021
    DungDajHjep, joshcamas, osss and 6 others like this.
  49. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Still using URP here. I don't have any major problems but I think Unity really needs to put a proper budget / team on analysis and optimisation for it.
     
    sabojako, Kronnect and Deleted User like this.
  50. castor76

    castor76

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Posts:
    2,517
    My point exactly. Amen to this.
     
    joshcamas likes this.