My existence with my son, when he sends me links to videos like this thinking I can follow the deeper concepts 😂

@@JasonLiske At least you show interest in his work, unlike my parents who don't even know what I do for work.

glad i am not alone felt that

Totally this… plus everything around it to support and make it actually feasible. The hierarchy tree solutions, the dual graphs to deal with boundaries, memory compression/bandwidth, lights/shadow maps/materials, the matID as depth value is genius (although gets over my head as to how it works for the actual depth test when filling it), etc etc. I honestly understand almost nothing of what’s going on, but I do think this could have broken and not worked at too many critical points to which they did find or invented a solution… jaw dropping.

@@alejmc Yeah, I had to omit like 3/4 of the super impressive parts just to make a concise post. What a time to be alive!

@@jjoonathan7178 thanks karoly

@@jeshweedleon3960 I'd like to see Karoly fit this one into two minutes. A speedrun for the ages.

@@jjoonathan7178 fellow scholars i see

Yep, and the only part I understand about any of it is that it's awesome.

doom eternal or id tech also uses software rasterizer with virtual lod's and shadows, that's why there is not much difference b/w low and ultra, because engine is scaling geometry, shadows etc based on pixels or resolution..

@@niks660097 Its interesting because Doom Eternal is one of the games where you can (on lower end hardware like XBox One) see the LODs swapping and blurring. Other Games usually retain better quality at the cost of lower FPS

@@donsorenoelchapogringo1182 yeah i agree, ID had a presentation on siggraph 2019/21, they are really ahead of their time and probably the only one competing in quality with Unreal 5, pushing 80 million triangles per scene(DF also has a vid about it), using the above LOD and 100s of per pixel lights..

@@niks660097 can you please link the id presentation I can't seem to find it

@@niks660097 As per the other person, would really appreciate a link to that, as I also cannot find it (maybe using the wrong keywords? Idk)

I don't understand. If working there is so mind-blowingly amazing, why are you not working there anymore?

@@DasAntiNaziBroetchen could be many reasons, for example could have had to leave the country/state

This proves my long-held perception that programming is art, since all creativity comes from an inspired mind seeing beyond the conventional.

So you're saying you can use a GPU from 15 years ago to run a modern game, if the modern game uses nanite technology? The current recommended specs for the City Sample Demo is: 12-Core CPU @ 3.4 GHz 64 GB RAM GeForce RTX 2080 or AMD Radeon 6000 or higher At least 8GB of RAM Nanite is definitely meant for next gen hardware if it is to be performant Every generation needs some feature that, unless you have the latest and greatest hardware, will render your gameplay unplayable. A while back it was HDR and Shader 3.0. Later it would be VR. During the initial RTX generation, it was ray-tracing. This generation would have to be nanite and lumen.

@@cryora nanite runs on a PS5 so its not really very next-gen in terms of hardware required. Also, the original comment was probably hyperbole, you might wanna learn what it is if you are gonna talk to people

@@Supreme_Lobster I know what I hyperbole is, but it did not strike me as one. You might want to learn how not to be condescending if you are going to talk to people.

But the first paper with a working prototype was published on 2003, what about that?

The whole idea and initial work was the guy in this video, Brian Karis. I believe he didn´t got a team to lead till he has proved it worked. He came with the idea, and they told him, go work alone on it for a while a see what happens.

Knowing just enough to follow along but not being able to re explain any of it to anyone is frustrating as cuuuuuuuunt

@@drumboarder1 If the person you hoped to explain it to couldn't understand this video as well as you can, then there is little hope that you could do it either.

@@mnomadvfx fair point

Ray tracing will definitely be a bigger deal in a few years I think. Once more games start using ray traced global illumination, rt ambient occlusion, and similar things, is when you’ll start to see a much bigger difference. Unfortunately there’s only a handful of games that use these right now, mainly dying light 2 and metro exodus pc enhanced, and those games look fantastic with those on.

@@primohippo4014 Then again you can make any game look fantastic with nanite. Raytracing takes extra work and hardware.

I don't membaaaaaaaaa, I forgot.

epic understands the engineering power needed to implement something like this at scale, they have the vehicle for shipping it (unreal engine), and since they've conceptualized it, they have a head start. not only are there few other companies that could fully realize this in an industry-impacting way, most would have no financial incentive to do so. why build entire engineering and r&d departments to enter an implementation race with epic when they can just license the unreal engine? i'm happy to see open discussion like this, but be certain that if what they're sharing is business critical IP, then they're already in the marketing phase. and this is part of that marketing.

You know the unreal engine is open source right?

They have an engine to sell, and they can't sell it if nobody understands how it works. And these advancements are never made in a vacuum. Epic, as well as almost everyone else in the industry, understands that advancement only happens when knowledge is shared. If nobody shared their knowledge in this industry, we'd still be stuck with '90s/'00s-level graphics.

@@Drollfilms its not open source

Yeah, except paying for Unreal is still orders of magnitude cheaper than hiring a highly specialized team to implement something like this. And you can have it right now, not "maybe in a few years".

Games could actually become smaller because you don't need to put all the LODs in the game!

@@HolidayAtHome You know as well as I do that wouldn't happen, they would just reallocate the space to something else (like how people used to think better tech would mean people would work less and have more leisure time... sigh)

Need better video and texture compression for that. Video and textures are the majority of the size of modern games. 4k 60fps video and 4k-8k textures are very heavy. It would take a revolution in compression, or consumers to want watch movies when they want to watch movies and want to play games when they want to play games so they dont fill games with more cutscene than there is gameplay. 200gb is impressive for 30-40hours of 4k cutscenes, let alone a game coming with it. An hour of 4k movie footage is typically over 20gb compressed, but game devs make all sorts of compression tradeoffs and use screen space effects to cover it up.

@@SoftBreadSoft Having cutscenes that aren't in engine is kinda dumb tbh (yes, I know it's harder, and the quality will be lower... but it's also authentic, and allows for some interactivity)

That'll be great. Probably will be implemented in the GPU, like ray tracing.

Oh man, that'd be fantastic

Mesh shader (by NVIDIA) is similar.

u alright mate?

Putting that PHD in Applied Phlebotinum to good use.

Thank you for this

Yes...

Oh shit is this what normal people hear when they watch these presentations?

i think nanite development started 10 years ago

@@JorgetePanete Yes

Noooow I know how they built the simulator we're living in now, called UE5, Universe Engine 5.....

@@High.on.Life_DnB Omg, it all makes SeNsE!!!!! xD

About your second point, I believe Nanite doesn't support transparent materials.

I was hesitant of posting a similar comment out of backlash, but yes, I would be curious too to see this having a repurposed branch to maximize all the unified memory, huge CPU/GPU bandwidths, etc advancements. For my use case, it would be great to see Apple and Epic make its peace so that we get this insane tech on most platforms as possible… else when the time comes I’ll end up going back to the PC realm, and while I got nothing specific against it, I would rather not. This goes way WAY over my head, but it is my (naive) understanding that the Metal API and it’s tiled based rendering approach, arguments buffer rendering, etc would actually be beneficial for what these devs are doing?

Think about if you were rotating an object on screen clockwise. Most of the triangles are good where they are, but as you rotate you’re occluding some triangles on the right by other triangles rendered last frame and you’re showing other new triangles that were previously occluded by the triangles that were rendered last frame. The z-buffer comparison lets the engine draw boxes on the left side and the right side of that rotating object so that it knows to only update those triangles based on the new z-buffer, while everything else can stay the same. As to why this is faster, it’s because every time you replace a triangle in the buffer you have to do a ton of initial calculations on that triangle, which takes time, so minimizing the amount of triangles to replace is always going to be better for time, especially if you can do it efficiently with the gpu (like what they are doing here!) Edited for brevity

I'm a noob to this but it seems the goal is not to minimize checks against the hi-z (they are cheap enough) but to get a useful, but incomplete hi-z that can be used to occ-cull the rest of the stuff to draw. You don't need to make a full hi-z after that as it's not being used by the next frame. Though you might want to if you have other stages of your rendering that would find it useful. Other techniques which use re-projection use the last hi-z and so *could* have a better incomplete hi-z to start from. But as they aren't conservative so you risk incorrect culls. It seems that being precise (conservative) still gave enough of a win without risking incorrect culling.

@Night Fox It works like that: 1. Draw everything from the last frame *but with updated transformation*. This should be the bulk of your geometry. 2. Occlusion-test everything that wasn't drawn last frame (but is inside the frustum) against the z-buffer you just created (this is fast if you use bounding geometry instead of meshes) 3. Draw all the "new" stuff that wasn't occluded This means you still do have to do a lot of occlusion checks but it's nevertheless a lot faster than throwing *everything* at the pipeline and let the z-buffer sort it out.

Implementation complexity. It's too new to be that wide-spread. Doesn't even cover all cases yet. Eventually this may grow into a proper standard of doing things. Give it a few more years

The depth is encoded in the higher bits, so it still works as usual except you can now trivially filter pixels for material.

I think the idea is that its not about having every game have every single asset to a pixel sized detail scale, but to be applied to certain important objects such as characters. Or just to have the possibility if necessary for a given scene. Finally it increases the overlap between real time rendering and traditional vfx work flows, getting us closer to better virtual production.

the intent is to have a general system that "just works" no matter what geometry you throw at it, without you having to do manual optimization of your geometry or other extra work. how and whether developers decide to utilise it for very high quality geometry is an entirely independent choice

I'm guessing they have broken the barycentric test into several stages, where certain stages can be calculated and used for a whole batch of pixels at once in a data orientated fashion or something along those lines, don't quote me on that tho, its been a long time since i used barycentric coordinates and even then i didnt completey understand them :D

​@@pewpewlasergunz I did eventually figure it out after an undetermined amount of time sitting and staring at it. I don't think it uses barycentrics actually. At least not in a way that I recognize, though admittedly I don't really understand them that well either. All it requires is some basic vector math and 3 cross products, each of which test which side the point falls on for each edge of the triangle. That, I can make sense of for each individual point test, but I swear there's some wizardry going on as once you calculate it for the top left pixel of the bounds you can just add the opposite axis of the edge vectors to the cross product values to somehow scan them across the bounds without recalculating any cross products or anything, only that small bit of addition for each pixel. I don't entirely understand it but it does make some intuitive sense vaguely if I don't try to think too hard on it. But I couldn't find anything online doing this method or anything, so Idunno where it comes from or how anyone would figure it out, it seems pretty clever to my non math oriented brain. I managed to completely implement a GPU based software rasterizer this way, though the results aren't the best. I couldn't get the second scanline method demonstrated to work at all, I don't understand the math there as math isn't my strong suit. It doesn't help that it uses ternaries on bool3's which I feel the behavior is undefined for. I fiddled with everything I could but to no luck, best i could get was getting it to fill the entire rect lmao. I'm not smart enough to figure how that algorithm is supposed to work. Other than that, I couldn't beat the hardware rasterizer no matter what when rendering 10M tris. Though performance seemed to be the same no matter what size the tris were as long as they were small, and the same between the scanline and fill algorithms, working or not. So there must be a bottleneck elsewhere that I'm too lazy to figure out. I don't really know an easy way to debug compute shaders in Unity so it's tricky. I assume it has something to do with my data structure, since they didn't cover that really I just had to figure out my own way of formatting the data on the GPU and I'm not super knowledgeable in how to optimize that. Also I'm not sure if there's a way supposed to be able to dispatch that many triangles in one go. Because with 128 tris per thread group, and a max of 65535 groups able to be dispatched at once, can only process about 8,388,480 tris (if perfect clusters) and then more dispatches have to be called if there's more tris. Or can loop in the shader itself but I didn't notice any significant performance difference for either of those. I just feel like I'm doing many things wrong somehow without really knowing how to fix it. 😅 But eh, it probably isn't a good idea to replace my rendering with GPU software rasterization anyway lmao. It would be nice though because it would allow me to get rid of the geometry shader stage and improve platform compatibility. And technically if actually rendering speed were on par, I could probably implement better culling. You know how it is though. Rant over.

Make games from scratch.

nah the guys who made it obviously understand it how would it be a coherent and relatively bug free feature otherwise?

The algorithm of shadow map is not hard to understand,just creating another mesh by vertices that align with the other two vertices which is the object vertex and the light.Always think it yourself,not rely on people feeds,it would be easier to understand. Now you may ask you exactly to align those vertices?It is simple,using derraviate or trigonometry,i program an mouse orientation myself with trigonometry as i make 3d game engine so i understand it enough. All of this man saying is just about automatic remodeling which can be done manually by artists but consumes much more time.

I dunno, maybe it only affects Z-culling, not simply stuff being behind the camera.

i think performance would be what suffers, but unless you were already pushing your system to the max, it probably wouldn't cause noticeable framedrops. It just means that the rendering occlusion briefly becomes less efficient than if it was using single-pass occlusion

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p6llfteS2bPHhas.html

Apple doesn’t support mesh shading.

well, they started working in nanite 10 years ago or so

Sorta but not really. The whole Euclideon thing uses such wildly different representations of geometry (pointclouds, or maybe signed distance fields, I forget), and really never worked well for anything other than the geometry itself.

Sounds like someone found a use case for the cloud~

Yeah, no. warzone is massive because Activision deliberately adds bloat every COD release to make it look "bigger" than the one last year. I think warzone has raw audio files for every localisation of the game which is most of the bloat

@@Xyzair The GPU is supposed to fetch data it needs for the next frame *from the internet*? Your game now runs better depending on internet speed? People with slow internet get ugly LOD pops? That's a terrible use case for the cloud.

@@NoName-zr7rz GTA 5, RDR2, etc.. There are quite a few games that big..

@@NoName-zr7rz Downloading each language file might not be very smart but having raw audio actually can lead to better performance.