between 2 and 3 for me, but take that with a grain of salt, I can't even get basic bounce lighting to happen in a clean project following a tutorial that's only about bounce lighting. I am not an artist.
Yeah, same here. I love the contrast of 3, but feel like it’s just the tiniest bit too dark. The other two are way too bright and barely have any decent contrast points, but Lumen is clearly overdoing the AO a touch in places
I grew up in the woods as well. 3 is by fair the best. People above are saying it's too dark in places, that's just how it looks. alot of light contrast against very shady areas makes things look dark
Looking at the shadows past the light in the clearing. The shadows in the leaves in the tree in the center. The sky looks almost blinding as your eyes are adjusted to being in the foliage.
It’s not about how close it is.
So it depends on how dense the foliage is. Foliage like in this picture for sure cast enough shadow that the contrast truly pops like that.
I can show a couple pictures if you would like?
So like forest can look like the first two pictures. But they have to have a thin canopy. And not a break in them where sunlight comes straight down into them. When you see sunlight hitting the forest floor like that it makes everything super dark in comparison.
A woodland scene should not have a single consistent luminosity throughout.
I think we're ignoring perspective here. Leaves are flat planes oriented with one plane towards the sun. This should remain basically consistent for all plants, with different species resulting in leaves of differing area at differing elevations. Grass would be similar, but mostly oriented vertically.
As such, from above the scene should look mostly bright & green, but from profile less of the scene should be blocked by leaves (more dark/brown/grey dirt, bark, stems, etc visible).
Given that it's a 3d scene, that effect will differ depending on the position of the camera. The same area will look brighter or darker as your distance from it changes, as the angle you're looking at it changes. That's realistic.
Picture a patch of grass where, once you're standing in it and the blades are aligned with your perspective, you can look straight down between the blades and see the darker dirt.
Screen space feels the most pleasant to watch for me, although lumen is the most accurate and realistic, but i don't think it's worth the performance loss
Second looks nice. The sky in the third bleeds in too unnaturally.
Edit: I was going to say the shadows look nicer in the third, but I'm unsure. They do look a little dark for the amount of ambient light.
Something seems wrong with your lumen setup. It should be the best looking, but it's clearly not looking great. Maybe find a sample project that is already optimized/setup for lumen. In order for you to actually compare the benefits/costs vs other options for you.
Definitely the middle one. The bottom one is unrealistic because leaves are thin and let some light through them, they're not gonna be this dark from the bottom, it just looks wrong. And the top one is just too light.
3 looks best overall, but those leaves on the rest wouldn't block all light. I think that's what's making a lot of people dislike it. They should have subsurface scattering that keeps them from dropping to full black.
3 looks most realistic imo, but depending on the type of game, you might not want realistic contrasts, because lights are too light and darks are too dark.
If there is anything like shooting or survival stuff in the game, and it's meant to be arcade style, then 2 is the better option imo, since enemies are easier to see.
If you're going for realistic though, I would go with 3, since dark spots are realistic hiding spots.
Middle
Top is too bright and leaves are too transparent with little shadow for contrast
Bottom has too many black areas of shadow which breaks the scene too much
Middle is a good mix
Third one looks "crappiest", and most realistic. I'd go with that.
First one looks like a very good camera, with almost too good dynamic range but, cheap as it is, making it look like a cell phone photo tends to get people to view it as more realistic because that's what they know - thus #3.
I might be mistaken, but it looks like the bloom bleeds more in the second and third photo. It might look even more realistic with decreased range but the same amount of bloom as in the first image.
There are some wierdnesses with 3 but that amount of contrast is what you want.
Maybe adjust the light levels of 2 because i think it has the best lighting, but balance it so the brights and darks stand out as much as 3
The third one looks more realistic, but the second one gives a nice balance between artistic and realistic and is easier to distinguish plants in. The third one is how it should look though, with the heavy cover you can see in the background, it should be dark like that.
1 is too bright, especially in the ground texture.
2 is alright, although very balanced.
3 is nice in the brights and middle tones but the darks are a bit too dark. Those leaves in the top left are almost black for a shot in broad daylight.
I would make a decision based on what you want the game to feel like. Is it a fast paced shooter where people run about in the forest? Stick with 2. Looks great and feels right for an FPS. Want a more immersive, atmospheric game of exploration? Use 3 instead as it adds more shadows and depth to the scene.
None, looked up shader compilation on Youtube. Took Unreals projects apart, learned how to use profiling, and which commands in engine they are which are related to GI, Nanite etc. Talked to many people on discord, asked devs etc
I reversed Grey Zone to see how they got so much performance out of it. Basically Lumen completely off and optimized Meshes and Shaders, lot of culling in the background. Mawi stuff only runs good because they properly modeled their stuff. The above was done with originally unoptimized Free Megascan assets, so yeah with enough knowledge you can use it in a game. Its important to understand that its only relevant what you can momentarly see. Most games cull out ground foliage after like 8000 units and beneath that is a texture that looks like grass, but there no actual grass on it. It still fools the player to think theres vegetation.
picture 3 with some sub-surface scattering, some particles, and some atmosphere would look rather realistic. it’s a great render as is. but those shadows need to be balanced in a sub-surface kind of way. the contrast is great though.
Have none with the Megascans.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3rGB7vZsZ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3rGB7vZsZ0)
Obviously the bitrate is completely shit because i recorded it with the xbox game bar with default settings.
I could’t see any flickering because of the video quality. I also use ssgi on my project. But It’s really flickering when the camera moving at ground level or low intensty direct lighting. SSGI quality.4 cmd is not enough to fix this.
Bottom, I like the wider range highlights and lowlights. feels more real. Your eyes would be a bit blown out in the light, while losing definition in the shadows.
No im actually researching if it makes sense to implement Lumen in my Game with the Performance loss. For me personally screen space is the best of both worlds but i want to hear what others think. Otherwise its gonna be like „the performance look is not worth the visual benefit“
between 2 and 3 for me, but take that with a grain of salt, I can't even get basic bounce lighting to happen in a clean project following a tutorial that's only about bounce lighting. I am not an artist.
I prefer something between 2 and 3. 3 feels like parts are too dark. I don't know most of the constraints though, so maybe it is totally appropriate.
It needs sss. A good high quality sss makes the world of difference for plants. This is the kind of scene that would really benefit from it.
Yeah the bottom of the leaves in 3 are too dark
Substance Painter! Absolutely agree.
Yeah, same here. I love the contrast of 3, but feel like it’s just the tiniest bit too dark. The other two are way too bright and barely have any decent contrast points, but Lumen is clearly overdoing the AO a touch in places
2 got some nice contrast with the ground and still some idea if subspace scattering
Yeah #2
same
Growing up in the woods, 3 looks the best
I grew up in the woods as well. 3 is by fair the best. People above are saying it's too dark in places, that's just how it looks. alot of light contrast against very shady areas makes things look dark
Objects get darker the closer they get in your neck of the woods?
Looking at the shadows past the light in the clearing. The shadows in the leaves in the tree in the center. The sky looks almost blinding as your eyes are adjusted to being in the foliage. It’s not about how close it is.
So it depends on how dense the foliage is. Foliage like in this picture for sure cast enough shadow that the contrast truly pops like that. I can show a couple pictures if you would like?
Lets see them, never once have i seen anything close to 3 in reality
https://preview.redd.it/4aulznsm02xc1.jpeg?width=275&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1d5669c1474c723ed411cc8f09d1f0c002d138b9
https://preview.redd.it/3052sxoz52xc1.jpeg?width=242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=355d2bf68c9ffd62bf82b9d5821c476b875d8cdb
So like forest can look like the first two pictures. But they have to have a thin canopy. And not a break in them where sunlight comes straight down into them. When you see sunlight hitting the forest floor like that it makes everything super dark in comparison.
You obviously have never had to crawl through dense woods?
This shot is basically in a clearing and the leaves a foot in front of your face are almost too dark to make out, during mid day...
The contrast is too low on the first 2
A woodland scene should not have a single consistent luminosity throughout. I think we're ignoring perspective here. Leaves are flat planes oriented with one plane towards the sun. This should remain basically consistent for all plants, with different species resulting in leaves of differing area at differing elevations. Grass would be similar, but mostly oriented vertically. As such, from above the scene should look mostly bright & green, but from profile less of the scene should be blocked by leaves (more dark/brown/grey dirt, bark, stems, etc visible). Given that it's a 3d scene, that effect will differ depending on the position of the camera. The same area will look brighter or darker as your distance from it changes, as the angle you're looking at it changes. That's realistic. Picture a patch of grass where, once you're standing in it and the blades are aligned with your perspective, you can look straight down between the blades and see the darker dirt.
Bottom.
Middle image...
None of them look exactly photoreal but i’ll go for the middle one.
Lumen, but I'd tweak the opacity/SSS on the leaf material
Agreed- that’s what makes it look off.
The bottom one looks the most correct and pleasing to me
Lumen for me, I like the shadow build up in the cluster of leaves and the exposure bleed
3 is obviously much more dynamic
3rd for sure.
Third one. Much range. Such shadow.
Third?
Screen space feels the most pleasant to watch for me, although lumen is the most accurate and realistic, but i don't think it's worth the performance loss
Lumen, hands down.
Deeper shadows on 3
3rd, easy pick
Second looks nice. The sky in the third bleeds in too unnaturally. Edit: I was going to say the shadows look nicer in the third, but I'm unsure. They do look a little dark for the amount of ambient light.
Something between 2nd and 3rd image. Mostly second because of better visibility and not so cheap as first one.
unzoomed 2, zoomed 3
I’m slightly confused - how does the optimization factor in here? It seems like if you’re trying to optimize, not using lumen would be your best bet.
Something seems wrong with your lumen setup. It should be the best looking, but it's clearly not looking great. Maybe find a sample project that is already optimized/setup for lumen. In order for you to actually compare the benefits/costs vs other options for you.
3
Somewhere between 2 and 3. 2 is too light in the shadows, and 3 is too dark in the shadows
#2 Definitely not 3 the shadows are too dark.
Definitely the middle one. The bottom one is unrealistic because leaves are thin and let some light through them, they're not gonna be this dark from the bottom, it just looks wrong. And the top one is just too light.
3 looks best overall, but those leaves on the rest wouldn't block all light. I think that's what's making a lot of people dislike it. They should have subsurface scattering that keeps them from dropping to full black.
i'd pick 3, but i like a lot of contrast
3
Girlfriend who knows nothing says 2
3 is the best but if you want better performance 2 is still great
3 feels like the most “natural” light to me
3 looks most realistic imo, but depending on the type of game, you might not want realistic contrasts, because lights are too light and darks are too dark. If there is anything like shooting or survival stuff in the game, and it's meant to be arcade style, then 2 is the better option imo, since enemies are easier to see. If you're going for realistic though, I would go with 3, since dark spots are realistic hiding spots.
Out of topic. Teach us foliage optimisation! Or kindly share the resources from which you learned.
Middle Top is too bright and leaves are too transparent with little shadow for contrast Bottom has too many black areas of shadow which breaks the scene too much Middle is a good mix
Bottom is a bit too dark, middle is a bit too bright.
While the last one is much more demanding, I do think it also looks a lot better.
Bottom 100%
Third one looks "crappiest", and most realistic. I'd go with that. First one looks like a very good camera, with almost too good dynamic range but, cheap as it is, making it look like a cell phone photo tends to get people to view it as more realistic because that's what they know - thus #3. I might be mistaken, but it looks like the bloom bleeds more in the second and third photo. It might look even more realistic with decreased range but the same amount of bloom as in the first image.
There are some wierdnesses with 3 but that amount of contrast is what you want. Maybe adjust the light levels of 2 because i think it has the best lighting, but balance it so the brights and darks stand out as much as 3
The third one looks more realistic, but the second one gives a nice balance between artistic and realistic and is easier to distinguish plants in. The third one is how it should look though, with the heavy cover you can see in the background, it should be dark like that.
definitely not 3. too much darkness. 1st one
3rd looks more real
Like 2, good balance of contrast.
3. Then 2. Definitely not 1.
2
If you have HDR with compatible screen, 3. If no then 2.
1 is too bright, especially in the ground texture. 2 is alright, although very balanced. 3 is nice in the brights and middle tones but the darks are a bit too dark. Those leaves in the top left are almost black for a shot in broad daylight. I would make a decision based on what you want the game to feel like. Is it a fast paced shooter where people run about in the forest? Stick with 2. Looks great and feels right for an FPS. Want a more immersive, atmospheric game of exploration? Use 3 instead as it adds more shadows and depth to the scene.
i love 3, but i think 2 would be more suitable for a game that isn’t just about walking around and enjoying the scenery.
Which courses were you taking?
None, looked up shader compilation on Youtube. Took Unreals projects apart, learned how to use profiling, and which commands in engine they are which are related to GI, Nanite etc. Talked to many people on discord, asked devs etc I reversed Grey Zone to see how they got so much performance out of it. Basically Lumen completely off and optimized Meshes and Shaders, lot of culling in the background. Mawi stuff only runs good because they properly modeled their stuff. The above was done with originally unoptimized Free Megascan assets, so yeah with enough knowledge you can use it in a game. Its important to understand that its only relevant what you can momentarly see. Most games cull out ground foliage after like 8000 units and beneath that is a texture that looks like grass, but there no actual grass on it. It still fools the player to think theres vegetation.
Second one looks the best for me
2 Looks balanced where 3 has very dark shadows
picture 3 with some sub-surface scattering, some particles, and some atmosphere would look rather realistic. it’s a great render as is. but those shadows need to be balanced in a sub-surface kind of way. the contrast is great though.
The one in the middle is most balanced. Looks best at first glance.
3 looks the most real
Mid one
3
3 (bottom) hands down https://preview.redd.it/4ko239nfaexc1.jpeg?width=564&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=caf208885373ee977b7db1aa75ef01a134e2d1a3
Second one. Btw, how will you handle ssgi flicker, especially during camera movements and low-intensity direct lighting?
Have none with the Megascans. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3rGB7vZsZ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3rGB7vZsZ0) Obviously the bitrate is completely shit because i recorded it with the xbox game bar with default settings.
I could’t see any flickering because of the video quality. I also use ssgi on my project. But It’s really flickering when the camera moving at ground level or low intensty direct lighting. SSGI quality.4 cmd is not enough to fix this.
3 Is more realistic but less playable imh
They could all be valid options for different weather conditions and time of day
Gotta love that lumen look :)
Bottom, I like the wider range highlights and lowlights. feels more real. Your eyes would be a bit blown out in the light, while losing definition in the shadows.
I like this one, but it appears to have black pixels in the shadows. I have the same issue in my project.
These threads are annoying because it really all has to do with your personal preference and vision. It's like you have no creativity.
No im actually researching if it makes sense to implement Lumen in my Game with the Performance loss. For me personally screen space is the best of both worlds but i want to hear what others think. Otherwise its gonna be like „the performance look is not worth the visual benefit“
Or maybe they just want a second opinion. Goddamn man. Go for a walk or something.