Support NeoGAF

[IntentionalPun]

Money is involved between Sony and U5 and certain customization must have been made a year ago if direct storage API was not available correct?

No, because nothing in the demo requires super fast I/O... as stated by the developers... there is no need for DirectStorage for UE5.

You just keep repeating falsehoods that only Tim Sweeney has mislead people on, while his developers keep telling people it's not true (and trying to be careful not to outright call their boss a liar.)

No one at Epic ever said every single surface had a bunch of 8K textures either.. they mentioned that for one model.. and the dev said that the PS5 demo actually had less texture data overall than the PC demo.. which clocks in at roughly 20GB.. they both had similar geometry data... there is zero reason to believe that any section of the PS5 demo required super fast I/O, aside from the fact the developer outright stated it. Even w/ compression there still isn't enough data for anything in that demo to require the insane speeds that the PS5 can reach.

The fast I/O on PS5 does help alleviate for a lack of total RAM.. but a PC doesn't have that issue, as you can use the system RAM as a cache.. and then feed it from your I/O... while feeding data into the GPU from system RAM.

 

[Papacheeks]

No, because nothing in the demo requires super fast I/O... as stated by the developers.

You just keep repeating falsehoods that only Tim Sweeney has mislead people on, while his developers keep telling people it's not true (and trying to be careful not to outright call their boss a liar.)

No one at Epic ever said every single surface had a bunch of 8K textures either.. they mentioned that for one model.. and the dev said that the PS5 demo actually had less texture data overall than the PC demo.. which clocks in at roughly 20GB.. they both had similar geometry data... there is zero reason to believe that any section of the PS5 demo required super fast I/O, aside from the fact the developer outright stated it.

They are not "playing" the demo. Do you understand why m saying? They literally have U5 the engine/application open with the demo loaded within it in edit mode?

It act differently than a compiled demo on a disc running on a console/pc.

You understand what I'm saying? When they play a demo or a master off of a final devkit/console it's not loading unreal engine the application in the background.

It's running commands set that tell in sequence what to load how to load and all the compiled scripts and game code which holds the the frame work of everything that runs under it.

 

[IntentionalPun]

They are not "playing" the demo. Do you understand why m saying? They literally have U5 the engine/application open with the demo loaded within it in edit mode?

It act differently than a compiled demo on a disc running on a console/pc.

You understand what I'm saying? When they play a demo or a master off of a final devkit/console it's not loading unreal engine the application in the background.

It's running commands set that tell in sequence what to load how to load and all the compiled scripts and game code which holds the the frame work of everything that runs under it.

I understand everything you are saying.

This seems pointless as you aren't addressing what I'm saying. The developer didn't say "this demo won't load in the engine", that's not even a PS5 specific concept.. Unreal Engine tools don't run on PS5.. so when he says there's nothing in the demo that required PS5 I/O, he clearly wasn't talking about "in the editor."

He's talking about how the demo would play on a PC. It would work fine.. because nothing in the demo requires crazy fast I/O. It's literally around 20GB... do the math lol

 

[MightySquirrel]

Why do some guys here think they're somehow more credible than the developer himself who said new demo is more demanding than last years ps5 showing?

Is that particular dev known for his crazy takes like say Tim? I'm genuinely confused. What's happening?

 

[MightySquirrel]

Basically everyone who's actually reviewed the game including Digital Foundry. But mainly talking about compared to PS4 currently but right now Direct storage isn't available.

Only possible on PS5 you guys !

The PC this game was made on can't run this at more than 3 fps !

 

[CurtBizzy]

 

[Hoddi]

So in how it's being run on a PC in edit mode, is not the same as a specific set of hardware with a unique I/O setup currently with Ratchet doing things that can't be done "yet" on other platforms. Unless their wording specifically in the 2020 was off, they were specific in talking about the I/O.

Thats what I want to see on PC.

If you're curious to see the disk data rate then I've made a quick video of it here below. You'll find it under the 660p heading on the upper left.

In short, the demo showed a maximum read speed of ~385MB/s during the load between worlds and a total of ~8GB read from disk over the course of this demo.

 

[PaintTinJr]

...

No one at Epic ever said every single surface had a bunch of 8K textures either.. they mentioned that for one model.. ...

It is inferred by Brian in the unrealfest videos by him talking about the warrior model's 8K texturing and then saying everything in the scene is modelled to the same detail level. So it does seem more like it is rendered fully with 8K texture maps, than not in the first demo IMO.

 

[IntentionalPun]

It is inferred by Brian in the unrealfest videos by him talking about the warrior model's 8K texturing and then saying everything in the scene is modelled to the same detail level. So it does seem more like it is rendered fully with 8K texture maps, than not in the first demo IMO.

Yeah the post above yours also has a video clip of someone saying it.

Thing is, they also said the texture data is less than the Valley of the Ancient demo... which was somewhere under 15GB total on disk..

And again, they just keep re-iterating that UE5 doesn't require any insanely fast I/O, and even specifically the Valley of the Ancient demos didn't require it.. it's designed for SSD, not 5.5GB/second NVME w/ advanced decompression.

They said Tim Sweeney's comments were misleading, and were really only in regards to comparisons to the 5400RPM drives of last gen consoles.

I stand corrected on that very specific part of one post... but you guys are just ignoring like 99% of what I'm saying lol

edit: Point being.. why does anyone think the texturing in the Lumen in the Land of Nanite demo is not 8k? Did they say that?

 

[staticshock]

Bo_Hazem

Nanite rendering over 20 million triangles in the Valley of the ancient demo

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

edit: this thread run its course.

Literally see dual sense, playstation button prompts all over in the demo. So unless they are faking it, it's running on PS5. You can't fake currently Dual sense on PC. Support isn't live yet for PC. And I doubt it was when they filmed this in March of 2020.

I can literally show any controller on screen.... From in game options. No mods needed....

 

[PaintTinJr]

Yeah the post above yours also has a video clip.

Thing is, they also said the texture data is less than the Land of Nanite demo... which was somewhere under 15GB total on disk..

And again, they just keep re-iterating that UE5 doesn't require any insanely fast I/O, and even specifically the Valley of the Ancient demos didn't require it.. it's designed for SSD, not 5.5GB/second NVME w/ advanced decompression.

They said Tim Sweeney's comments were misleading, and were really only in regards to comparisons to the 5400RPM drives of last gen consoles.

What you are saying is true, but it risks implying that the PS5 IO (and the low latency) won't benefit nanite and lumen in the future use, even in comparison to a PC with large ram and VRAM - which I don't believe is true.

Given that nanite is essentially working as a clipmap for geometry, the PS5's IO allows them to massively reduce the memory footprint of that clipmap and also to get lower latency to data for the GPU, and therefore keeping the highest nanite clusters available to the GPU without the memory footprint compared to PC, which for latency is a RAM to VRAM transfer away, until such times as PC GPUs have orders more VRAM.

From that scenario it sounds like the IO merely saves on RAM, but it actually saves on bandwidth too by then having maybe as much as 14GBs free unified ram to store all the dynamic traditional geometry for conventional rendering/ hw RT for the foreground stuff like Echo, which means more space for redundant data per frame, meaning less to recalculate per frame.

If using slower SSD without 9 cores of decompression on PC it costs them an extra 6GB of RAM and 6GB of VRAM at this early stage to use nanite/lumen, then the IO complex is still a much better solution IMHO, but that still doesn't make it a required solution by PC for UE5, just a solution they should gravitate towards.

 

[IntentionalPun]

What you are saying is true, but it risks implying that the PS5 IO (and the low latency) won't benefit nanite and lumen in the future use, even in comparison to a PC with large ram and VRAM - which I don't believe is true.

Given that nanite is essentially working as a clipmap for geometry, the PS5's IO allows them to massively reduce the memory footprint of that clipmap and also to get lower latency to data for the GPU, and therefore keeping the highest nanite clusters available to the GPU without the memory footprint compared to PC, which for latency is a RAM to VRAM transfer away, until such times as PC GPUs have orders more VRAM.

From that scenario it sounds like the IO merely saves on RAM, but it actually saves on bandwidth too by then having maybe as much as 14GBs free unified ram to store all the dynamic traditional geometry for conventional rendering/ hw RT for the foreground stuff like Echo, which means more space for redundant data per frame, meaning less to recalculate per frame.

If using slower SSD without 9 cores of decompression on PC it costs them an extra 6GB of RAM and 6GB of VRAM at this early stage to use nanite/lumen, then the IO complex is still a much better solution IMHO, but that still doesn't make it a required solution by PC for UE5, just a solution they should gravitate towards.

PCs will have DirectStorage before the actual Engine is even generally available to developers.. let alone games coming out with it.

The demo released for PC uses like 12GB of total RAM across system and V-RAM... and uses like 5% of a decent CPU too.

The idea that games will utilize insane I/O for detail is just illogical in the first place.. as requiring insane I/O for detail, would require insane amounts of disk space. Even if you could compress at 3x's the rate, that doesn't suddenly enable games to often take advantage of 100x's the I/O.. without inflating games by a huge amount.

As it stands, this demo using 20GB of disk space for a small area is already likely too large for a game to utilize.. and it is also doing streaming from disk, without DirectStorage.

The PS5 I/O is awesome.. and I think it, and other techs, will allow devs a lot of freedom.. but we are going to be limited by the size of games for quite some time. PS5 exclusives might have specific scenes they build around I/O, but they'll be limited.. and those scenes will utilize more disk space than is reasonable for a game as a whole.

But nothing we saw from UE5 was pushing I/O beyond a regular SSD even.. and an HDD could utilize RAM as a cache.

 

[Dr Bass]

Only possible on PS5 you guys !

The PC this game was made on can't run this at more than 3 fps !

Your constant use of this picture in light of what the game actually looks like makes you look like a really weird dude.

 

[PaintTinJr]

PCs will have DirectStorage before the actual Engine is even generally available to developers.. let alone games coming out with it.

The demo released for PC uses like 12GB of total RAM across system and V-RAM... and uses like 5% of a decent CPU too.

The idea that games will utilize insane I/O for detail is just illogical in the first place.. as requiring insane I/O for detail, would require insane amounts of disk space.

As it stands, this demo using 20GB of disk space for a small area is already likely too large for a game to utilize.. and it is also doing streaming from disk.

The PS5 I/O is awesome.. and I think it, and other techs, will allow devs a lot of freedom.. but we are going to be limited by the size of games for quite some time.

But nothing we saw from UE5 was pushing I/O beyond a regular SSD even.. and an HDD could utilize RAM as a cache.

But the PS5 geometry cache was only 768MB for that constant 5-20M nanite cluster triangles on screen all the time, so maybe the PS5 was streaming - as a self made problem to reduce memory - which compared to 6.14GB, is a huge saving of a vital ram resource on a console for background geometry - and it never streamed the clusters late, neither from what we saw in the UE5 first demo.

If the PS5 is saving the same with nanite's virtual texturing, too then the GPU is going to feel like it has limitless VRAM for foreground rendering on PS5, which would be a major win.

 

[IntentionalPun]

But the PS5 geometry cache was only 768MB for that constant 5-20M nanite cluster triangles on screen all the time, so maybe the PS5 was streaming - as a self made problem to reduce memory - which compared to 6.14GB, is a huge saving of a vital ram resource on a console for background geometry - and it never streamed the clusters late, neither from what we saw in the UE5 first demo.

If the PS5 is saving the same with nanite's virtual texturing, too then the GPU is going to feel like it has limitless VRAM for foreground rendering on PS5, which would be a major win.

The entire demo's geometry was around 6GB.

I'm not saying it wasn't streaming.. it's just illogical to think it needed 5.5GB/second RAW... and, again.. the devs, have said, it didn't lol

 

[Dr Bass]

The entire demo's geometry was around 6GB.

I'm not saying it wasn't streaming.. it's just illogical to think it needed 5.5GB/second RAW... and, again.. the devs, have said, it didn't lol

The speed requirement for what they did on PS5 is much more likely related to latency and not bandwidth. They aren't the same thing at all.

Why are you so insistent on trying to tear down what Epic has said about the original demo? The PS5 is a great piece of hardware. Oh no.

Side note: PCs and XSX are great as well. Again, oh no!

 

[IntentionalPun]

The speed requirement for what they did on PS5 is much more likely related to latency and not bandwidth.

Why are you so insistent on trying to tear down what Epic has said about the original demo? The PS5 is a great piece of hardware. Oh no.

Side note: PCs and XSX are great as well. Again, oh no!

I'm talking about what they have in fact said about the demo.. which is that it doesn't require fast I/O. I'm not tearing anything they've said down, I'm talking about what they've said recently.

I think the PS5 is an amazing piece of hardware.. I have 2 of them.. and said in this thread how great it is.

We are talking about what UE5 needed for that demo though.. there's no reason to get defensive or roll your eyes. They said recently it was a misconception that that demo, specifically, needed some crazy fast I/O.

 

[PaintTinJr]

The entire demo's geometry was around 6GB.

I'm not saying it wasn't streaming.. it's just illogical to think it needed 5.5GB/second RAW... and, again.. the devs, have said, it didn't lol

The engine doesn't need it, the PS5 running the engine might need it, and it is completely logical, because a game's static mesh background is semantically a skybox, so you want it looking amazing, but you want it cheap on processing and cheap on memory footprint. I'd speculate that's what the IO complex does for the PS5. On PC it isn't cheap on memory, and probably having clusters 6 frames late - because of directstorage best case latency - probably would be good enough to reach the widest PC user base to sell UE5 based games.

 

[SLB1904]

I can literally show any controller on screen.... From in game options. No mods needed....

 

[IntentionalPun]

The engine doesn't need it, the PS5 running the engine might need it, and it is completely logical, because a game's static mesh background is semantically a skybox, so you want it looking amazing, but you want it cheap on processing and cheap on memory footprint. I'd speculate that's what the IO complex does for the PS5. On PC it isn't cheap on memory, and probably having clusters 6 frames late - because of directstorage best case latency - probably would be good enough to reach the widest PC user base to sell UE5 based games.

Where are you getting your directstorage latency numbers you keep throwing around? And beyond that, where are you getting the PS5s?

 

[Dr Bass]

I'm talking about what they have in fact said about the demo.. which is that it doesn't require fast I/O. I'm not tearing anything they've said down, I'm talking about what they've said recently.

I think the PS5 is an amazing piece of hardware.. I have 2 of them.. and said in this thread how great it is.

We are talking about what UE5 needed for that demo though.. there's no reason to get defensive or roll your eyes. They said recently it was a misconception that that demo, specifically, needed some crazy fast I/O.

Couldn't have been a "misconception" since they came out and stated that FIRST demo was not possible without the speed of the I/O on PS5, and the reason was the ability to load data in at frame by frame basis based on what was coming into the view in the game. I remember that very, very clearly, and I also remember how many people simply didn't get that point and they started talking about the SSD as "secret sauce" in terms of rendering something on screen, when that wasn't what they said at all. Even Richard Leadbetter (or whatever his name is) at DF didn't understand their point as he went on some video saying "I don't see how an SSD is going to help you with rendering." Talk about being a doofus when that's supposed to be your job.

Also the most recent demo seemed pretty barren compared to the first one, and it takes a ton of RAM right? That would line up with the SSD needs for what they explained in the original demo, but admittedly, I am not following things that closely because I simply don't care that much.

But yeah ok, Epic lied, PS5 sucks, the SSD is a total waste of engineering resources even though game developers are constantly singing the praises of it and it has no practical application in game development, DirectStorage is going to come out and be better than anything on the planet and every PC is going to have it from Day 1, and it will be able to be used on every PC game. BTW, if the PS5 SSD truly doesn't help with game design ... why the need for DirectStorage, and why are people who are downplaying the PS5 looking forward to it?

I'm not defensive btw, I think a lot of what I'm seeing on this board lately is stupid. I'm rolling my eyes at the stupidity of it all. Very different.

All of this "but the game isn't that good because of XYZ" panicking is getting old.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Couldn't have been a "misconception" since they came out and stated that FIRST demo was not possible without the speed of the I/O on PS5, and the reason was the ability to load data in at frame by frame basis based on what was coming into the view in the game. I remember that very, very clearly, and I also remember how many people simply didn't get that point and they started talking about the SSD as "secret sauce" in terms of rendering something on screen, when that wasn't what they said at all. Even Richard Leadbetter (or whatever his name is) at DF didn't understand their point as he went on some video saying "I don't see how an SSD is going to help you with rendering." Talk about being a doofus when that's supposed to be your job.

Also the most recent demo seemed pretty barren compared to the first one, and it takes a ton of RAM right? That would line up with the SSD needs for what they explained in the original demo, but admittedly, I am not following things that closely because I simply don't care that much.

But yeah ok, Epic lied, PS5 sucks, the SSD is a total waste of engineering resources even though game developers are constantly singing the praises of it and it has no practical application in game development, DirectStorage is going to come out and be better than anything on the planet and every PC is going to have it from Day 1, and it will be able to be used on every PC game. BTW, if the PS5 SSD truly doesn't help with game design ... why the need for DirectStorage, and why are people who are downplaying the PS5 looking forward to it?

I'm not defensive btw, I think a lot of what I'm seeing on this board lately is stupid. I'm rolling my eyes at the stupidity of it all. Very different.

All of this "but the game isn't that good because of XYZ" panicking is getting old.

I'm not talking about the recent demo.. I'm talking about the PS5 demo, which the developers recently did a video on. Which.. is what ... this very thread, is about lol Their devs LITERALLY said on a forum, that Tim Sweeney's comments were a bit misleading.

Always best to not call people stupid. " am not following things that closely because I simply don't care that much"... hmmm lol And no, it doesn't take a ton of RAM.. that demo also has more texture data than the PS5 demo, as stated by the devs, and roughly the same amount of geometry data. As stated by the devs.

"rolls eyes"

"But yeah ok, Epic lied, PS5 sucks, the SSD is a total waste of engineering resources even though game developers are constantly singing the praises of it and it has no practical application in game development".... "I'm not defensive btw, "".... good fucking grief dude lol Nobody said anything remotely like this.

Maybe let the adults have a conversation... and perhaps avoid commenting at all on a topic you aren't really following, let alone call people stupid over what they are saying.

 

[MightySquirrel]

Your constant use of this picture in light of what the game actually looks like makes you look like a really weird dude.

It's just a simple screenshot showing how the game really looks. I'm not the one who brought Rachety to this thread ! Say thanks to your friend.

Heres another one for your enjoyment brought to you by the power of SSD:

 

[IntentionalPun]

Here you go Dr Bass , this is an employee at Epic calling Tim Sweeney's comments about the PS5 demo, "misleading", they've elsewhere used the words "misconception" (on Twitter IIRC), I was quite literally paraphrasing them. (the thread contains some statements from Sweeney that aren't in the screenshots)

He's being pretty careful not to be too critical of Sweeney's statements, but he honestly seemed unaware of them.. and he uses the term "marketing" in that response.. sort of hinting that Sweeney was hyping a bit, which is fine.. but it's just.. Sweeney. I mean he also sold part of his company to Sony right around the time of this demo, he's not going to NOT hype the PS5 lol

He's also generally commenting on the lack of a need for even DirectStorage level low latency in that same thread.. and he's sort of impatient with the fact that people aren't understanding that the entire point of the video, that this thread is about, was to show off how it absolutely doesn't require anything like that.. and again, this is about the demo from the PS5 reveal last year.

And again.. none of this is me calling the PS5 crap... it's just.. the I/O of the PS5 is not required for what was demo'd last year.. this is Epic saying it just requires a modern SSD (and doesn't require the I/O complex, or DirectStorage, or any of that.)

That demo was not processing data quickly enough to need all of that.

PS5 is an awesome piece of hardware, with capabilities today that a PC can't match w/o unreleased APIs.. no one is saying it doesn't. It's just that the UE5 demo wasn't really requiring that. It's also just illogical that games will be able to use it for some constantly massive detail level.. it can be used for other things like quickly loading a variety of assets though.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Here's another comment from Brian, the principle architect of Nanite about it:



And considering Andrew's comments.. he's not talking about the straight from SSD to GPU "low latency" offered by next-gen consoles and eventually DirectStorage, he's just talking about how SSDs have virtually no latency form a direct I/O perspective.

The PS5 has insane capabilities.. and basically can have devs completely forget about their data needs, outside of size on disk (and great improvements there too w/ advanced compression.) It was, and still is ahead of it's time. It's also not something anything shown from UE5 required.

 

[Hoddi]

But the PS5 geometry cache was only 768MB for that constant 5-20M nanite cluster triangles on screen all the time, so maybe the PS5 was streaming - as a self made problem to reduce memory - which compared to 6.14GB, is a huge saving of a vital ram resource on a console for background geometry - and it never streamed the clusters late, neither from what we saw in the UE5 first demo.

If the PS5 is saving the same with nanite's virtual texturing, too then the GPU is going to feel like it has limitless VRAM for foreground rendering on PS5, which would be a major win.

FWIW, it's fairly trivial to run this demo through RenderDoc to see how much texture and geometry data is in a frame. I'd already posted that in a different thread but you can see the results here.

The raw geometry is represented by the index and vertex buffers (IBs/VBs) in that screenshot which are only about 130 megabytes. Textures then consume another 1.7GB with the remainder being the various buffers and render targets that comprise the scene. Those cannot be accelerated by having a faster SSD because they're constructed after leaving the IO subsystem and reside only in memory.

It's not that the demo isn't IO intensive because you'll definitely want an SSD to run it. But even SATA SSDs seem quite fast enough and I don't see how a quicker drive would reduce the memory usage since it's mostly made up of buffers.

 

[PaintTinJr]

FWIW, it's fairly trivial to run this demo through RenderDoc to see how much texture and geometry data is in a frame. I'd already posted that in a different thread but you can see the results here.

The raw geometry is represented by the index and vertex buffers (IBs/VBs) in that screenshot which are only about 130 megabytes. Textures then consume another 1.7GB with the remainder being the various buffers and render targets that comprise the scene. Those cannot be accelerated by having a faster SSD because they're constructed after leaving the IO subsystem and reside only in memory.

It's not that the demo isn't IO intensive because you'll definitely want an SSD to run it. But even SATA SSDs seem quite fast enough and I don't see how a quicker drive would reduce the memory usage since it's mostly made up of buffers.

But how is RenderDoc going to tell us anything about "nanite" geometry - rather than the small amount of traditional primitive geometry that is used for echo in that demo?

edit: nanite is a software renderer running in the fragment buffer AFAIK (from the info given), so the source info is most likely all taken from texture data. Without RenderDoc having prior knowledge of nanite's software renderer, how would it give any meaningful info, in the way it does about standard graphics API calls?

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Off topic, but these (cherry picked?) underwhelming Ratchet screenshots just show how much the game would profit off raytraced global illumination. We need more power!

 

[PaintTinJr]

Where are you getting your directstorage latency numbers you keep throwing around? And beyond that, where are you getting the PS5s?

It was from Microsoft's 20x latency improvement over HDD claim with XVA reveal, and PS5's 100x improvement in Road to PS5 slide - and backed up by Tim saying that the storage solution on PS5 is best in class industry leading - even the need for 10% of a CPU core on the XVA solution/RTX IO is a latency overhead, and would result in 10% of the time, the XsX/XsS accessing the slower memory of those consoles, because the CPU only accesses the slower part, and any core decompressing to RAM will be blocking access to the higher memory AFAIK

RTX IO's reveal showed it is the same solution - for directStorage in partnership with Microsoft - as the XsX's XVA storage solution, and so has the same latency characteristic, just with greater decompression rate.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Bo_Hazem

Nanite rendering over 20 million triangles in the Valley of the ancient demo

Yes, seen the video on the OP, it reaches 23-6M depending on the scene. Impressive.

 

[Darlingcognito]

Never known a more delusional fan base.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Never known a more delusional fan base.

Seriously though, These warriors want you to believe whatever they have in stock. People like the paint dude will trying and have you believe something that doesn't even exist.

 

[SatansReverence]

Bo_Hazem Dare to explain?

I would be more interested in Gafs local TSMC engineer who has for the last 12 months been telling everyone that UE5 was impossible on anything but a PS5 to explain.

 

[SLB1904]

Seriously though, These warriors want you to believe whatever they have in stock. People like the paint dude will trying and have you believe something that doesn't even exist.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Seriously though, These warriors want you to believe whatever they have in stock. People like the paint dude will trying and have you believe something that doesn't even exist.

So Brain and Tim are both liars, now in your opinion, because they've corroborated what each have said, yes? you technically know better, yes?

I said a while back, that the both sets of comments (by Tim and Brian's team)don't have to contradict each other to be true. Ps5's IO can still be the best way to stream data for an UE5 solution with lowest latency, memory footprint, without meaning that it won't work on others - at greater memory use & latency, and with slower, cluster updates that are there but hard to see.

You only need look at the original clipmaps paper and then look at Rage's bespoke technique built on top of that algorithm which works perfectly well in less than 512MB on both PS3/360, to realise that doesn't invalidate better storage/decompression systems.

You can continue to look past what cutting edge hardware in a budget £450 console can do, and how it maps to the highly technical stuff that Brain's team are discussing -which is fine if it is beyond your comprehension - and play the "PC" is always better card from you implied made up universe - where most PCs don't have 1060/1070 class GPU or less, like the steam survey at a glance suggests, and where you probably think every PC has an enterprise RAID of latest nvme drives to decompress data with a 24 core overclocked threadripper and 3x RTX 3090 in SLI mode with 72GB of VRAM combined, and 128GB RAM on the motherboard. But the harsh reality is - and I hate saying this, as it is a huge product mistake - the XsS will be on par or better than most gaming PCs at running UE5.

edit: IntentionalPun sorry hadn't meant to quote/tag you, I was just grabbing the tweet from you and forgot to remove the link from your the quotes

 

[staticshock]

So Brain and Tim are both liars, now in your opinion, because they've corroborated what each have said, yes? you technically know better, yes?

I said a while back, that the both sets of comments (by Tim and Brian's team)don't have to contradict each other to be true. Ps5's IO can still be the best way to stream data for an UE5 solution with lowest latency, memory footprint, without meaning that it won't work on others - at greater memory use & latency, and with slower, cluster updates that are there but hard to see.

You only need look at the original clipmaps paper and then look at Rage's bespoke technique built on top of that algorithm which works perfectly well in less than 512MB on both PS3/360, to realise that doesn't invalidate better storage/decompression systems.

You can continue to look past what cutting edge hardware in a budget £450 console can do, and how it maps to the highly technical stuff that Brain's team are discussing -which is fine if it is beyond your comprehension - and play the "PC" is always better card from you implied made up universe - where most PCs don't have 1060/1070 class GPU or less, like the steam survey at a glance suggests, and where you probably think every PC has an enterprise RAID of latest nvme drives to decompress data with a 24 core overclocked threadripper and 3x RTX 3090 in SLI mode with 72GB of VRAM combined, and 128GB RAM on the motherboard. But the harsh reality is - and I hate saying this, as it is a huge product mistake - the XsS will be on par or better than most gaming PCs at running UE5.

But the PS5 geometry cache was only 768MB for that constant 5-20M nanite cluster triangles on screen all the time, so maybe the PS5 was streaming - as a self made problem to reduce memory - which compared to 6.14GB, is a huge saving of a vital ram resource on a console for background geometry - and it never streamed the clusters late, neither from what we saw in the UE5 first demo.

If the PS5 is saving the same with nanite's virtual texturing, too then the GPU is going to feel like it has limitless VRAM for foreground rendering on PS5, which would be a major win.

Dude Brain Karis the creator of Nanite said Valley of the ancient (a project of acouple weeks with acouple developers) is more taxing and less optimized than Lumen in the land of Nanite (years long project with hundreds of developers spanning multiple teams and companies).
Valley of the ancient used more texture data than lumen in the land of Nanite.
Lumen in the land of Nanite uses only 6.14 GB of nanite data, Valley of the ancient a bit less.
Valley of the ancient only needs 3 GB RAM and 4GB VRAM usage.

End result is Lumen in the land of nanite has less performance requirement than valley of the ancient, not more.
No need for super fast SSD, no need for 32-64 GB Ram, no need for direct storage, no need for RTX IO.

Stop making stuff up, accept the facts and Go Home!

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Dude Brain Karis the creator of Nanite said Valley of the ancient (a project of acouple weeks with acouple developers) is more taxing and less optimized than Lumen in the land of Nanite (years long project with hundreds of developers spanning multiple teams and companies).
Valley of the ancient used more texture data than lumen in the land of Nanite.
Lumen in the land of Nanite uses only 6.14 GB of nanite data, Valley of the ancient a bit less.
Valley of the ancient only needs 3 GB RAM and 4GB VRAM usage.

End result is Lumen in the land of nanite has less performance requirement than valley of the ancient, not more.
No need for super fast SSD, no need for 32-64 GB Ram, no need for direct storage, no need for RTX IO.

Stop making stuff up, accept the facts and Go Home!

Seriously. You can't mention anything about the demo without him mentioning a million and one things they are irrelevant to the point. Look at each post that this guy quotes me on. Dude literally goes on a tangent each post, trying to flex his knowledge and it means absolutely nothing in regards to the topic at hand.


Dude PaintTinJr just stop while you are way behind bro. You sound like you are trying way too hard on each of your posts. All of your armchair privileges need to be taken away. You seem to have missed every single point that the devs have made about this game. Constantly trying to imply what this may or might have meant for PS5 is not helping, as you may have seen already.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Dude Brain Karis the creator of Nanite said Valley of the ancient (a project of acouple weeks with acouple developers) is more taxing and less optimized than Lumen in the land of Nanite (years long project with hundreds of developers spanning multiple teams and companies).

They said it took roughly 2months with 80 staff for the PS5 demo - IIRC from the unrealfest or original PS5 demo follow up video. So that's about the size of a small AAA dev team or a large to medium AA team AFAIK

Valley of the ancient used more texture data than lumen in the land of Nanite.
Lumen in the land of Nanite uses only 6.14 GB of nanite data, Valley of the ancient a bit less.
Valley of the ancient only needs 3 GB RAM and 4GB VRAM usage.

End result is Lumen in the land of nanite has less performance requirement than valley of the ancient, not more.

nanite is more demanding in Land of the Ancients because of them demonstrating nanite overdraw with overlapping megascans. No comparison of nanite + lumen was made between the two demos, so you are reaching. hopefully in the follow up video for Lumen they said they'll do, we'll get more info to know one way or the other. I'd speculate that the Lumen in the Land of nanite has more ray marching for lumen.

No need for super fast SSD, no need for 32-64 GB Ram, no need for direct storage, no need for RTX IO.

"and high bandwidth low latency IO definitely will improve the experience", is Brian wrong with that sentence, then?
And you do realise that nanite is just for static meshes, so far, yes?

The rest of the traditional dynamic foreground rendering for filling a static world and doing hw RT still needs a lot of resources too, to make an actual finished game.

...

 

[Jon Neu]

Never known a more delusional fan base.

This thread has been an incredible spectacle.

So many narratives destroyed.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

PaintTinJr do you realize this demo was created on PC to explore? The most popular GPU on pc, is the exact gpu you are claiming most PC guys dont have. Why do you keep doing this? You've seen the demo run on PC, this year as well as last year in the editor. Why do you feel the need to keep on implying that ps5 somehow has an external gpu in it's power supply? There is no hidden power. Get with the program my dude.


We don't need decompresors or custom chips. And the fact is, my PC runs this demo way better than ps5 ever could. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by saying that. But at the end of the day, I'd rather try it out myself, listen to the actual devs, than listen to an armchair dev on GAF about whataboutism's.

 

[staticshock]

They said it took roughly 2months with 80 staff for the PS5 demo - IIRC from the unrealfest or original PS5 demo follow up video. So that's about the size of a small AAA dev team or a large to medium AA team AFAIK

I need quote on that 2 months statement.
alley of the ancient had I think 5-10 people and acouple weeks. I will provide link and time stamp later on.

That’s a drastic difference.
Why do you refuse to see that? WHY? Do you not value logic and basic reason?

nanite is more demanding in Land of the Ancients because of them demonstrating nanite overdraw with overlapping megascans.

This right here again proves that the ps5 demo doesn’t need super fast ssd, direct storage, rtx IO, 32-64 GB ram.

You just proved it. Nanite is more performance heavier in the valley demo.

Why can’t you see that?

No comparison of nanite + lumen was made between the two demos, so you are reaching.

Because you don’t need to. Lumen has nothing to do with this discussion. Lumen has nothing to do with SSD or your IO.

Thank god we have the actual project so your narrative is completely bullshit because you can increase lumen to the highest astronomical numbers by increasing final gather and using console commands.

We have the engine. None of your bs speculations matter anymore.

hopefully in the follow up video for Lumen they said they'll do, we'll get more info to know one way or the other. I'd speculate that the Lumen in the Land of nanite has more ray marching for lumen.

No we don’t need anything else. Nothing they say will matter to you. You will come back with more bs. You can turn up all the settings of lumen to the highest levels on valley of the ancient.

"and high bandwidth low latency IO definitely will improve the experience", is Brian wrong with that sentence, then?
And you do realise that nanite is just for static meshes, so far, yes?

No it’s not. The meshes can move and be destroyed. This has nothing to do with the PS5 demo. It runs on PC with mild specs. Get over it!

The rest of the traditional dynamic foreground rendering for filling a static world and doing hw RT still needs a lot of resources too, to make an actual finished game.

This again has nothing to do with the PS5 demo running better on PC with mild specs than on the PS5.

accept it and get over it.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

I need quote on that 2 months statement.
alley of the ancient had I think 5-10 people and acouple weeks. I will provide link and time stamp later on.

That’s a drastic difference.
Why do you refuse to see that? WHY? Do you not value logic and basic reason?


This right here again proves that the ps5 demo doesn’t need super fast ssd, direct storage, rtx IO, 32-64 GB ram.

You just proved it. Nanite is more performance heavier in the valley demo.

Why can’t you see that?

Because you don’t need to. Lumen has nothing to do with this discussion. Lumen has nothing to do with SSD or your IO.

Thank god we have the actual project so your narrative is completely bullshit because you can increase lumen to the highest astronomical numbers by increasing final gather and using console commands.

We have the engine. None of your bs speculations matter anymore.

No we don’t need anything else. Nothing they say will matter to you. You will come back with more bs. You can turn up all the settings of lumen to the highest levels on valley of the ancient.

No it’s not. The meshes can move and be destroyed. This has nothing to do with the PS5 demo. It runs on PC with mild specs. Get over it!

This again has nothing to do with the PS5 demo running better on PC with mild specs than on the PS5.

accept it and get over it.

I wouldn't waste my time on this guy honestly. He tries too hard, while also seeing the exact data that we all see, but somehow tried to turn it into a PS+ infomercial. These armchair devs need to be put in their place fr. Either get vetted or shut TF up.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

I figured it out I think
Ps5 has the best io ever. Nothing on PC will ever compare to ps5. This ue5 demo didn't require ps5s super amazing best ever io. When something finally utilizes it's io to the fullest, we will all join hands and world peace will commence.

 

[Haggard]

Trying to imply a first hand developer doesn`t know about the software he`s actively developing.
Now that`s a level of fanboy delusion you don`t see often, not even on the internetz.....

Every new gen the same secret sauce bullshit from armchair developers trying to "prove" that their budget box somehow would be able to beat a 3x more expensive non power restricted desktop system.....

 

[IntentionalPun]

It was from Microsoft's 20x latency improvement over HDD claim with XVA reveal, and PS5's 100x improvement in Road to PS5 slide - and backed up by Tim saying that the storage solution on PS5 is best in class industry leading - even the need for 10% of a CPU core on the XVA solution/RTX IO is a latency overhead, and would result in 10% of the time, the XsX/XsS accessing the slower memory of those consoles, because the CPU only accesses the slower part, and any core decompressing to RAM will be blocking access to the higher memory AFAIK

RTX IO's reveal showed it is the same solution - for directStorage in partnership with Microsoft - as the XsX's XVA storage solution, and so has the same latency characteristic, just with greater decompression rate.

Cerny never even used the word latency in his presentation; nor did any of the slides.. he's talking about the data rate. 5.5GB/second is 55x's the speed of the 100MB/second drive in last gen. Add on compression, which he was being conservative about (not talking about Oodle), and he gets to 100x's the speed. Where has MS ever talked about latency numbers either? But again.. how would you compare that to the PS5, since they haven't given a latency number?

What you are saying makes no sense.. DirectStorage is an API.. it's not a hardware spec... so any number about XVA is going to be for XSX... not RTX IO.

Your math makes no sense about CPU cores either... 10% of a CPU core means 10% of the time? Huh?

 

[Lethal01]

Nobody here is actually trying to make a leap from "Unreal 5 doesn't need PS5 level speed" to "Unreal engine won't benefit from PS5 level speed" right?
The nanite assets being compressed so well actually lead to being able to do even more and save even more memory when you have fast storage.

I suppose we could just only listen to the devs when they say things we like. that will end great.

 

[IntentionalPun]

So Brain and Tim are both liars, now in your opinion, because they've corroborated what each have said, yes? you technically know better, yes?

I said a while back, that the both sets of comments (by Tim and Brian's team)don't have to contradict each other to be true. Ps5's IO can still be the best way to stream data for an UE5 solution with lowest latency, memory footprint, without meaning that it won't work on others - at greater memory use & latency, and with slower, cluster updates that are there but hard to see.

Are you even reading Andrew's comments? Look one post above... he literally called Tim's original comments misleading... he's basically scoffing at the idea that anything mentioned needs anything more than just a standard SSD. He implies Tim Sweeney's comments were "marketing."

You can continue to look past what cutting edge hardware in a budget £450 console can do, and how it maps to the highly technical stuff that Brain's team are discussing -which is fine if it is beyond your comprehension - and play the "PC" is always better card from you implied made up universe -

I never did any of this. This isn't about PC is better.. this is about what the Unreal dev's have been adamant about...

I stated multiple times the PS5's solution is ahead of it's time.

 

[Papacheeks]

Are you even reading Andrew's comments? Look one post above... he literally called Tim's original comments misleading... he's basically scoffing at the idea that anything mentioned needs anything more than just a standard SSD. He implies Tim Sweeney's comments were "marketing."



I never did any of this. This isn't about PC is better.. this is about what the Unreal dev's have been adamant about...

I stated multiple times the PS5's solution is ahead of it's time.

The disconnect is people in here are acting like PS5's solution is already bested because of the developers showing the PS5 demo loaded on a PC. You have the same people in here cheer leading because they don't want to admit how advance the I/O/SSD solution Sony has is.

No one including me was saying this could not be played or done on PC. I think the disconnect with me now that other people on twitter have finally spoken up is that what was the purpose of making a deal about U5 demo last year with PS5?
The way it was framed and people from epic talked about the I/O solution made it out to be that the demo or specific sections toward the end were created to literally show off those specifics in hardware?
So I guess people like me who are honestly trying to sift through this to understand the difference, because with games like Ratchet we can physically have something tangible that shows what they were talking about in 2020.

But this new demo literally shows them in edit mode, but having no trouble with high quality assets while on a insane RIG setup. I guess I wish EPIC including Sweeney were a little more upfront and to the point in everything. So at this point it more of a wait and see with developers using the Engine with PS5 customizations to show off the efficiency in bandwidth, and I/O throughoutput.
I guess thats why I wasn't getting what people were putting down. I understood all the technical speak you guys were laying out to explain, but it was the disconnnect of seeing games now that feel like a example of what Epic as showing off a year ago.
Just confusing on what to believe in what you can do with specific hardware.

Like I see now that 2020 demo was more or less showing how efficient of a box the PS5 was in terms of handling assets fast. Compared to if you have a insane PC setup how you can do it without the need of direct storage currently.

 

[IntentionalPun]

No one including me was saying this could not be played or done on PC. I think the disconnect with me now that other people on twitter have finally spoken up is that what was the purpose of making a deal about U5 demo last year with PS5?
The way it was framed and people from epic talked about the I/O solution made it out to be that the demo or specific sections toward the end were created to literally show off those specifics in hardware?
So I guess people like me who are honestly trying to sift through this to understand the difference, because with games like Ratchet we can physically have something tangible that shows what they were talking about in 2020.

That was really only Tim Sweeney... and he was being misleading, that's what happened. There's not much else to it.

Like I see now that 2020 demo was more or less showing how efficient of a box the PS5 was in terms of handling assets fast. Compared to if you have a insane PC setup how you can do it without the need of direct storage currently.

Not sure why you keep saying "insane rig setup"... the PS5 demo was using less data than the newer demo.. which works just fine on a standard SSD. And by that I mean, it works perfectly... there is no extra pop-in.. or details that take time to resolve. Lumen is a big resource hog, but the data aspects of it do not have high requirements. That's the absolute and cut and dry truth of it. That does not discount that PS5 has insane I/O, it's just that UE5 demo wasn't needing it.. and wasn't an improvement over what a slower SSD w/o any fancy I/O complex would also be able to render on the screen.

Like.. I don't know why people can't move past that.. PS5 has amazing I/O either way.

It's mostly going to get use for being able to travel really quickly between areas.. which is really mostly what Ratchet and Clank is doing with it as well.

We saw that with Spiderman.. which is doing things that a PC can't do... loading more data than a PC currently can into it's GPU..

It literally has had me buying some games on PS5 that I normally wouldn't have even considered on console.. because I fucking love how fast it is, despite the fact my PC could render the graphics of a game better.

But being capable of loading new stuff as you turn your head doesn't mean games can really do that often, or for increased DETAILS... that is not logical.. it can be used to have a bunch of variety in a scene though, or "quickly change worlds" and that sort of thing. But adding consistent detail, would eat up too much disk storage.