Q: Thanks for joining us! The game looks amazing! Please tell us about your core goals for Star Wars: Galactic Racer™ and what the game is all about.
Andrei Shires, Co-Founder and Head of Technology at Fuse Games: Our job as a technology team is simple in principle: support the best possible player experience. Everything we do is in service of that.
Karl Wickens, Studio Technical Art Director at Fuse Games: From a technical standpoint, our core goals were high-fidelity content and cinematic presentation, without sacrificing consistent frame rate or fluid controls.
Q: Why was Unreal Engine 5 chosen for this project and which UE5 features stood out to you most during development (and why)?
Shires: We evaluated multiple engines at the outset. What mattered most was finding one that let us build quickly to a very high, consistent standard, so our focus could stay on making the game, not building core technology from scratch. Unreal Engine 5 was the clear opportunity there, particularly the way Nanite, Lumen and World Partition work together. That combination was hugely attractive for a game like ours.
Wickens: We knew we’d need to grow the team fast, and using an off-the-shelf engine with well-established best practices made onboarding much easier. It also sped up our own learning curve and let us bring in purchased tools and content as a starting point for our own game-specific assets.
Q. Racing games expose every millisecond of latency. What were the biggest technical challenges in making vehicles feel responsive at such high speeds?
Shires: A few things. For a racing game to feel consistent and fair, the physics simulation has to run at full frame rate, independent of the game’s frame rate, and fast enough to handle vehicles travelling—and crashing—at extreme speed. We put a lot of effort into getting that physical simulation as solid as possible, because everything else depends on it: consistency, fairness, low latency, and a vehicle that actually responds the way you expect it to through a corner.
Wickens: One thing that mattered enormously—not quite rendering, but adjacent to it—was managing several different ‘layers’ of each level simultaneously. There’s the render mesh, which is mostly Nanite. There’s a separate collision layer for the racing simulation. And there’s the Lumen scene: the 3D geometry that feeds global illumination, plus the far-field scene beyond that. As you race through a level, multiple layers of data are active at once—some visible, some not, some affecting racing physics, some affecting lighting. We spent a lot of time tuning the resolution of each of these, testing what was actually perceivable if left out of the Lumen ray-tracing scene, to hit the frame rates we needed.
Q: How has Nanite enabled the team to use highly detailed assets, including vehicles with millions of triangles, while still targeting smooth performance? Also, what sort of tangible results did the team see in terms of visual quality and production time?
Wickens: Nanite was a genuine paradigm shift from the old LOD-based world, where you’d carefully hand-pick the triangle budget for every level of detail on an asset. With Nanite, you provide one fixed high-resolution version and let it dynamically resolve however many triangles the scene needs. The old LOD approach is expensive to produce and, because LODs work in fixed bands, it’s inherently wasteful—there’s a sweet spot in each band where detail looks right, and a stretch either side where you’re not getting the quality you could be. Nanite also killed the ‘popping’ you’d get as assets switched between LOD bands, since it resolves detail smoothly instead.
The fidelity gains were tangible in some unexpected places, too. Our head of content is still delighted that we can pull straight from in-race vehicle assets for close-up marketing imagery, with zero extra modelling work. Those same assets held up as cinematic props, and in photomode you can get right up close and still see the detail holding—with none of the popping artefacts LODs used to cause.
Production time is an interesting story. The old LOD pipeline is a bit like hand-finishing furniture. Every cut matters: every edge loop has to earn its place in a tiny triangle budget. Nanite takes a lot of that technical overhead away. It’s still there, just reduced significantly, which opens the work up to more artists and lets them move faster.
Shires: I’d plus-one that. The biggest change I’ve seen is being able to get a level or vehicle looking good and running at a good frame rate at the same time. In the old pipeline, you’d get gorgeous meshes in and immediately tank your frame rate until the LODs were done, so you’d see ‘what the game will look like’ and ‘what the game will play like’ as two separate moments, weeks apart.
With Nanite, we had assets that weren’t optimized at all running at a good look and a good frame rate very early in development. That’s the real shift for me. Not that the game looks better, because I think we could’ve hit similar visual quality with LODs too, but it’s how much faster we could iterate on that experience and Fuse, the more we travel through the iteration loop, the better our game gets.
We even added a Star Destroyer model that had been made for the films. Unreal Engine allowed us to drop it straight into the level, and it just worked on PS5. That was pretty special.
Q: How have Lumen and physically based rendering helped create convincing lighting across different environments and times of day? Could you talk about how this impacted artist workflows and iteration times?
Wickens: Lumen let us reach an attractive, if not fully polished, baseline of lighting very quickly and let the lighting team iterate through different looks for a level at a rough pass before committing.
One of the more interesting outcomes on the PBR side was a workflow we built to sample real-world color from our reference footage and convert that into physically accurate reference color for our assets. That took a lot of the guesswork out of choosing texture colors—guesswork that varies wildly depending on someone’s monitor, room brightness, or ambient lighting, since not every artist works in a color-controlled environment.
We paired that with custom Unreal Engine validation tools that show artists where a given color sits on a percentual scale, from very dark and dark, through mid-tones, up to bright and very bright, plus flags for anything that falls outside that range entirely. Artists often start out choosing colors that look right in isolation—in Photoshop—but don’t hold up once lit in engine. Having that consistent PBR framework meant that whether someone was building textures for characters, vehicles or environments—often in isolation from each other—everything sat together correctly once lit in the Lumen scene, with no visual disparity between them.
Q: How have you optimized Unreal Engine to deliver consistent framerates and preserve the feeling of speed?
Wickens: We built a fairly complex validation tool that codifies our technical specs into actual enforced rules. Take Nanite triangle density: Nanite will happily accept as many triangles as you throw at it, but we still want a consistent density going in, so we calculate a target density per object based on its size and curvature.
Every check-in tests each asset against the rules set for its type, flags anything that doesn't pass, and rolls it up into dashboards across the whole content repository. That's just one example of more than 250 rules we have across asset types. The whole system exists to give us confidence that everything reaching the game is the quality bar it needs to be.
Q: How does the team ensure visual consistency across various hardware?
Shires: It ties back to the same principles. If the game holds the frame rate in resolution it will look good on any platform. Unreal Engine handles cross-platform consistency well. But compromises are inevitable, so the goal is understanding which compromises we're choosing versus which are happening by accident and making sure we're compromising in the right places. We've put a lot of effort into low-end PC and Xbox Series S specifically, so if you put that series S and series X side by side, the difference is visible but explicable—better hardware earns its advantage.
For most of the production, we reviewed on-target platforms every week. A tech art director, tech director, graphics engineer, and often a senior lighting artist would gather around the same screens comparing PlayStation to Xbox, or console to PC, digging into platform-specific settings to close any unintentional gaps.
When the inevitable YouTube comparison videos land, we want players to see that we tried hard on their hardware specifically—that the weaker hardware still looks good, still plays great, still holds frame rate, even where it's had to compromise.
Wickens: Exactly, we were literally comparing two hardware setups side by side on the same TV panel, every week. We also invested heavily, very early, in playtesting together in context rather than building content and isolation and squeezing it in at the end. That's a big part of our culture, and something we talk about a lot when hiring.
We run multiplayer playtests and block out levels from early on, with people on PlayStation, Xbox, high-end PCs, and lower-powered PCs all in the same session so problems on specific hardware surfaced fast. Walking around as an individual in those sessions, you'd see the game across a dozen different screens and setups. On top of that, daily auto builds report performance across every console on a single graph, so we can confirm our scalability decisions for lower-end hardware are actually holding up on frame rate and memory.