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

#27
dyonoctis
oxrufiioxoIn 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.
And then there's layers of fear :
Posted on Reply
#28
oxrufiioxo
dyonoctisAnd then there's layers of fear :
That game looks pretty terrible but yeah it performs more as expected from what I've seen. Although Remnant 2 also looks meh AF so I guess that isn't saying much. No site I trust has benchmarked it but I ran the demo and it was pretty underwhelming.
Posted on Reply
#29
Vya Domus
thunderingroarUE5 is extremely demanding, especially with nanite/lumen. DLSS/FSR/XeSS will be baseline requirement in these games
UE5 has one of the least demanding raytracing implementations out of all the engines that I know of.
Posted on Reply
#30
Dr. Dro
dyonoctisAnd then there's layers of fear :
GameGPU is SEO spam, really, should be summarily ignored just like Userbenchmark
Posted on Reply
#31
oxrufiioxo
Dr. DroGameGPU is SEO spam, really, should be summarily ignored just like Userbenchmark
Still in the Benchmark I seen of that game that I trust the 4080 was around 12% faster with RT vs the 7900XTX which is closer than a lot of other games.
Posted on Reply
#32
Easo
What in the actual f...? Do not tell me they have spent a lot of time on optimization - they absolutely haven't, you all know that. This is not about UE5...
Posted on Reply
#33
oxrufiioxo
EasoWhat in the actual f...? Do not tell me they have spent a lot of time on optimization - they absolutely haven't, you all know that. This is not about UE5...
They say they have it running decently on a 1070 at 1080p so maybe it scales well.

Now if by decently they mean 1080p30 with low settings with FSR then sure that's pretty trash.

UE5 hasn't really performed well in any released game pretty sure it's more the engine than the developers

Idk the 5700XT and 2080 super are really old with the 5700xt being pretty midrange when it came out i guess with the majority of people having 1060/2060/3060 class gpus I get the uproar I guess.

I think what's going to be more interesting is how bad this performs on the 4060/4060ti and the 7600 and possibly 7700XT.
Posted on Reply
#34
dyonoctis
oxrufiioxoThat game looks pretty terrible but yeah it performs more as expected from what I've seen. Although Remnant 2 also looks meh AF so I guess that isn't saying much. No site I trust has benchmarked it but I ran the demo and it was pretty underwhelming.
yhea I think that's why the game didn't get a bigger media coverage. New "next gen" engine, but very 2015 graphics.

Aveum seems to be the first game to really make use of the engine features for better graphics. wouldn't be that surprised if UE5 ends up favoring RDNA derivative arch, a quick look at the documentation had epic mentioning that some of the engine tech were optimized "for the AMD GPU found in consoles"
Posted on Reply
#35
ZoneDymo
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.
this, heck I would not even call it good looking at all, generic at best.
Posted on Reply
#37
mama
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.
Raytracing works different in UE5. It will be interesting to see who eats what lunch.
Posted on Reply
#38
Zubasa
thunderingroarUE5 is extremely demanding, especially with nanite/lumen. DLSS/FSR/XeSS will be baseline requirement in these games
I don't think UE5 is the cause of the issue, some of these games runs worst than the UE5 tech demos at native.
It is just another case of optimzation or the lack of.
UE5 is relatively easy to make it look good for trailers and screenshots with all the plugins, the hard and expensive part is make it look good without running like crap.
Posted on Reply
#40
Vayra86
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.
I cant shake the impression here that you are trying to deny reality or at least have trouble believing Ada isnt developed for future engines, but this was predicted and its now true for several games, with the list growing. You have a 4080. Try to look past that ;) Just like higher VRAM requirements, this was bound to happen.
Posted on Reply
#41
Dr. Dro
Vayra86I cant shake the impression here that you are trying to deny reality or at least have trouble believing Ada isnt developed for future engines, but this was predicted and its now true for several games, with the list growing. You have a 4080. Try to look past that ;) Just like higher VRAM requirements, this was bound to happen.
No, not really. If Ada isn't, then RDNA 3 isn't either. I don't think it's that, we know UE5 has been in the works for some time. But all games that shipped with it thus far have bizarrely high system requirements overall, and very little to show for it in the looks department. Neither Remnant II or this game seem to be particularly visually appealing in context of their system requirements.
Posted on Reply
#42
dyonoctis
Dr. DroNo, not really. If Ada isn't, then RDNA 3 isn't either. I don't think it's that, we know UE5 has been in the works for some time. But all games that shipped with it thus far have bizarrely high system requirements overall, and very little to show for it in the looks department. Neither Remnant II or this game seem to be particularly visually appealing in context of their system requirements.
Remnant II do look underwhelming for how heavy it is, but Immortal of aveum looks much better on a technical pov.
I honestly think that we are reaching diminishing returns when it comes to geometry details and texture resolution. I've found immortal of Aveum to be very detailed, but still got that overall "artificial" looks.
The wood texture doesn't lack details... or sharpness it just looks artificial, and actually over sharpened to me (and that's from a video capture).

There's dirt around and under the nails, there's small damage on the weapons, you can clearly see the wrinkle on the skin. Yet it still look very artificial.


IMO, the quality of the assets, Light/shadow is what will bridge offline 3D graphics and real time graphics. Remember unrecord ? The game using High quality assets from mega scans is a big part of it's realistic look.
Posted on Reply
#43
thunderingroar
ZubasaI don't think UE5 is the cause of the issue, some of these games runs worst than the UE5 tech demos at native.
It is just another case of optimzation or the lack of.
Nordiga100% bad optimisation.
You sure about that? Here UE5.2 tropical rainforest demo benchmarked

"At a resolution of 1920x1080, an average FPS of 25 frames was shown by video cards of the level Radeon RX 6950 XT or GeForce RTX 4070 Ti. A minimum FPS of at least 25 frames can be provided by video cards of the level Radeon RX 7900 XT or GeForce RTX 4080."

People really underestimate how demanding UE5 can be
Posted on Reply
#44
QuietBob
The game will be available on EA Play Pro. I have no interest in playing it, but I'm planning to buy a month's subscription to tinker with the Performance Budget Tool.
Posted on Reply
#45
Dr. Dro
QuietBobThe game will be available on EA Play Pro. I have no interest in playing it, but I'm planning to buy a month's subscription to tinker with the Performance Budget Tool.
EA Play is a good deal in general, especially so if you like EA's catalog. I subscribe every now and then for the most asinine reason you could imagine, to get a discount on Apex coins, lol.

It's 19,90 BRL a month (a very low price), the 10% discount usually covers that amount whenever I buy Apex coins even if I just buy the 2150 coins pack. I'm definitely not spending as much money on Apex as I used to, at this point i'm $700 USD in - and the fact that they've raised prices recently has really put me off. I top off for the season pass every 3 months or so and sometimes buy one of their monthly 950-coin deal that comes with 12x apex packs, but I'll stop doing this once I get my next heirloom shard drop, which I plan on spending either on Loba's prestige skin or Vantage's heirloom once either of those are out.
dyonoctisRemnant II do look underwhelming for how heavy it is, but Immortal of aveum looks much better on a technical pov.
I honestly think that we are reaching diminishing returns when it comes to geometry details and texture resolution. I've found immortal of Aveum to be very detailed, but still got that overall "artificial" looks.
The wood texture doesn't lack details... or sharpness it just looks artificial, and actually over sharpened to me (and that's from a video capture).

There's dirt around and under the nails, there's small damage on the weapons, you can clearly see the wrinkle on the skin. Yet it still look very artificial.


IMO, the quality of the assets, Light/shadow is what will bridge offline 3D graphics and real time graphics. Remember unrecord ? The game using High quality assets from mega scans is a big part of it's realistic look.
Ditto on the assets. Aveum looks better than Remnant II but it's still not a remarkably good looking game, if I had to say Final Fantasy XV on PC looks just as good, if not better. It gives me some Forspoken vibes due to the art direction - and that game panned less than well in more than one regard.

We have indeed reached a point where diminishing returns are occurring because developing games for ultra-high detail next-gen engines is extremely expensive with a relatively low ROI - the result is that these games do not really look all that next-gen (keeping in mind current-gen hardware must run it), and that in general, audiovisual fidelity in video games has reached a relatively advanced stage as it is.
Posted on Reply
#46
Vayra86
Dr. DroNo, not really. If Ada isn't, then RDNA 3 isn't either. I don't think it's that, we know UE5 has been in the works for some time. But all games that shipped with it thus far have bizarrely high system requirements overall, and very little to show for it in the looks department. Neither Remnant II or this game seem to be particularly visually appealing in context of their system requirements.
Time will tell, I know as little as you, I just go on the raw numbers here, but the fact is there are several writings on the wall wrt optimization, market share and future prospects and they don't happen to be written on the side of Nvidia's proprietary RT approach, but rather on broad engine usage and having hardware agnostic, as much as possible, solutions. It's not particularly favoring AMD or RDNA3, its just that RDNA3 has more raw raster perf + better bandwidth and it shows here, is my impression.

Just compare the 4090 and 7900XTX bandwidth on VRAM and you'll see it echo the results of the bench; you're looking at 1000GB/s vs 960GB/s there. The rest of the GPU is scaled on those numbers. This is also most of the reason why the 4090 is stellar and lonely on the Ada top, and the rest trails by a mile. They lack that raw throughput, so on complex scenes, these cards excel while others choke, at least a little more than they should. Its that same issue all cards on all segments run into, except with UE5, the problem expands to the top end and becomes the equalizer, making it clear this is what truly limits cards going forward. Which has been, again, proven by the various games that lack somehow in VRAM cap or bandwidth and require extra TLC to make games run proper on them. That's how it really works after all, devs optimize for hardware. They don't do that if the hardware doesn't require it.

This is now yet another game in the UE stable where 7900XTX excels and gets close to a 4090, where it really shouldn't be given every other game these two cards face off on. Chalking that up to 'dev optimization' I feel is not being honest about what's in front of us.

However - I do fully agree these games don't really have much to show for their inflated required specs. If this is the future... I'm in the meh, what for camp.
dyonoctisRemnant II do look underwhelming for how heavy it is, but Immortal of aveum looks much better on a technical pov.
I honestly think that we are reaching diminishing returns when it comes to geometry details and texture resolution. I've found immortal of Aveum to be very detailed, but still got that overall "artificial" looks.
The wood texture doesn't lack details... or sharpness it just looks artificial, and actually over sharpened to me (and that's from a video capture).

There's dirt around and under the nails, there's small damage on the weapons, you can clearly see the wrinkle on the skin. Yet it still look very artificial.


IMO, the quality of the assets, Light/shadow is what will bridge offline 3D graphics and real time graphics. Remember unrecord ? The game using High quality assets from mega scans is a big part of it's realistic look.
And oh man, so much this. There are absolutely ancient games on long gone engines that manage to feel more realistic than the overpolished, oversharpened 'quality' assets we get today. This is not just diminishing returns, indeed... its beyond the point of having a point.

What truly defines games these days isn't the engine, the box of special FX, the RT or no RT. What defines games graphically is their actual graphical design. There haven't been real limitations in 'photorealism' or having sufficient pixels or polygons at your disposal for half a decade at the very least, but probably more. The only real limitations these days are dev time/cost of the operation to get a product out the door. Engines? Whatever. Almost every engine produces palatable graphics now. Its the reason things 'stagnate' as well, there just isn't much fruit left on those trees. I've said it before... gaming graphics have plateaud for quite some time now. Effectively, the DX11 peak days are the actual peak of graphical fidelity. DX12 didn't give us much, if anything, except better API efficiency to better use the CPU.
Posted on Reply
#47
QuietBob

Never thought I'd pre-order a game I won't even play :roll:
Posted on Reply
#48
MicroUnC
QuietBob
Never thought I'd pre-order a game I won't even play :roll:
:wtf::wtf::wtf:
Posted on Reply
#49
Denver
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.
You talk as if this is a huge advance in terms of graphics. Keep talking until you believe it.
Posted on Reply
#50
QuietBob
Well, this game is demanding, and it seems that the GPU recommendations are about right.
From my initial testing and the few videos I've seen, it seems that the 7900XTX might indeed be able to match the 4090. Maybe it could even outdo the 4090 in lower resolutions.
The GPU part of the budget tool appears to work as intended, but the CPU metric is definitely borked.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 20th, 2024 11:45 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts