Friday, August 18th 2023

Immortals of Aveum Gets Updated PC Requirements, Confirms DLSS 3 and FSR 2.2 Support at Launch

The day is almost here. The release of Immortals of Aveum is just around the corner, and we here at Ascendant Studios are so incredibly excited for players to get to experience what we've been building all this time. As we inch closer to August 22nd, we wanted to take a moment to talk a bit more about the technology that's powering our game, and what that means for PC players in particular.

Earlier this year, we talked about some of the amazing tools we've had at our disposal as one of the first studios to release a AAA game using Unreal Engine 5.1. There's Nanite, for example, which automatically adjusts the details the player sees based on distance, letting us build huge, detailed 3D objects that look every bit as good up close as they do from virtual miles away. The additional surface detail of our objects provide significantly more places for lighting to bounce off of.
We also make extensive use of Lumen, which lets us add incredibly realistic-looking dynamic lighting to those more detailed Nanite objects, which interacts with lighting far better than before, resulting in prettier environments. And it lets us do so dramatically more quickly than before: In Unreal 4, we'd have to balance dynamic lights with "baked in" lighting for any area, a process that would take literal hours to complete. Lumen lets us light things pretty much instantly—with lighting effects that look fantastic.

There's also Niagara, which lets us easily implement and modify graphical effects like fire, smoke and magic. Thanks to Niagara, we don't have to build each and every effect separately; we can take an existing effect that's used widely across the game world and modify it for different scenarios so it looks different each time - something that wasn't possible before.

And these are just some of the more visually noticeable features; Unreal 5.1 also features tools that make things work more smoothly behind the scenes. Streaming Virtual Texturing, for example, essentially reduces the memory required to show large, detailed textures to the player. The One File Per Actor system lets our team all work in a single environment simultaneously, rather than requiring us to "check out" a whole level to make the smallest of tweaks. And World Partition intelligently loads and unloads bits of the world as needed, allowing us to create enormous environments that don't slow the game to a crawl, make load screens necessary, and/or incinerate anyone's video cards.

The thing about all these different tools, though, is that no single one of them is responsible for making Immortals of Aveum look as good as it does while running as well as it does. The magic isn't just in any single part of Unreal Engine 5.1, but in how these tools all work together, and how the whole engine provides a degree of flexibility and modularity that hasn't been possible before now. It's given us the ability to create a huge game in a vast world with a relatively small team, and make it all look great and run well—on a wide variety of platforms.

And the really neat thing is, it lets us pass that flexibility on to players.

TUNE AT WILL
But ultimately, how you want to put that power to use is up to you. Because another thing Unreal Engine 5.1 lets us do is give PC players granular control over how exactly their machines' power is used. To do that, we've developed a Performance Budget Tool, which integrates with the game's graphics settings menu to give players detailed information about how graphical choices impact the performance of Immortals of Aveum on their specific machines.

Here's how it works: When you first launch the game, it scans your whole running setup to determine how specific features of Unreal Engine 5.1 are likely to perform on your hardware. It then provides a total "budget" that you have to play with for both your GPU and CPU, representing the power of your unique machine. You'll see a budget total for your GPU and another for your CPU; next to those, you'll see your current budget allocation. If the allocation is lower than the total budget, you can expect to see high frame rates and smooth performance—and the more room between those numbers, the faster the game will run. Conversely, of course, if the allocation exceeds the total budget, you can expect to see your framerate and performance begin to decrease as your visual fidelity increases. And keeping your allocation as close as possible to your budget total (without going over!) will give you the best balance of performance and visual fidelity.

In conjunction with this, each graphical setting is accompanied by numbers indicating how much of your total GPU and CPU budget it will require, which update as you cycle between different levels of each setting. As a result, you're able to see very quickly how different settings impact your budget, and thus the game's performance on your PC. This lets you fine-tune your graphics settings to focus on the things you care about, and get an idea of precisely how your choices will impact performance in real time, without having to resort to trial and error.

Here's what the Performance Budget Tool looks like in action—but note that these numbers are unique to this machine's hardware since every PC is different!
Note, too, that the tool accounts for the entire workload on your GPU and CPU at the time of the scan, including any other applications that are currently running. So if you find yourself a few points short of your ideal configuration, you might be able to quit out of some non-essential applications, rescan by clicking the "Reset" button, and discover you actually do have the budget after all. Or maybe you find you have enough overhead to run something in the background you didn't think you could! It's all up to you; the goal here is simply to give you the most information we can in order to help you make educated decisions about your graphical choices.

But this is just the beginning; we intend to keep improving the Performance Budget Tool post-launch to make it even more useful. In future versions, we plan to account for more hardware variables that can impact PC performance, such as other resolutions and aspect ratios, so players can continue making more informed decisions and dial-in their settings to create the experience that's right for them.

WHAT'S UNDER THE HOOD
Speaking of hardware variables, our team at Ascendant has been rigorously testing the game's performance for PC players and feels great about 60 FPS performance on the following combinations of resolution and hardware:
Additionally, the studio is continuing to optimize the game to play well on lower hardware to make the game accessible to even more players. While we aren't ready to confirm anything just yet, we intend to announce new low end specs soon targeting a 1080p/30 FPS experience. To give you an example, the team currently has the game running well in the 40 FPS range on an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 and Intel Core i7-8700K configuration. With Unreal Engine 5.1 being so new, we want to see just how far down we can optimize and thoroughly test as many lower-end set-ups as possible.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we've added specs for the current cutting edge of GPUs and CPUs. So if you have the machine that is the envy of all around you, you can run our game in 4K at 120 frames per second.
Note: Immortals supports both AMD FSR 2.2 and NVIDIA's DLSS 3 upscaling technology.

PLAYING TO YOUR STRENGTHS
And console players, don't feel left out here! You may not be able to tweak your settings as much, seeing how consoles have much more specific and uniform specs, but that means that we were able to use all this flexibility and modularity to tune the game very carefully to each console's particular strengths. As a result, every console version will run at 60 FPS at your TV's maximum resolution thanks to the upscaling magic of FSR 2. So whatever system you're using, you'll be getting the best performance you possibly can.

That's really one of the biggest benefits of working with Unreal Engine 5.1. All these tools that make things run more smoothly behind the scenes end up being incredibly scalable, letting us meet players wherever they are—now and in the future. We won't claim that was easy; after all, you may remember that we delayed the game by about a month in order to spend more time polishing, bug-hunting, and optimizing. But Ascendant is a brand-new studio, and this is our first game, so we wanted to make every possible effort to ensure that Immortals of Aveum is an amazing experience no matter what machine it's running on. And we're so excited for you all to finally have the chance to see that for yourselves.

If you want to learn more about all the finer details of how we went about creating the PC budget tool and more, be sure to also check out the Ascendant Studios deep-dive dev blog on the subject!

Source: EA
Add your own comment

51 Comments on Immortals of Aveum Gets Updated PC Requirements, Confirms DLSS 3 and FSR 2.2 Support at Launch

#1
Gucky
WOW...2080Super WITH DLSS Quality for just 1080p 60FPS? That is worse then Remnant 2...
Although with a 4090 I can't reach consistent 120FPS in 4k with DLSSQ and FG in Remnant 2..., so High-End Specs seem lower in Aveum...

Still another UE Game with low FPS on current hardware.
Posted on Reply
#2
Bruno Vieira
GuckyWOW...2080Super WITH DLSS Quality for just 1080p 60FPS? That is worse then Remnant 2...
Although with a 4090 I can't reach consistent 120FPS in 4k with DLSSQ and FG in Remnant 2..., so High-End Specs seem lower in Aveum...

Still another UE Game with low FPS on current hardware.
Thats just the price for lumen and nanite, they are very optimized for what they offer. If you want high fps and high res without upgrading your hardware, just keep playing quake 2 or pay the price for better visuals.
Posted on Reply
#3
Gucky
Bruno VieiraThats just the price for lumen and nanite, they are very optimized for what they offer. If you want high fps and high res without upgrading your hardware, just keep playing quake 2 or pay the price for better visuals.
What price? There isn't something better as a 4090...
Posted on Reply
#4
thunderingroar
UE5 is extremely demanding, especially with nanite/lumen. DLSS/FSR/XeSS will be baseline requirement in these games
Posted on Reply
#5
Bruno Vieira
GuckyWhat price? There isn't something better as a 4090...
Not right now, but there will be. Its a cost you cant pay right now, does not mean they shouldn't push the visuals right now. Just like Crysis was released, one GPU gen later people were able to play 1080p 30fps. Moments like this have to happen so better GPUs and better graphics keep coming.
Posted on Reply
#6
Dr. Dro
These system requirements were written by someone who has absolutely zero notion about computer hardware, placing the 7900 XTX in the Ultra tier but the 4080 in the High tier, it's like they just got their phone and said "Hi Bixby, which are the fastest and second fastest graphics cards from AMD and NVIDIA currently available"? Same for the processor, having the balls to ask for a i9-13900KS or R9 7950X3D is absolutely bananas and I don't believe for a second that these are real system requirements, it shows major amateurism from the development team
Posted on Reply
#7
Bruno Vieira
Dr. DroThese system requirements were written by someone who has absolutely zero notion about computer hardware, placing the 7900 XTX in the Ultra tier but the 4080 in the High tier, it's like they just got their phone and said "Hi Bixby, which are the fastest and second fastest graphics cards from AMD and NVIDIA currently available"? Same for the processor, having the balls to ask for a i9-13900KS or R9 7950X3D is absolutely bananas and I don't believe for a second that these are real system requirements, it shows major amateurism from the development team
The 7900XTX performance in Remnant 2 is a lot closer to a 4090 than a 4080. Maybe its a UE 5 thing to favor AMD hardware.

Posted on Reply
#8
QuietBob
Ready your 8 GB cards for that sweet 720p experience. 12 GB should be enough for 960p :oops:
UE5 pulls no punches when it comes to VRAM utilization it seems. But that Performance Budget Tool looks very useful. With the number of settings affecting performance, balancing level of detail becomes a game in itself.

EDIT: Here's something I found on the developer's blog:


Consequently:
5700XT/2080S = 720p60 on low
6800XT/3080Ti = 960p60 on medium
7900XT/4080 = 1440p60 on ultra

Looks like quoting system requirements with upsampling will be the new normal. Looking forward to TPU's performance test.
Posted on Reply
#9
Dr. Dro
Bruno VieiraThe 7900XTX performance in Remnant 2 is a lot closer to a 4090 than a 4080. Maybe its a UE 5 thing to favor AMD hardware.

We've got a sample size of that one game regarding UE5 performance thus far, so there's that.

Unless there is an actual requirement of VRAM > 16 GB, there's no way that could be realistically happening, especially if raytracing is involved (the 4080 eats the 7900 XTX for lunch in this scenario). That may be the case given the drop in performance between the 7900 XTX and XT, which is much, much sharper than usual. Then again, the 3090 Ti also seems to be barely doing 60 fps, and is also faster than both the XTX and XT at RT, so who knows anymore?

Still, it's sloppy and things like this should absolutely not be happening in any shipping game. I fear we've gotten to a point where computing power is so ample that programmers are starting to become sloppy to cut corners.
Posted on Reply
#10
bug
It's a new engine, of course it's demanding. UE4 was with us for 15 years before UE5 launched (I know it was enhanced in the meantime, but it was still the same engine under the hood).
And it's a challenge for early adopters, they aren't very happy with a title that severely limits their target audience because of unrealistic hardware requirements.

It really depends on what you can configure and tone down. And it will also depend on whether Immortals is a good game or not.
Posted on Reply
#11
oxrufiioxo
Dr. DroWe've got a sample size of that one game regarding UE5 performance thus far, so there's that.

Unless there is an actual requirement of VRAM > 16 GB, there's no way that could be realistically happening, especially if raytracing is involved (the 4080 eats the 7900 XTX for lunch in this scenario). That may be the case given the drop in performance between the 7900 XTX and XT, which is much, much sharper than usual. Then again, the 3090 Ti also seems to be barely doing 60 fps, and is also faster than both the XTX and XT at RT, so who knows anymore?

Still, it's sloppy and things like this should absolutely not be happening in any shipping game. I fear we've gotten to a point where computing power is so ample that programmers are starting to become sloppy to cut corners.
In fortnite which also uses this engine RDNA3 also performs favorably compared to ada even with RT enabled. Like call of duty this engine could just be highly optimized for AMD hardware.
Posted on Reply
#12
cmguigamf
None of the videos I've seen so far convinced me it's a good looking game that justifies these requirements. It's probably an UE5 thing, as others have said.
Posted on Reply
#13
oxrufiioxo
cmguigamfNone of the videos I've seen so far convinced me it's a good looking game that justifies these requirements. It's probably an UE5 thing, as others have said.
Yeah, I agree. No UE5 released game looks very good or at least better than older rendering tech.

I'm waiting for The Coalition to show their next game to see how far this technology can be pushed and to a lesser extent Hellblade 2 from Ninja Theory.
Posted on Reply
#14
MicroUnC
Another mess just like Remnant2. If this is how UE5 is like, than who needs it?! On the other hand Cry Engine had something to show for it, IOA better look real good.
Posted on Reply
#15
oxrufiioxo
MicroUnCAnother mess just like Remnant2. If this is how UE5 is like, than who needs it?! On the other hand Crysis had something to show for it, IOA better look real good.
Pretty much everyone is using UE5 is the problem. Over the next couple years the majority of major releases will be using it anyway.
Posted on Reply
#16
ViperXZ
That's easily the highest requirements I've ever seen in a PC game, game must be truly special... or truly unoptimized. It easily rivals CP2077 4K Ultra with PT on, while needing double the CPU power - or the requirement table is a huge exaggeration. Also it seems to run better with AMD GPUs, rarely is the XTX able to rival the 4090, or the 5700 XT a 2080 Super (it normally rivals a 2070 at best).
Posted on Reply
#17
oxrufiioxo
ViperXZThat's easily the highest requirements I've ever seen in a PC game, game must be truly special... or truly unoptimized. It easily rivals CP2077 4K Ultra with PT on, while needing double the CPU power - or the requirement table is a huge exaggeration. Also it seems to run better with AMD GPUs, rarely is the XTX able to rival the 4090, or the 5700 XT a 2080 Super (it normally rivals a 2070 at best).
CP2077 with pathtracing requires frame generation to be playable and isn't playable at all on AMD hardware other than maybe at 1080p on a 7900XTX with performance FSR so this is definitely not as demanding.


My guess is becuase Nanite and Lumen seem to be automated almost a flip of a switch they are much heavier than if the developer had to do all of the lods and lighting by hand so much easier for the developer but much harder on the hardware. Probably why the majority of AAA developers are switching to this engine less work.
Posted on Reply
#18
ViperXZ
oxrufiioxoso this is definitely not as demanding.
Not exactly, as the CPU requirement's are over double that of those of CP2077, your statement isn't correct. CPU requirements are part of the requirements of a game.
Posted on Reply
#19
oxrufiioxo
ViperXZNot exactly, as the CPU requirement's are over double that of those of CP2077, your statement isn't correct. CPU requirements are part of the requirements of a game.
Doesn't really matter when the game isn't playable on a 4090 with those settings what cpu you need is irrelevant if you cant break 40fps in most scenarios..... Unless someone likes console like performance.... They are currently claiming 3x the performance at 4k with a 4090.. I guess we will see when it releases.

Posted on Reply
#20
ViperXZ
oxrufiioxoDoesn't really matter
It matters a lot as it's part of the requirements of the game. And we don't need to discuss this fact endlessly as when you tried to "correct" me and failed at that.
Posted on Reply
#21
oxrufiioxo
ViperXZIt matters a lot as it's part of the requirements of the game. And we don't need to discuss this endlessly as when you tried to "correct" me and failed at that.
Cool story bruh
Posted on Reply
#22
Xuper
I wanted to buy a used card XFX 5700 XT with price $110 but after reading Hogwarts Legacy test , I gave up. I knew 5700 XT Won't be able to hold steady 60fps on 1080p.
Now according to ascendant studios, You can't get 60fps consistent on 1080p with high settings..
Posted on Reply
#23
ViperXZ
XuperI wanted to buy a used card XFX 5700 XT with price $110 but after reading Hogwarts Legacy test , I gave up. I knew 5700 XT Won't be able to hold steady 60fps on 1080p.
Now according to ascendant studios, You can't get 60fps consistent on 1080p with high settings..
www.hogwartslegacy.com/en-us/pc-specs

States otherwise, this news as well, are we reading the same information? Either you're reading unofficial information, or you're being overly pessimistic. I think the 5700 XT manages finely for 1080p60 (high to ultra, depending on title).
Posted on Reply
#25
oxrufiioxo
XuperI wanted to buy a used card XFX 5700 XT with price $110 but after reading Hogwarts Legacy test , I gave up. I knew 5700 XT Won't be able to hold steady 60fps on 1080p.
Now according to ascendant studios, You can't get 60fps consistent on 1080p with high settings..
Right now we are in a weird transition period usually it happens much sooner into the new consoles lifespan but we are finally seeing games that target PS5/Series X/S at a base spec not 11 year old 7850/7770 level gpu's from 2012 for better and for worse I guess.

5700XT is still petty great for 110 usd though as long as you are not dead set on ultra its still a pretty great medium/high 1080p gpu and much better than your RX 480 assuming that is still what you are using.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 20th, 2024 15:28 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts