4 ms·

Yes but I'm talking the other way around. Nanite is 1/4th the performance for triangles that aren't 1-3 pixels in size, which is the majority of the time. The

Yes but I'm talking the other way around. Nanite is 1/4th the performance for triangles that aren't 1-3 pixels in size, which is the majority of the time. The main selling point of Nanite is really just to reduce artist costs by avoiding manual LODs. But a high quality automatic LOD at build time may (read: almost certainly does) strike a much better balance for both current and near future hardware

jsheard 2y ago
Nanite batches up triangles above a certain size threshold and sends them to the hardware rasterizer instead, since it is faster to use it in those cases. This was all documented from very early on.
jms55 2y ago
> But a high quality automatic LOD at build time may (read: almost certainly does) strike a much better balance for both current and near future hardware You can't have a manual LOD for a cliff where half is near the player and should be high resolution, and half is further away and can be low resolution. Nanite's hierarchical LODs are a huge improvement for this. You're also underestimating the amount of time artists have to spend making and tweaking LODs, and how big of an impact skipping that is.
- incrudible 2y ago
  This is assuming you have this "one big cliff mesh". This is the Nanite mindset: Just let the artists throw anything that comes out of their DCC at it. That is a great value proposition for studios, especially the ones that fail the marriage of art and engineering. It's a bad value proposition for end-users. Nanite is much slower for the same image quality that a bespoke solution would offer, which is evident with several AAA titles that choose to use in-house tech over UE.
guitarlimeo 2y ago
Nanite is actually good at AAA graphics for hardware stacks that don't do raytracing well, but if raytracing gets faster, Nanite becomes more useless as it doesn't work well with raytracing. What Nanite is actually good with is providing LODs for only parts of the mesh, so that might get some longer use in the industry. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1809936882278469878.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1809936882278469878.html

jsheard 2y ago

Nanite batches up triangles above a certain size threshold and sends them to the hardware rasterizer instead, since it is faster to use it in those cases. This was all documented from very early on.

jms55 2y ago

> But a high quality automatic LOD at build time may (read: almost certainly does) strike a much better balance for both current and near future hardware You can't have a manual LOD for a cliff where half is near the player and should be high resolution, and half is further away and can be low resolution. Nanite's hierarchical LODs are a huge improvement for this. You're also underestimating the amount of time artists have to spend making and tweaking LODs, and how big of an impact skipping that is.

incrudible 2y ago
This is assuming you have this "one big cliff mesh". This is the Nanite mindset: Just let the artists throw anything that comes out of their DCC at it. That is a great value proposition for studios, especially the ones that fail the marriage of art and engineering. It's a bad value proposition for end-users. Nanite is much slower for the same image quality that a bespoke solution would offer, which is evident with several AAA titles that choose to use in-house tech over UE.

guitarlimeo 2y ago

Nanite is actually good at AAA graphics for hardware stacks that don't do raytracing well, but if raytracing gets faster, Nanite becomes more useless as it doesn't work well with raytracing. What Nanite is actually good with is providing LODs for only parts of the mesh, so that might get some longer use in the industry. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1809936882278469878.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1809936882278469878.html