I appreciate this video even more seeing how you're only using a 1080 so we get a realistic, sort of average performance idea of what many of us would experienced. It wouldn't quite be as useful if you were using a 3090 which most of us will not have. Thank you for this real world test!

I mean the fact that you were able to get good performance with 600B triangles, without a 3090, is more than enough room to make a great game. Using Unity, it struggles with 3M lol

So in other words, this still-in-testing version of nanite has basically no problem using a trillion triangles in a single level. The only thing that really caused the system to fail a little bit was the power used to keep up with the instances and other memory issues. That is amazing 🤯 sure, this is probably a very nice computer, but just imagine what we could get to with another system on top of this that was able to support memory just as good as nanite supports geometry counts. This is incredible!

I'd really like to see this done with more complex textures to see how that effects this instead of a simple white texture

Thanks for the in depth testing! Especially with all the combinations of duplicated mesh types. Very useful information.

The real stress test video I was looking for... Good job!

That was an entertaining breakdown. Cheers.

Wow, I’m mind blown. Nanite is OP.

And you pushed the lighting quality! Thank you.

Nanite will be a bigger leap than DLSS or RTX.

Incredible engine, and incredible content ! keep it up !

Decided to run the stress test myself. With a 1050 ti and lumen off, i was sitting at a constant 30-35 fps, even while moving, and got up to 50k meshes before i decided to stop. with lumen on it can vary between 10-20 fps, so its not the prettiest, but its about the same if not better than trying to run Minecraft shaders. This test and the past two videos were a great insight into how nanite works and what makes it so great, really happy i was able to do it myself, so thank you!

It's soo great ! Thank you to do this content :)

Holy crap! This is amazing!

This is incredible. Math/Code trickery of this high level should have high amount of glitches in that scene, but no.

Is that what they call magic?

I can not even begin to comprehend how they can do such a complex seeming algorithm in *realtime*... without any significant pre processing. I suppose they must do a *bit* of preprocessing when you hit "apply changes", but still, it's unbelievable.

That's very impressive. Asset modelers would focus more on textures now.

Somehow I have a feeling that NVIDIA and AMD will internally freak out about UE4 as it seems it will make newer and faster hardware basically obsolete for a few years. I mean. I use a GTX 1080ti that can keep up with most modern games at 1080p without any problem and usually my 7700K is the bottleneck. But with UE5 it feels like there is no scaling limit anymore on any game environment and it is mostly only depending on screen resolution but not scene complexity. Of course there are still other things that won't scale that well like physics and light but that's something thats both things that are already at a nearly unrecognizable difference level.

Great test!!

Good God. As a lifelong artist, and 3d artist for 25 years, including 10 years in games, Nanite is a paradigm shift. So.e enterprising person needs to make a sophisticated, quality, procedural spherical, planetary terrain generator that makes unique, playable worlds.

Excellent video!

The amount of geometric detail possible is absolutely insane and will change game development not just for realistic games but more stylized ones too. Lumen also impresses me with its performance on GTX cards despite having no ray tracing acceleration hardware on board.

102 fps on a 3090 with nanite and this test.

I bet lumen would perform better in a medium range RTX card but it's quite incredible the power that the engine gives you with geometry, is this for real the end of the LOD age?

you are so underrated

amazing like Limit Breaker for Unreal

Well, attempting to work with 1 trillion triangles helps me puts the 29.8 trillion US National debt into perspective… 😳

love the vid what are your computer's specs

Can you do this again but with the new update with foliage?

8:46 there is siggraph presentation about nanite on youtube, this is probably because their culling uses some data like z-buffer from last frame for partial occlusion culling, if that doesn't remove much triangles, their second occlusion pass is not worst case optimized thus the huge overdraw..

Because it works with caching on so many different levels...going fast might have spiked the triangle count. A lot of stuf was "new" probably?

Running this test on a laptop computer with a 2060 with ActorsPerMesh >=1 : 25 fps at 10 000 meshes, it drastically falls each time you press b (from 0 to 10k) and the material doesn't load with ActorsPerMesh =0 : 25 fps at 90 000, meshes material properly set Also, animated mesh seems to work (static mesh + animation texture), all of them playing the same animation at the same time, i am around 40k entities (each mesh is around 2800 polygons) but it's hard to keep the triangle correct (deformed models). Might not be fully suitable for this Nice test project, I really enjoy finding C++ project like this, thanks

amazing

I feel scared of them, *playing Minecraft with 20 fps, and then there start to render few millions of entities*, i afraid of them

absolutely..... unreal ;)

I wish there was a comparison video. comparing regular LOD's to nanite. Nanite's performance is incredible, but compared to regular LOD's does it still have the same result? Also doesn't nanite require a higher base triangle count to render the same model? Where a artist might make some triangles very large due to not needed a lot of detail in that surface area, nanite might add several due to an edge it needs to cover. This is just speculation though. But I for sure would love to see a comparison video in which number of actors (instanced) is the benchmark score.

What are the Vram usages like with nantite vs LODs?

I have a question: When i add a Terrain Mesh from Blender to Unreal Engine, i need to setup a collision for it, but the default terrain in UE5 has no collision. So why extern meshes need a collision in UE5?

Thanks a lot - I must also say thanks that you FIRST OF ALLL tell what sort of hardware you have - That tell me that with a good computer - not only with a ridicouslsly fantastic computer - you can really get fantastic performance ! Thanks a lot ! Kind Regards !

Does this run any better with version 1.0? With Nanite and also with Nanite and Lumen.

If there is a way to save memory then it would be great.

so can you use this with pcg as well to get better frames

Even 1 quadrillion triangles... :)

This basically means that triangle count is now irrelevant, and it's more of the technical details and rendering makeup that actually affects performance.

Alot depends on your gpu. I tried millions of polys with nanite but all it done was eat my gpu and all ypu get is exhausted vram issue and i have a 8g rtx card

Do you really only using GTX 1080??? I'm using 2070 super and just using 2 object low poly, it's already only 80 fps......... Anyway, really really cool experiment!

The PS5 GPU is around the same power in rasterization compared to the 1080ti..I think once devs get to grips fully with ue5 we are gonna see some great things as this is doable with even console level hardware.

Couldn't you animate a nanite mesh if all the body parts were being scanned separately by unique cameras from a source of placed assets but the camera displayed the view as "moving joints on a projection?" Like if you placed a foot piece flipped the camera as if it was simulating it walking but it was the camera moving the whole time would that equal a way to cheat a nanite object to be perceived as animated? Or go simple create a static mesh wall and have a camera move up and down from their then copy that movement as a still camera and possibly create an animated door.

Try it in Unity and see what happens

You needed to download some rams.

Is it not the fact, that there are no trillion polygons? They are nit displayed altogether, only in the area where spectator is.

Lol, this basically means you can use geometry and avoid some normal maps. This should save some memory on simple projects.

Try instancing the meshes

Unless you're making a game with 1 million snowballs, its not a very practical test. Seeing how a few to several thousand unique meshes perform would be a better test.

Very impressive but i think this would not be possible with all unique meshes.

Matrix version. 0.05.

hehe

I would find more basic games more interesting to play on. You dont always need HD

Hi

really wish i knew what ur trying to convey with actors ... u say 10 actors per mesh at one point.... seems backwards. Arent mesh actors inside a blueprint? Arent meshes actual actors... do u have your terminology wrong??? Are you trying to say 10 actors instanced within a blue print? so confusing how you word things.

if there was 10 types of meshes, it would be 10 times less optimized, 1000 types of same object, not same as 1000 types of 10 objects, this test not objective and does not show how nanites would work in the game (optimization will be like in Remnant 2)

boring test, same object a zillion times is a case for instancing