Why Archviz in Unity (HDRP) feel more fake that in Unreal ?

Using similar workflow with HDRP in Unity and substance painter in both engines why in Unreal seems more real than in Unity?

Is there a tutorial that shows how to achieve the same levels of reality?

I love Unity and I want to have same results in Unity.

 

What specific issues are you having? Just saying it "seems more real" does not really tell us how to help you.

 

Probably unreal is giving you teh art directed version of their pramater by default, might actually be les real, but more "filmic", there was a thread already about that by Billy (space game kit).

 

I don't have much useful input on this topic. All I can say is that Unity scenes, while looking great and just as realistic as other engines, look a bit flattened in some way, like some lighting value has been crunched too hard. I wouldn't be surprised if it's something related to performance, but it's a shame because whenever I want to see some graphics that really pop, I always end up looking through stuff in other engines.

For me this scene from the Heretic (which is a very cool demo) should give a breathtaking sense of distance and space and just doesn't really:



Unity is the best piece of software I know. But the graphics could be better.

 

That's not graphics, that's art direction.

 

Could you post comparison screenshots ?

 

Lately Unity's demos always target the latest generation of consoles. I don't think there is a recent demo targeting PC.

 

In Unreal if you are importing the same archviz model in their FPS template it looks far more realistic than importing the same in Unity with HDRP. In Unity to achieve the same realistic feeling need a lot of effort for something that come out of the box in Unreal. I hope unity to find a way to give same results by having a template like unreal.

I prefer unity and if it could make our lives easier it would be fantastic. In arch viz I have used both and even if I have spend by far more time in Unity for tweeting all parameters I can not archive the same realism that I can get from just importing the same objects to Unreal standard FPS template.

I have seen many tutorials and I did not found even one that show how to archive same realism with unreal.

If someone has one please share a link.


Thes article below makes a comparison between the engines and descibes exactly what I want to say. I am borrowing a couple of paragraphs.

Unreal – graphics
As I mentioned, similar results CAN be achieved with both engines. However, Unreal is packed with tools, presets that really actually work right out of the box and can easily be tweaked.

Volumetric lights, Post Processing, lens flares, you name it. It’s all there, ready to be used and looks great from the moment you drop it in.



The lighting in Unreal looks much more accurate and smooth compared to Unity. When you bake the lighting with “Production Quality” it looks amazing, with very minimal but mostly no graphical glitches or strange artifacts.

Shadows have nice falloff and a polished look.

Unity – graphics
While it’s being constantly worked on and improved, unity does lack some of the polish when it comes to producing a good looking result.

You might find yourself struggling to achieve what you envisioned. It will take a bit of dedication to get there, nevertheless you can get there, but not without effort.

https://sundaysundae.co/unity-vs-unreal/

 

If OP could perhaps post a scene they've done, it would help a lot. Fact is if book of the dead and heretic are not good enough for you, then Unity is not good enough for you and that's fine.

 

I have no idea if what I've seen in other engines has been targeting anything more or less than consoles.

An example comparison of your work would be great. I could pull some pictures off the internet that blow my mind, but that wouldn't really help anyone figure out where the difference is.

 

I agree that the graphics seem less realistic than in Unreal.

Then they should change art studios for building that demos. I hate when random customers that have no idea of game engines prefer unreal's archviz output as more realistic.

For making us stick with unity they should help us to archive same results without needing to be super experts and spent tones of hours more to produce something similar in realism.

Please unity help us on that and I am sure that you will attract many archviz artists and architects. Blueprint Visual scripting is a pain in the a.... and unity has many fantastic visual tools like playmaker that artists can make all the necessary controls for archviz far easier than blueprint. If it had an easier way to archive more realistic results easier it would be the best of the best tools for archviz, visualization etc.

Another example for someone to see the difference between the engines is to see the YouTube demos of PiXYZ pluin that in its video for every engine it shows a disc brake. In unreal's video is far more realistic out of the box than in Unity's video that looks fake. This is exactly for what I am talking about and I think that unity should find an easier approach for artists as we know that the engine has the power to produce that.

 

You do not need a specific model. Just download for example a car and import it in both engines. I mean HDRP and setup similar lighting with unreal FPS template. You will see the difference straight away and even if you spend hours of testing in post processing.

I hope that you will find an easier way to archive same results with less effort for all artists. I am amazed that after so many years unity could not find a way on that.

 

So basically you just can't come to terms with different situations having different lighting requirements then?

 

perhaps their method of problem solving is like yours : Vaguely state their is some problem, wait for somebody else to do something.

post some pics. Be specific. I'm genuinely curious see exactly what you think the differences are. I'm not graphics expert but I think with some nice HDRI skyboxes you can get pretty nice results in Unity. I've been able to make it match Marmoset Toolbag pretty closely -- to me thats A-ok.

 

I love unity in every other aspect and I do not think that it can not produce same results but something is missing.

Here I am just trying to find out how all this thing can be improved and if someone can give the correct guidelines. I want to use only Unity and no other engine.

 

I will post in the following days when I will be back at the office because I am traveling for a couple of days.

A good idea would be from other people that are using both engines to upload pictures from projects that they have tested on both engines with similar lighting, textures etc.

I am not trying to complain here but to find a solution.

 

What you're asking for are essentially "sane defaults" to the lighting settings, and while I agree it would be awesome to have them at the end of the day you still need artistic skill or an artist to make a good looking game. Simply having sane defaults won't get you that far.

On a somewhat related note what's holding you back from using UE4 if it's clearly handling the lighting the way you want?

 

Why aren't you doing this?

Just repeating "less realistic" doesn't help us understand the problem that you have. What characteristics of the image are not as you wish them to be? What about Unreal's images do you wish you could replicate?

Actually, achieving "the same results" probably isn't practically possible. The engines each have their own renderers, different built in shaders, and so on. Unlike when everyone used the same fixed-function pipelines, I suspect that renderers are complex enough these days that you'd need to make a conscious and deliberate effort to replicate someone else's internal math to get "the same results".

In any case, no, just downloading a model and putting it in both Editors is not a way to demonstrate that one is superior to another. This stuff is subjective, there are hundreds or thousands of variables that impact the results, and we don't know specifically what your problem is.

For what it's worth, I've had people repeatedly ask what engine my current project is using and being surprised when we say "Unity". I'm in full agreement that it comes down to art direction rather than tools, at least with current versions of the engines in question.

 

I feel more comfortable in Unity and I like more everything else except the issue that I am discussing in that thread. I am more inspired when working in Unity and it feels less cumbersome. Many different type of cars can get you from point A to point B but some people like to drive SUVs, other city cars and other super cars. The car that I like is unity and that is the reason that I want to adapt completely in it and ditch every other engine.

The problem till now in the thread that no one gave a guideline how I can archive similar results. Do you know tutorials or other sources that someone has made same projects in both engines to find out how to adapt ?

 

I agree completely that there are differences in many aspects but do you know any source that can help me to replicate with similar results in Unity. Maybe I am missing something and I want to find a solution on that.

As I replied earlier in a couple of days I will be back to my office and I will upload images for comparison.

 

I'm not surprised, Unity graphics is amazing compared to how it was just a few years ago.

 

Car analogies are mocked for a reason. One advantage Unity has that a car doesn't is that you can purchase an asset that can greatly assist with getting what you want. I'm not going to say the following asset is a good asset, because it's not at all a good asset, but if you're not willing to learn how to properly set up lighting, can't hire an artist, and aren't willing to use a different engine, then this is your only choice. Just be aware it's an absolute headache to remove once you start using it.

https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/tools/utilities/lighting-box-2-built-in-hd-lightweight-93057

 

At least for me, Unity's interface is just way better than any other engine I've tried. The no-fluff, no-whiz-bang editor and the ability to easily extend it really sell me.

I feel pretty much the same way as the OP. I like pretty much everything about Unity better, except that the graphics lags a bit behind. I'm sorely tempted sometimes to go to town in Unreal but graphics is not the only thing that I need to take into account.

 

I already have it I used it in some projects but now I am not using it. It is a nice tool for a person that is completely new to the engine or does not like to dig more in the settings.

The creator of that plugin has many tutorials in YouTube for archviz and made some conversion from unreal to unity but they are not well documented to make you understand how he archived that.

 

We are in the same boat.

The thing that make me furious is that some people they are trying to defend unity without reason. I love unity and I want to stick with it. I need help to archive almost the same quality. Maybe someone from unity can help me and all the other people that can understand for what I am talking about.

 

I see, I had thought you were still evaluating and had decided. In the case of correct guidelines, they are simply:
1. get up to speed with 2019.1 latest beta + hdrp 5.10 or greater (I can only mention what is working for me)
2. use hdr skyboxes
3. check the docs link in package manager for HDRP (it does something now)

Ultimately, HDRP is a properly calibrated phyical renderer and is tested against ground truth all through development, so if you cannot match a specific arch viz scenario it will be because of a wip part such as exposure being all over the place, and GI not being worth a damn, things that are not necessarily the responsibility of the HDRP team.

But having said that, my game looks amazing, Heretic looks amazing, so obviously even with broken bits, HDRP is headed to a very special place. I love it, I don't have interest looking at other engines.

Even with these problems you can still get to the correct look you want just tweaking 2 things: sky exposure and overall exposure. I am using 120000 as my default sun brightness.

These should be clues that something might be off in your setup.

 

(have added feedback and SRP tags, also in case no-one mentioned it, HDRP is still mid-development and although they have said production ready in 2019.3 I am sure it will improve more and more with time)

 

I would like to thank you for your feedback.

After I will get back to office in a couple of days I will try 2019 beta and your recommendations to see if I can archive the results that I am wishing.

Any feed back that will guide me to take the correct path is very helpful.

For my work is a bit trickier the whole situation as visualizations must be as real as possible that is the reason why I need desperately similar results with unreal as most competitors are using unreal.

 

UNITY STILL HASN'T FIXED ITS CHEAP DEFAULT LOW MIPMAPS BIAS IMPLEMENTION?!

WOW!

All this work into the HDRP pipeline and they still haven't fixed pretty much one of the greatest killers of high distance image scale perception.

That 3D image for no surprise looks like a Matte Painting. Your eyes are not wrong Billy.

Here OP, try this script:
https://forum.unity.com/threads/how...in-unity-enlighten.471528/page-8#post-3090248

I don't know if it still works, but know the problem is low mipmap bias that as Billy says crunches textures in a really cheap way to save performance and ends up crushing all of the texture quality when they are really far away.

I used to mitigate it with the Kaiser texture mipmapping but the sharpness is too excessive so I just started to use an asset called Beautify.
https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/vfx/shaders/fullscreen-camera-effects/beautify-61730

But all of that should be unnecessary if you adjust the Mipmap bias manually through a script plus giving you more control.

After those 'Unity Legacy default image degradation' natural quirks are solved, using the proper high quality assets and post-processing you should have no trouble getting the same quality as Unreal Engine. Performance has always been the problem with Unity, not image quality, and it is the reason for the late excitement on the performance by default initiative.
There will be no reason to look at Unreal and its cumbersome scripting system.

EDIT: That MipMap script is broken. It won't do anything.
But the asset Beautify could still help you.

 

Well they could start by reducing the anti-alias in the demos to rational levels. At the moment it's hosing the details into oblivion, so I can't really judge texture quality levels.

I'm not sure it has anything to do with texture quality though.

 

It is not a texture quality issue per se even if 'it is associated with textures'.

Mipmaps lack of consistency as depth increases results in that image flatness you perceive.
The detail of objects closer to the camera does not blend organically with the one of those in the background resulting in an inconsistent image. It is subtle in isolation but its effect on the image as a whole causes it to alter its whole perception.

 

I don't think it is a question of detail, although in terms of crispness it's certainly a factor. But textureless geometry can look fantastically real and attractive with good reflection maps, occlusion and general lighting quality.

In any case, here is the difference between Unity vs the sort of appearance I'm looking for. Note that Unity looks very realistic mostly due to fantastic artwork, but some lighting values are getting wrecked at some point, and the sense of space and distance along with it.

Spoiler

Here's another one:

Spoiler

One thing that I really don't understand is why none of Unity's demos seem to be aimed at creating the kind of scene you would expect in an ultra-beautiful AAA game like Battlefront, or the comparison pics I posted above. Rather, they are these heavily, heavily processed filmic sequences that might belong in an indie film but are completely out of place for a game setting where the environment needs to be cinematically 'realistic' but also very readable.

Are most people using Unity making films? I very much doubt it. Which of the above aesthetics would gamers prefer in a game? I don't think there's much of a question. I don't know what Unity are shooting for.

 

Hmm, whole thread of rambling, and stil no single simple comparison of two scenes, for which OP want to compare against.

Knowing the saying
"picture is worth more than thousands words"

 

@Billy4184 megacity is unfair comparison, as its goal is complete different from being realistic. Is ECS tech show case, made in two weeks if I am correct. Tunnels examples are also completely different to each other. Artist may had different concept in mind, to showcase.

 

I think it's fairer to say the current realtime GI in unity isn't really pulling it's weight. I can't even get it to look right with HDRP.

 

There's always a rationale for anything, but the reality is that since Unity 5 came out I have not seen Unity (or anyone working in Unity) produce something that looks like what I posted above. I have seen tons of it in other engines, as well as all sorts of AAA games since 2015.

Unity graphics have improved a LOT recently but I think they have a ways to go, and I would like to see some demos that aim to look like a next-gen game and not some kind of indie film.

In fact, why not produce a demo that you can play?

 

Following post is my personal view on things ...

I mean look for example FPS sample. I like it how it looks like. For artistic style. Don't have to be super realistic, with addition reflections, refraction, depth, light, attenuation etc. Just make it playable and fun.
https://unity.com/fps-sample

Spoiler

Personally I don't care about super "realistic" graphics, as long is interesting to play. And I know, I am not alone on that boat.

If game is generic, then is generic. If someone makes same game as other competition, slightly enhanced graphic won't make a significant cut. In the end, only playable version and dev with resources for advertising will make it stand out.

Then we have Adam series
https://blogs.unity3d.com/2017/01/11/adam-step-by-step/

Spoiler

I love it personally for execution and the story. Is not a game, but is possible.

Any 'missing' aspects, our brain will play trickster and will auto fill it up.
In the end, major web reviews about made game, won't be about graphics, but about gameplay.

And we have future tech coming as well, if relevant to the topic.

Spoiler

 

That ray tracing looks very cool!

The FPS project really looks great, I think the artwork is great and it's very close to my style of 'realism' for games. Yet it does not contradict my point, in that there is some strange dulling and flattening going on in Unity.

Spoiler

This is Unity's FPS project:



And this is what I'd like to see:

I just hope Unity keep up their current fast pace of improvement and get there soon!

 

I think there is enabled bloom shader, making game look hazy dreamy like, hence it looses sharpness.
Don't know however, if is intentional, or it is side effect.

 

Nvidia's RTX demo using Unity looks very realistic. Check https://unity.com/ray-tracing
Experimental HDRP build will be available on GitHub on April 4 (Tomorrow) mentioned in the above link!

 

I had seen someone complain about the "black" in that demo which clearly tell (to their eyes) what was the fake car. I think billy is on something, I just can't tell what exactly for some reason, but I haven't spend time looking deeply, I have already so many thing to chase and are unfinished ...

 

The screenshots that you are comparing are pretty much what I refer to.
The mix of blurry anti-aliasing on textures that are already blurry themselves pretty much destroys all image quality consistency reducing its sense of depth due to lighting being inaccurately distributed in a 3D world that inconsistently degrades texture detail as depth is increased.
I was expecting the HDRP to fix it but there it is still rearing its ugly face in full force.

But you are not wrong: Unity IQ is still very blurry by default. Final Image lacks sharpness. Anyone who cannot notice it needs better eyes or a better display.

 

Can someone post some actual real comparisons instead of subjective comments about what basically boils down to contrast?

 

https://luxxlabs.com/unreal-engine-4-14-awesome-update-vr/

 

Spoiler: RTX

.. ..

 

Okay imma at work now, but ...

You can check contrast objectively by suing a high pass filter, the intensity of the resulting line, tells you the strength of contrast.

Actually in the "wild west" image comparison, unity has bigger contrast, but they are not well distributed... so it's technically sharper while not feeling that way subjectively. The other image is just greatly visually balance.

i'll check if I see something about the black to, they look weird in all unity's.

 

Using free low quality assets. High quality ones would make the result much more obvious, but you should see how even low quality textures get affected so the effect is that bad.

Linear Space.
No AA.
16x AF trilinear.

Box MipMapping.


Kaiser MipMapping.


Box vs Kaiser.




Notice how the big scaled tower in the back has the same detail as the one at the front. It is only depth the one playing a role in the mipmapping algorithms (which is intended).
And while Kaiser is extra sharp and for that reason unmanageable in a production, Box is unnecessarily extra blurry.
Unity needs to find a balance in how the engine handles its texture mipmapping.

 

I think you are skimming over just how important GI is for this. It's not just bounce, it's also the absence of bounce (this will enable you to have for example, an outhouse in a sunny environment but be dark inside that) - it's usually the contrast missing from most scenes. ACES will give strong blacks and not clip white. From there you barely need any grading because it's right by default.

The issue with HDRP is it really does depend on GI, it's not optional if you want a realistic image.

Current Unity GI solution (enlighten) is good for builtin renderer and also good for small environments. If you modify the sky or something though in HDRP it will look wrong (possibly lighting temperature) and just give you 50+ms spikes while it suffers GPU readback for no reason whatsoever.... as if async is a meaningless buzzword.

I get HDRP isn't due until 2019.3 but issues like this, they're ugly and don't help people formulate good opinions of HDRP.

Spoiler: Realtime open world GI 0.6ms on regular console hardware at 4k res

(I would prefer 0.6ms 4k res open world full realtime GI for existing consoles like what was demonstrated at GDC. This does not not need RTX and isn't running on RTX but we can all dream, haha!)

 

Days since the last unity vs unreal graphics contest: [ 0 ]

 

The reason Unity lighting comes across as FLAT is because LIGHTMAPS ARE TEXTURES and they are currently being affected by the texture detail depth crunching issue aforementioned before.

There is a reason Sonic Ether GI just looks so good: it is realtime, not dependant on the pre-baked lightmaps the current Enlighten hybrid relies on.