It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

Does the game really look as good as the screenshots?
Yes, the game already looks briliant, I've found just a couple of things:
- Pop in is like in any other Uneral-based game, the engine is just like that, so it happens often here too
- I've checked 2 setting options: Ultra details at 1080p (runs a pretty stable 40-50FPS on my rig), or 4k resolution on High settings (keeps 30FPS, up to 40 max). The latter option makes it look better, I thought that using Ultra will be eye-blowing, but it's nothing near 4k resolution. I've tried Ultra + 4k. but the game dropped to 15FPS and lower, and I didn't see much difference in Ultra vs High (ultra has more particle and smoke effects, but it's not worth that much to go back to 1080p)

So yeah, photogrammetry does the job.
This is absolutely an a stunning game visually as well as a solid game in many other aspects (level design, story, regular optimizations etc..).

For anyone who is interested in the difference in visuals between the graphics settings (Ultra, High, Medium, Low), at a reasonable GPU clock speed that almost any RTX graphics card should be able to maintain stably as an example of the differences in visuals between the different graphics settings.

I spent some time carefully benchmarking Chernobylite on my rig (i7 7700K, RTX 2080 Ti KPE), I ran each benchmark test twice, only recording the second of each test, this was done along with slowing down my GPU cooling pump speed to get the temperature as close to 50°C as possible for each test, mostly for the purpose of keeping the temperature consistent for more accurate results as well as for simulating common GPU temperatures during gameplay.

Anyway, enough rambling, here's the comparison video:

I hope someone finds it interesting or useful.