Day 17 - daily bumping!
Fun fact: the suggestions might take over 6 years until being actually added, the suggestion also should be active so specific suggestion would have a higher chance of being added!
What I mean were these
Normal maps allow 3D models to display fine surface details like bumps, scratches, and wrinkles without increasing the actual polygon count or geometry. Roblox already supports PBR rendering.
1 Like
Recording framerate or video export framerate does not equal actual framerate.
Also, games have been capable of rendering themselves multiple times since 2004.
Half-Life 2 makes use of Planar Reflections for itâs water reflections, which uses a second camera to render the scene from the angle of the reflection, ie rendering the scene twice.
VR Headsets also require scenes to be rendered twice, once per eye, and the Oculus Quest 2 runs on mobile hardware and has Roblox available on it, and Roblox runs quite well on it.
The modern hardware we have, and even looking back in the past shows that this isnât something thatâs impossible or complicated or something thatâd even cause that bad of a performance downgrade.
Of course, this is assuming thereâs only one extra camera active at once, the performance loss is of course exponential the more cameras are active, but that shouldnât be a reason against it. Hell, roblox could make the improved lighting a toggle and on documentation make mention to use it sparingly. If people enable better lighting on all frames, let them deal with the consequences.
3 Likes
Iâd argue thatâs a better way to describe parallax occlusion mapping.
Normal maps just tell the lighting engine how light should react to certain points on a texture, which can give the illusion of more detail on a flat surface due to the âshadowsâ being cast by the normals.
2 Likes
if someone were to show off their work (especially on the official roblox channel), why would they be recording or exporting the video at such a low framerate? They have 4 cameras up running at once, i think its pretty obvious that its not the recording and that its the game itself thats lagging
it can be capable all it wants, that doesnt mean it ran well. Also lighting wasnt anywhere near as complex as it is now and we ran games at smaller resolutions not to mention that the target framerate for games back then was also smaller than it is today
I agrue differently, from my experience roblox doesnt run the best on the quest2 and it doesnt look good either. And i could only imagine what the performance would look this with an additional viewport rendering like that on it
which basically means, we will never get this
roblox engineers are smart, im sure they can figure something out one day or another, but not without tons of compromises
The clips seems to have been from a hack week or whatever they call it, and from some other clips Iâve seen of hack-week projects, theyâre all recorded at a low framerate.
Or, simple to hurry up export times, they lower the framerate after mashing multiple recordings together.
The reason theyâd lower the framerate is because it wasnât a super fancy presentation or an official announcement, it was just made to go âhey look we made these cool things in a week!â
I believe Half-Life 2 ran really well for the time. (yknow, where 30 FPS was industry standard instead of 60)
Again, we have better hardware now. Most computers should easily be able to hit 60 FPS with multiple active cameras.
Oh also, Portal 2 renders itself a lot.
And that doesnât harm performance at all, hell this game ran perfectly on the XBOX 360, and that thing only has 512 MB of VRAM.
It ran at what Iâd call a playable framerate. Iâm unable to retest this since I no longer own my quest 2 and have since upgraded to a PCVR headset.
Of course, thatâs coming from me who plays VRChat which notoriously runs at a low framerate, which is what Iâm used to in VR.
If we want to talk more, the Steam Frame (comparable to a Quest 3âs hardware) can run Half-Life Alyx at about 30 FPS without (from what I saw) any major changes to the graphics.
I think youâre way underestimating what modern hardware is capable of, and even what older hardware was capable of.
4 Likes
Yeah, for the past 8/9 years of viewport existence- PLUS with my rendering optimisation on these, this will easily run up to 12 - 15 viewport frames on standard potato Phone/PC if it would work as a portal mechanics, and would ESPECIALLY load easily as a single viewport frame working as a camera which would be SO USEFUL for the most of the developers, Since they use images or uploaded videos to IMITATE cameras instead of actually being so..
I REALLY hope if im going to be active on this post for long enough itâll get the attention of administration or development team to be added into the actual engineâŚ
âthese are unofficial, so lets make it 15 fpsâ
acting as if everyone was getting 60fps, and thats also not even accounting for the people who just lower the graphics settings and people who just completely disable the water rendering effect.
And water(where the double rendering was being used) isnt even present throughout the entire game, only like 20% of the campaign
portal is built for portals, thats the whole point of the game. They can structure the game specifically to get portals to work as efficiently as possible. Roblox is not portal2, roblox was not specifically designed for portals which means we dont get that same advantage
was 30fps, caped recursive portals (2), culled distant objects and strips down the shader passes
the steam frame processor is around 25-30% more powerful then the quest 3âs. Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 chip vs Snapdragon XR2 Gen 2. Steam frame also has 16gb of memory with the quest 3 having only 8gb.. Personally i dont find that as being on the same page as eachother.
Also halflife alyx is one of the most optimized vr games out there and like you mentioned yourself, there was graphical changes that were made. And 30 fps for vr isnt even a playable and comfortable framerate anyways
pip in games is one of the hardest things to do due to how performance heavy it is. And youre mentioning hl2 and portal 2 as if those wernt made 15+ years ago. Yes the hardware was worse back then, but the lighting and rendering was even worse. And have you even taken account for that both hl2 and portal 2 use baked lighting? Thats way different from how roblox handles lighting and most modern games do it
im really tired right bow but hopefully most of that makes sense
1 Like
Itâs nothing they directly plan to release, plus who knows, itâs completely plausible that they could have been recorded on work computers that are built for work, not gaming, and as such recording framerates had to be lowered so the computer wouldnât explode.
Point is, even though the videos are of a low framerate, that doesnât mean that the low framerate is a direct cause of the hackweek project. Other hackweek videos arenât always at a good framerate, usually around 30 or so.
Plus, thereâs every chance that the video you found could have been lowered to a worse framerate and isnât actually the original recording. I have no idea where you got that video, so Iâll end this comment here.
Iâm saying that at the time, the industry standard was 30, which is likely what most people were getting on HL2.
But at the end of the day, the rendering being done is still nearly the same as what viewports are, rendering the scene from the perspective of another camera.
(Of course viewports render their children, but a part of this suggestion is just to allow them to render workspace)
Iâd say the problem with portal 2 (and portal) was figuring out the physics behind the portals and less so the rendering.
The rendering is really, and I mean really easy, but trying to get game engines to understand that 2 different points in 3D space are actually the same point is quite difficult.
Roblox still has the tech used for rendering portals, thereâs no reason it is currently as bad as it is.
Still did multi-camera rendering on 512 MB of VRAM.
And again, 30fps was the industry standard back then. For the time it was a marvel it was working and pushing the limits of rendering a lot. Now, itâs light work for 99% of devices.
Additionally, that screenshot I provided, if not already obvious by the clearly âFox Chellâ player model, is a modded version of Portal, using Strata Source. The map in particular I was playing had PBR, Strataâs Clustered Lighting, Volumetric Lighting, Real-Time lights and pretty much every effect you could imagine.
Iâm not gonna say all those effects would run on a potato, but it doesnât have a performance impact on my own computer and it could have probably run on my old laptop at a minimum of 40fps using intel integrated graphics. But hey, thatâs what graphics settings are for!
Absolutely no reason roblox couldnât adjust the lighting settings of viewport frames alongside the lighting settings of the game with the graphics slider. Tell me why that wouldnât work?
The effects wonât be rendered if the player chooses for them not to be, and it ties into their existing graphics settings easily.
I said itâs comparable, not identical. Itâs close enough to where if I already had a quest 3, I would be questioning whether the frame would be a worthwhile upgrade.
I said there wasnât any major changes to graphics. All I could really say is that they maybe lowered the resolution of textures, but thatâs about all I can spot and Iâm not even sure if they did.
HL:A makes use of Foviated Rendering so more pixels are rendered directly where youâre looking, and less pixels elsewhere, and since thereâs less overall pixels, itâs hard to tell whether they did actually crush texture res down or not.
From the video I watched, there didnât seem to be any notable differences from the PCVR version besides the rendering, the shaders, lighting, and models seemed to all be identical.
Agree to disagree. Itâs a preference thing, I get motion sick a lot easier if the framerate is too high. Iâve personally capped my headsets to 90HZ and comfortably play most VR games at 40 FPS, sometimes 60 if theyâre optimized enough. 8GB VRAM is really a killer for me considering my headsets resolution.
Portal 2 was originally going to have an entirely different lighting engine, with real-time lighting and volumetric lighting, which Valve had to scrap to get it running on the XBOX 360.
You can actually see this lighting engine in some of the earlier leaked betas for Portal 2, which you can view on Msushis youtube.
I also do believe some of the screenshots and trailers from the steam page for Portal 2 use the old lighting engine, too, of course ignoring those which are clearly renders.
Anyway, roblox can just adjust rendering effects of viewports alongside graphics setting, plus most of the bad optimization from viewports comes from updating objects within them, if you donât have to do that, they actually run really well. If roblox just allowed us to render the workspace instead of having to clone everything, then thatâd make them immediately more optimized.
except its not, you chose to mention the single similarity they have. Yes they both render a scene from the perspective of a camera, which is like obviously. How it renders objects, lighting, literally everything else, its done completely differently.
And like i said above, hl2+portal uses a baked lighting system which would greatly improve performance for something like portals and water reflections
not much to say here other than were at a standstill on this one, no real way to prove either side wrong. And i got the video from the roblox youtube account, im pretty sure it was either the 2019 or 2018 hack week
still has? can you explain more on this
subjective i guess, personally i find that in this context 25% arent that close to eachother
i dont have motion sickness, but having a lower framerate on vr for me physically hurts my eyes
thats because the current viewports are missing tons of effects and have capped resolutions. Our viewports are so lackluster that of course the most expensive thing about them right now is having to constantly update them
i also just want to state that im not against being able to render the workspace in a viewport, i think that trying to shove our default lighting and rendering into them is the issue
i kinda jumped around allot on this and got lost but i think i covered the main responses
if theres something i missed that u want me to respond on, lmk
Day 18 - daily bumping!
I have no idea on what to type here anymore..
I guess that people really needs this to become true, this is yet most popular roblox dev forum suggestion created in 2026! I hope theyâre going to add that.
1 Like
bump!!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!!
4 Likes
Day 19 - daily bumping!
Already almost a 20th daily streak, never thought i would get to the point i would daily check up the forum, thanks yall for the support!
6 Likes
Day 20 - daily bumping!
we reached 110 likes and 20 daily streak! again- thank you all for the support! never thought this suggestion would get to this point..
Day 21 - daily bumping!
Fun fact - you cannot recreate âpicture in pictureâ with any plugins or anything, this suggestion is the only solution to this problem.
1 Like
Day 22 - daily bumping!
Fun fact: Doors just ruined the whole point of NVCS-3000! All because they bring it back in the worst way possible! All thanks to non updated viewport frames and lag!
Day 23 - daily bumping!
idk, i dont have any fun facts for today, sorry!
1 Like
Day 24 - daily bumping!
Todays fact of the day: Viewports is the most used feature in the platform, yet it havenât been touched for 9 whole years, Yet this is the only suggestion popular enough to have a small chance of being noticed!
2 Likes
Day 25 - daily bumping!
Having no fun facts for today again. Sorry!
Also they can add Supporting HighLights inside ViewportFrames, for more info:
click here
I think It would be useful. What do you think?
2 Likes