3 ms·

Obsolete in that you’d probably not BUY it if building new, and in that you’d probably be able to get a noticeably better one, but even then games were made to

by bombcar 11mo ago

Obsolete in that you’d probably not BUY it if building new, and in that you’d probably be able to get a noticeably better one, but even then games were made to run in a wide gamut of hardware. For awhile there you did have noticeable gameplay differences- those with GL quake could play better kind of thing.

tinco 11mo ago
The GP was talking about Unreal Engine 5 as if that engine doesn't optimize for low end. That's a wild take, I've been playing Arc Raiders with a group of friends in the past month, and one of them hadn't upgraded their PC in 10 years, and it still ran fine (20+ fps) on their machine. When we grew up it would be absolutely unbelievable that a game would run on a 10 year old machine, let alone at bearable FPS. And the game is even on an off-the-shelf game engine, they possibly don't even employ game engine experts at Embark Studios.
- fngjdflmdflg 11mo ago
  >And the game is even on an off-the-shelf game engine, they possibly don't even employ game engine experts at Embark Studios. Perhaps, but they also turned off Nanite, Lumen and virtual shadow maps. I'm not a UE5 hater but using its main features does currently come at a cost. I think these issues will eventually be fixed in newer versions and with better hardware, and at that point Nanite and VSM will become a no-brainer as they do solve real problems in game development.
- Sohcahtoa82 11mo ago
  > it still ran fine (20+ fps) 20 fps is not fine. I would consider that unplayable. I expect at least 60, ideally 120 or more, as that's where the diminishing returns really start to kick in. I could tolerate as low as 30 fps on a game that did not require precise aiming or reaction times, which basically eliminates all shooters.
  - maleldil 11mo ago
    On 10 years old hardware?

3 ms·

Obsolete in that you’d probably not BUY it if building new, and in that you’d probably be able to get a noticeably better one, but even then games were made to

by bombcar 11mo ago

tinco 11mo ago
The GP was talking about Unreal Engine 5 as if that engine doesn't optimize for low end. That's a wild take, I've been playing Arc Raiders with a group of friends in the past month, and one of them hadn't upgraded their PC in 10 years, and it still ran fine (20+ fps) on their machine. When we grew up it would be absolutely unbelievable that a game would run on a 10 year old machine, let alone at bearable FPS. And the game is even on an off-the-shelf game engine, they possibly don't even employ game engine experts at Embark Studios.
- fngjdflmdflg 11mo ago
  >And the game is even on an off-the-shelf game engine, they possibly don't even employ game engine experts at Embark Studios. Perhaps, but they also turned off Nanite, Lumen and virtual shadow maps. I'm not a UE5 hater but using its main features does currently come at a cost. I think these issues will eventually be fixed in newer versions and with better hardware, and at that point Nanite and VSM will become a no-brainer as they do solve real problems in game development.
- Sohcahtoa82 11mo ago
  > it still ran fine (20+ fps) 20 fps is not fine. I would consider that unplayable. I expect at least 60, ideally 120 or more, as that's where the diminishing returns really start to kick in. I could tolerate as low as 30 fps on a game that did not require precise aiming or reaction times, which basically eliminates all shooters.
  - maleldil 11mo ago
    On 10 years old hardware?