Unreal Engine Abandoned Project Bounded [v0.6] [Fireblade185]

[Fireblade185]

There is something missing in this game.

It's only three weeks old, and just a Developer Preview. But don't worry. There will be plenty. I know that feeling of grinding five months for a nip slip. And I hate it.

 

[ttant]

Lazy dev also forgets to add a confirm popup over the Q key, to ask player to CONFIRM they want to exit the game before shutting it down... Crappy way to restart from scratch this walk simulator if your finger failed to reach A or Z...

 

[Painfoler]

It, looks like... Mom tnx for 4090, I take cool terrain template, and some assets. Quixel models without Nanite give 8 FPS for me. Any way good luck

 

[Fireblade185]

It, looks like... Mom tnx for 4090, I take cool terrain template, and some assets. Quixel models without Nanite give 8 FPS for me. Any way good luck

Actually, more like 3070 for 45 average fps. That's what I'm building it on, so...

 

[.Sirene]

Arguable.
I consider the fact Splatoon and BOTW run at sub 30 on the switch reason enough to question your point, kek.

Jokes aside, you gotta admit Daz models and Store bought assets are enough of a shitshow alone.
But the engine by default being a fiddly mess with 600 layers of makeup on doesn't help.

You have to remember the Switch has a power draw on 15w. The fact that the GPU in the Switch can handle an Unreal Engine game at 20/30fps is actually impressive ;-) It's not perfect - sure. But it should be a good comparison when considering some cards on PC won't get by unless you've got at least a 600w PSU.

As for the models, they're way too high polycount and they're bogging down the resource usage. I mean the developer himself said he's getting 45fps on a 3070. That's... not good.

 

[b00marrows]

The fact that the GPU in the Switch can handle an Unreal Engine game at 20/30fps is actually impressive ;-) It's not perfect - sure. But it should be a good comparison when considering some cards on PC won't get by unless you've got at least a 600w PSU.

You missed the point, bad performance is bad performance and pointing to the switch as an example of what the engine can run well on is a lie. Nothing runs well on the switch, its a out of date system with out of date Nvidia gpu in it from the start.

Unreals just not gonna do well by itself.
2 main issues with unreal is LOD and culling. Unreal is not good for open world by default, as much as it advertises it.
Gotta chip off the 600 layers of makup to make it usable, than tweak it to your use case.

 

[tonnybn]

maybe i should forget this game, my computer only has 3050ti

 

[abada25]

Is this yet another unreal engine "experiment" with
Daz models - ?
Store assets - ?
Sandbox - Check
Performance issues - Check

Gotta realize maybe the issue is the engine?
Maybe there's a reason the engines dev made Fortnite and not something graphically intense...

Paragon was the most beautiful thing I have ever seen back then (UE4), and made by Epic.

 

[b00marrows]

Paragon was the most beautiful thing I have ever seen back then (UE4), and made by Epic.

Oh it was a looker, fun too.
But not open world, plus the maps had heavy use of tall walls.... Not known for its performance either.

 

[.Sirene]

You missed the point, bad performance is bad performance and pointing to the switch as an example of what the engine can run well on is a lie. Nothing runs well on the switch, its a out of date system with out of date Nvidia gpu in it from the start.

Unreals just not gonna do well by itself.
2 main issues with unreal is LOD and culling. Unreal is not good for open world by default, as much as it advertises it.
Gotta chip off the 600 layers of makup to make it usable, than tweak it to your use case.

No no I got your point. But I never said it ran "well" on any platform. Let alone the Switch. I actually said -

The fact that the GPU in the Switch can handle an Unreal Engine game at 20/30fps is actually impressive ;-) It's not perfect

In terms of performance - define "well" - because, I think a lot of people (as it has been shown) do not intrinsically care, or know about better performance options. Many people who play the Switch somehow tend to ignore the glaring performance problems it has and somehow shill the hell out of Nintendo for it. And then, there are some - who don't. Like me. I have one and I feel it's a poor console, worthy of only being used to play the sport games when family come around and we've all had a couple beers.

I mean, I understand where you're coming from - but if handled properly, Unreal can be a suitable engine in a wide array of cases. It's just handled poorly in this game, because the developer just bought a bunch of high poly models and thought "That'll do".

I mean, if you have an open world game but with a lot of hill based terrain, you can "hide" the environment that isn't rendered behind what would effectively be blocking the view. I mean, there are other engines that do it better - for sure, but to say that Unreal is the primary reason the game is bad isn't necessarily a fair observation.

 

[b00marrows]

The switches "strengths" are the facts its Nintendo and has good games. The technical and performance issues are something I'm unable to put up with at length. But i can see why some do when there's no competition to speak of.

but if handled properly

That's key tho isn't it? Anything handled properly can be used well.
Take Virt-A-Mate for example, technical masterpiece. Made in Unity, far out steps anything made in Unreal by a landslide.
But even that has flaws.

Unreal sells itself as some mystical can-do-anything tool, but when you take it off that pedestal you should be able to see that for every "feature" is a outweighing flaw.

I relate its focus on graphical fidelity to "600 layers of makeup" for a reason, its superficial and not feasible.
Unreal is potentially part of the blame for modern gaming's graphical obsession. Easy to point a finger when its the biggest player in the field, saying the exact slogans thats one of the biggest issues today.
Meanwhile rarely, if ever, actually using such features themselves....

 

[Fireblade185]

Ok! Guys, let's not argue on platforms and how good or bad is one despite the other. I said 45 fps on average, meaning 57-60 most of the time and the unusual framedrops or during cutscenes switch. The main problem is Groom in Unreal Engine 5, a feature that chews fps even if you are half a mile away from the asset. So, this is one problem I'm working on fixing. From you, if you are willing, I want a more general overview of performance. So, if you want this game to become more and more reliable and accessible to a much wider range of hardware, please try to post your specs and fps. That counter is not there just as a show off. I want to maximize the optimisation on high-ultra settings so you won't be forced to sacrifice a lot of visual fidelity for smooth gameplay.
Please understand that, in order to make this game work, I'm counting on you to iron it out. I don't want to spend months on fixing an entire 4 hours campaign just because a small but gamebraking technical detail was missed out.

And remember: this is NOT the game, it's more of a performance test and a tutorial, so you are introduced to the world, the characters and the story. Yes, what you do here, in the Developer Previews is in conjunction with the main game, as you will see in the future updates. Still, I insist: try to help me out with info about specs, performance and specifics about the modules that will be introduced with each update.

Thanks!

 

[.Sirene]

The switches "strengths" are the facts its Nintendo and has good games. The technical and performance issues are something I'm unable to put up with at length. But i can see why some do when there's no competition to speak of.

Yep. Pretty much nailed it right there, I mean - I like some of the Nintendo games - and, while I play a lot of FPS typically, I've attempted DOOM Eternal on there and while it's graphically, a good port - it's stability is just not worth the hassle. Not to mention the horrendous often overlooked input delay, despite the Joycons being attached to the console directly.

For some reason the quote tool removed what you quoted from me - to add it back in manually, I had said "But if handled properly" in which, your response is here, below -

That's key tho isn't it? Anything handled properly can be used well.
Take Virt-A-Mate for example, technical masterpiece. Made in Unity, far out steps anything made in Unreal by a landslide.
But even that has flaws.

And yes, Virt-A-Mate is a great example. And it's something I've not seen done before or since in terms what can be done. Of course, as you stated already - and thus, I'm only reaffirming your stance - it does have flaws. But none so glaring that I couldn't play it with a good stable experience.

Unreal sells itself as some mystical can-do-anything tool, but when you take it off that pedestal you should be able to see that for every "feature" is a outweighing flaw.

Thinking about it, I think the majority of UE games I've seen have either been FPS, VR or "linear open world" games, nothing else. Don't think I've played a UE game that is, say, racing or sport based.

I relate its focus on graphical fidelity to "600 layers of makeup" for a reason, its superficial and not feasible.
Unreal is potentially part of the blame for modern gaming's graphical obsession. Easy to point a finger when its the biggest player in the field, saying the exact slogans thats one of the biggest issues today.
Meanwhile rarely, if ever, actually using such features themselves....

Can't disagree with you here. And, to be fair -

this line here - is what sealed it for me

I relate its focus on graphical fidelity to "600 layers of makeup" for a reason, its superficial and not feasible.
Unreal is potentially part of the blame for modern gaming's graphical obsession.

Solid points.

 

[.Sirene]

Ok! Guys, let's not argue on platforms and how good or bad is one despite the other.

Nobody is arguing. We're discussing.

Groom in Unreal Engine 5, a feature that chews fps even if you are half a mile away from the asset.

Why use it then? I mean - it's a known thing, even on the UE5 forums there are people complaining about huge FPS drops and issues with their games. Even on 4090's.

If I can ask an honest question - if UE5 is so demanding, that you have to put in all this extra work - why did you not just use UE4? Or Unity instead? There are plenty of other engines which could deliver what you're trying to do here.

Is there a specific reason you chose this engine?

 

[Fireblade185]

The switches "strengths" are the facts its Nintendo and has good games. The technical and performance issues are something I'm unable to put up with at length. But i can see why some do when there's no competition to speak of.


That's key tho isn't it? Anything handled properly can be used well.
Take Virt-A-Mate for example, technical masterpiece. Made in Unity, far out steps anything made in Unreal by a landslide.
But even that has flaws.

Unreal sells itself as some mystical can-do-anything tool, but when you take it off that pedestal you should be able to see that for every "feature" is a outweighing flaw.

I relate its focus on graphical fidelity to "600 layers of makeup" for a reason, its superficial and not feasible.
Unreal is potentially part of the blame for modern gaming's graphical obsession. Easy to point a finger when its the biggest player in the field, saying the exact slogans thats one of the biggest issues today.
Meanwhile rarely, if ever, actually using such features themselves....

It's not just about graphical obsession, it's about ease of use. I've waited almost two years for the engine to reach this point, a landmark that can give me, a small Developer, the opportunity to recreate a playable Mars outpost or a 2 square km jungle in a matter of days. Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of tutorials which can help you code the game. Yes, it has its flaws, every engine does. But, as if now, it's the only software that can provide the necessary tools to deliver, as a single developed, especially if you want an open world, with interaction, cinematics, dialogue, voice acting integration, powerful animation tools and, most of all, world building capabilities. Yes, I agree, for small scale, every other engine is good enough. But for large scale, trust me, as blamed as it is, Unreal remains the top pick. And for one good reason: it can help you deliver fast, which, in crowdfunding sector, is a must. I avoided publishing for the past two years for a reason. You always got stuck at some point in the development process, because the engine is it's lack of compatibility with other software, like blender or daz.

In the end, it all comes down to what, how and how fast you want to reach a goal. For me, Daz -> Blender -> Unreal is the way to go. And, forward thinking, take into account Nvidia Omniverse, Metahuman or the newest ML deformed.
I know, it sounds stupid, because we are on the page of a porn game... But what if I want to make that porn game that uses Nvidia's Audio2face or ML deformer? Hm? What then? I think most people forget that some projects expand on a longer period of time, and not all expand just to milk supporters. Some really want to make a difference in the adult gaming industry, and make it proud, with a game that can stand side by side with popular titles from the standard triple A titles... Anyway, sorry for the long intervention, but it was something I just felt I needed to say.

 

[Fireblade185]

Nobody is arguing. We're discussing.



Why use it then? I mean - it's a known thing, even on the UE5 forums there are people complaining about huge FPS drops and issues with their games. Even on 4090's.

If I can ask an honest question - if UE5 is so demanding, that you have to put in all this extra work - why did you not just use UE4? Or Unity instead? There are plenty of other engines which could deliver what you're trying to do here.

Is there a specific reason you chose this engine?

Yes, I do have a reason for using Unreal. It's explained in one of the comments above.
As for the groom... Well, it looks really good, especially with physics. And, in a game like this... I think it would help the immersion. Also, out of the box, it killed my project. But, after some tweaks, I got rid of most of the issues with stuttering and killer framedrops, without loosing graphical fidelity. So, my point is that IT CAN be tweaked to be used. It just needs some more work.
Thank you!

 

[.Sirene]

Some recommendations -

1. Add a toggle for ray tracing. "ON" as default is a poor choice, especially for those on lower end systems.
2. Perhaps a D3D11 option, too for better performance. Again on lower spec systems.
3. Resolution scaler would be nice. For the above mentioned.
4. Way too much of the map is rendered, despite not being accessible/visible for 90% of the time. Consider culling some.
5. Spread those trees a little more thinly, when you go higher up, you see that they're duplicated throughout the environment
6. Add a toggle for dynamic hair, or prefab static mesh.

I mean, those are a few things I feel would definitely make this game more playable at a higher FPS for those on lower end systems.

On this rig, my specs are - Intel i9 13900k clocked at 4.4Ghz, Nvidia 4090 Ventus 24gb, 64gb of DDR4 Ram - and despite those overkill specs, this game runs poorly and has over the top FPS fluctuations on my rig. I can test on my lower spec system later today and see how it handles.

 

[Fireblade185]

Some recommendations -

1. Add a toggle for ray tracing. "ON" as default is a poor choice, especially for those on lower end systems.
2. Perhaps a D3D11 option, too for better performance. Again on lower spec systems.
3. Resolution scaler would be nice. For the above mentioned.
4. Way too much of the map is rendered, despite not being accessible/visible for 90% of the time. Consider culling some.
5. Spread those trees a little more thinly, when you go higher up, you see that they're duplicated throughout the environment
6. Add a toggle for dynamic hair, or prefab static mesh.

I mean, those are a few things I feel would definitely make this game more playable at a higher FPS for those on lower end systems.

On this rig, my specs are - Intel i9 13900k clocked at 4.4Ghz, Nvidia 4090 Ventus 24gb, 64gb of DDR4 Ram - and despite those overkill specs, this game runs poorly and has over the top FPS fluctuations on my rig. I can test on my lower spec system later today and see how it handles.

Basically, an options menu . I know it's necessary and I tried to avoid implementing it until I find a better, yet more complicated solution for optimizing the game. Thanks for the info in the foliage and Ray Tracing (this last one really slipped my mind). Will look into both. And, as for the hair, well, most likely I'll have to sacrifice it at some point to make it playable on lower end systems. In the end, most of the players will feel like in the "Can it run Crysis?" era but... nonetheless, I would love to make Project Bounded so good that will want to buy a new rig, just to play it the way it's meant to be played.

 

[Anon4321]

Bug when going for the Cargo Bay waypoint

Not only is it sorrounded by invisible walls making it VERY difficult to get to and I do mean surrounded, showing the game is not as open world as it appears, it doesn't register as being picked up once you walk through it.

 

[kekpuker]

I won't say this game is so horrible in terms of performance. I've seen much worse with 3-rooms size maps.

Btw game distrib is not packed and even contains uproject file.