Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unigine 2.15 Continues As One Of The Most Beautiful Engines, Vulkan Still W.I.P.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    They would be fine with military and benchmarks stuff and other stuff where is not in open competition. They never proved themselves as big games engine and be honest they never do too much do to it.. Basic would be release some free version for everyone to try.. long time ago, their editor sucks.. and i guess that is still the same, in house they could do nice videos, but nobody else is able to the same without their heavy support.

    Except inhouse big engines, there are only 2 real engines Unity3D with their bad performance and lags and easy to start C# coding and not really suitable for big technology heavy games (there non such game on it).. and Unreal, which is much faster, but need low level C++, Unigine is low level C++ too.. I dunno how advanced is Unreal Blueprint scripting now.

    Far, far behind is Cry engine, with much fewer games, few of them big ones.. Has not MacOS support, otherwise it seems to have lots of good features.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by shmerl View Post

      I'd say high refresh rate > high resolution.
      Yeah, that's only true above 4K. That's pretty much the sensible sweet spot, given the human eye's capabilities. After using 2160p, even text on web pages looks utterly pixelated on 1080p.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by anarki2 View Post

        Yeah, that's only true above 4K. That's pretty much the sensible sweet spot, given the human eye's capabilities. After using 2160p, even text on web pages looks utterly pixelated on 1080p.
        GPUs wise and current performance of games for me, I'd say the sweet spot is 2560x1440 / 144+ Hz. As above, Cyberpunk 2077 doesn't saturate even that with RX 6800 XT which is almost as high as GPUs go (RX 6900 XT is only marginally better).

        Comment


        • #14
          I recently changed my primary monitor from a 32" flat 4K 60Hz office monitor (Philips P-line 328P6VUBREB) to a 32" curved 1440p 240Hz gaming monitor (Samsung Odyssey G7). I did that, because even my RX 6900XT doesn't really get 4K done at 60Hz and I wanted to try higher framerates (all the 32" 4K 144Hz offerings seem a bit underwhelming). And on default scaling the fonts are a bit tiny even for me when reading webpages / developing - I never minded seeing the pixels on my old monitors.

          But oh boy, it's really noticable, those pixels. Especially in cyberpunk - the faces of pedestrians are way ... blurrier. I didn't think the reduced resolution would be very apparent in games - but in some it definitely is. Reading webpages is also a bit worse than I expected.
          I'm still okay with my decision - those fast framerates are definitely nice and I'll get used to the resolution with time. But on the next GPU upgrade ... I'll need a new 4K screen as well. In a few years ...

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by mazumoto View Post
            But oh boy, it's really noticable, those pixels. Especially in cyberpunk - the faces of pedestrians are way ... blurrier. I didn't think the reduced resolution would be very apparent in games - but in some it definitely is.
            Your mistake was staying at 32". On my work setup, I went from a 27" 1440p to a 32" 4k and the pixels on that 4k monitor are still significantly smaller. Almost too small, for the fonts I use.

            Back in the 90's, before hardware acceleration was dominant, I used to think 640x480 or definitely 800x600 would be enough for gaming, as long as you had good AA. Of course, I was also thinking of 15" monitors. Even if we scale that res up to modern monitor sizes, I guess that'd still be lower DPI than what you're currently looking at. But graphics fidelity was also lower, and those blurry pixels helped hide low-poly models with low-res texture maps.

            Anyway, good luck with your setup. At home, I upgraded from a 25" 1440p to a 27" 1440p and I'm pretty happy with it. Not sure when I'll make the leap to 4k, but now I'm going to think very hard about doing so at a size > 32". And at that size, some curvature is definitely worth considering.

            Originally posted by mazumoto View Post
            Reading webpages is also a bit worse than I expected.
            Yeah, I had the "Wow!" moment, when I first used that 4k monitor. The amount you can fit on the screen is truly impressive. Going back to my 1440p setup is only helped by the fact that it's also dual-monitor.

            Comment

            Working...
            X