• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Cyberpunk 2077 Overdrive (Pathtracing)

Crayon

Member
How are those optional questlines compared to say it's contemporaries.

Like we need a bar. What bar of a game when it comes to optional questlines or sidequests is cyberpunk or tge witcher 3 not reaching. I need a game here for reference. Theres only so many...

I always get vague critical-ness of CDPR but then people get excited for starfield and go on to play soulborne or asscrred valhalla. So i need a bar setter to understand what exactly you are comparing it to...

Compared to contemporaries those optional quest lines are great. As good as enderal I reckon. Call that the bar.

That particular aspect of Witcher is great. Some others are too. I'm saying the gameplay makes w3 pretty good but not great.
 

sertopico

Member
Why is this discussion derailing? We weren't talking about gameplay, quests, dead city, polished turds, investing in other things rather than others and such. You can create your own threads for that right?

The thread is about the graphical effects they are going to introduce. I've been reading the same critics over and over again. We got your point.
 

sertopico

Member
everything lighting related will be raytraced. the game has raytracing but it falls back on screen space based solutions in many cases.
for example the lighting inside of reflections is missing a lot of detail that only gets filled in if the reflected object is in screen space, this leads to artifacts that IMO aren't even worth it in the current version (but there is no way to deactivate screen space effects separately sadly)

this overdrive mode will user higher quality raytracing and raytracing for basically everything in the game.

this mode will run like ass on almost any PC tho btw.
this is ridiculously straining shit. according to the devs, a 4090 will barely hold 30fps with overdrive, and it's designed to be used in combination with DLSS3 frame generation and DLSS upsampling.

it's basically a futureproofing mode that will in the future run on every PC no issue, but in the here and now is simply a tech demo.
I bet this will be basically unplayable on any AMD GPU for example.
Source of this? I hope it's not that video they posted months ago DLSS off vs. DLSS3 on.
 
Last edited:

StueyDuck

Member
How did you feel about the witcher 3?

They have the same level of interactivity...why did you expect more from the developer of the witcher 3? You know this wasnt a rockstar sandbox game right?

How about talk about what it did better than games of its actual genre
Do we still say these things?

They 100% advertised the game as a more sandbox experience. But even not talking about that, the open world was still an absolutely pointless experience.

The Witcher 3 was fairly boring as well but the open world there still had exploration , as little interesting as it was. Cp2077 has literally 0 reason to explore that open world and again has 0 interactivity.

If you enjoy that then good for you, but for me I may as well look at your screenshots for it gives the same experience as actually playing the game.

And it didn't do anything better than any genre. Even the Witcher 3 at least did story and side quests well. Cp feels like it's written by an adolescent child who thinks saying fuck is cool.
 

Wingnut

Member
I am playing it right now for the first time. 20h in and I am having a blast. I love the story, the world and atmosphere.

It’s sad that I only can play in the evening a few hours due to my kids.

Regarding the topic. I am always happy when a game gets Support long time after release and I am looking forward what kind of improvements CD project Red is doing in the future
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Crudely put it's like raytracing but the way they use/trace the light differs. If you want a more in depth description you can read this.

Who wrote that?
Thats borderline nonsense......im guessing some asked ChatGPT to write "whats the difference between RayTracing and PathTracing" then just pasted it as an article.
 

hlm666

Member
New trailer for this.



Thats borderline nonsense......im guessing some asked ChatGPT to write "whats the difference between RayTracing and PathTracing" then just pasted it as an article.
yeh I tried to find something that didn't go way technical on the light ray mechanics and was about use in games, but on second thoughts and reading more of it after posting it wasn't a good choice.
 

calistan

Member
Who wrote that?
Thats borderline nonsense......im guessing some asked ChatGPT to write "whats the difference between RayTracing and PathTracing" then just pasted it as an article.
According to that article, path tracing is basically what I always thought ray tracing was. To clarify (I think):

"Ray tracing is a technique for generating an image by tracing the path of [a single ray of] light [per pixel] as it bounces off objects. Path tracing is a similar technique, but it traces the path of light through a scene by following [multiple] individual light rays [per pixel]."

The biggest takeaway from that video above is when they turn off DLSS 3 on a 4090 card and it dips down to 16 fps.
 

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
yeh I tried to find something that didn't go way technical on the light ray mechanics and was about use in games, but on second thoughts and reading more of it after posting it wasn't a good choice.

According to that article, path tracing is basically what I always thought ray tracing was. To clarify (I think):

"Ray tracing is a technique for generating an image by tracing the path of [a single ray of] light [per pixel] as it bounces off objects. Path tracing is a similar technique, but it traces the path of light through a scene by following [multiple] individual light rays [per pixel]."
I was so offended by that article ive been stalking the author for the last 20 minutes.........shes lucky I cant find her, or that website just uses pseudonyms and ChatGPT to fill content.

The Monte-Carlo method of RayTracing is what many call PathTracing today......but its still actually RayTracing.
Jims paper just had "PathTracing" in the title, so we basically took that as a way to describe the technique.
Just a different mathematical model being used to enhance what RayTracing does.
There are many other RayTracing techniques out there.

Monte-Carlo equaltions can be applied to many things, but applying it to Rendering gives you very accurate results over time, by virtue of how the equation works.
For instance this is trying to find π
Pi_30K.gif


Youll notice it looks alot like final gathers of some offline renderers, thats because those renderers are using the Monte-Carlo method of RayTracing.
The guy who wrote the paper literally calls the technique Monte-Carlo RayTracing.
Monte-Carlo+Ray+Tracing+%3A+Path+Tracing.jpg
 

OverHeat

« generous god »
According to that article, path tracing is basically what I always thought ray tracing was. To clarify (I think):

"Ray tracing is a technique for generating an image by tracing the path of [a single ray of] light [per pixel] as it bounces off objects. Path tracing is a similar technique, but it traces the path of light through a scene by following [multiple] individual light rays [per pixel]."

The biggest takeaway from that video above is when they turn off DLSS 3 on a 4090 card and it dips down to 16 fps.
Damn my 4090 is already dead lol
 

MCplayer

Member
Path-tracing is every bounce in every object yhought every loght possible in the scene, ray tracing is selected (limited) points of emission and bounce, path tracing is everything to the limit, ray tracing is limited
 

calistan

Member
I was so offended by that article ive been stalking the author for the last 20 minutes.........shes lucky I cant find her, or that website just uses pseudonyms and ChatGPT to fill content.
I know someone who worked for that type of 'content farm' website. A manager would pitch something like 'write 800 words about water parks in Siberia' and the writers would pick up these projects and churn out some garbage in a couple of hours. Then the website and its many affiliates end up highly ranked for basically every type of content imaginable.

On the subject of retrofitting raytracing to this type of game, it often seems like a waste of resources to me. Some parts look nicer, other parts look worse. Like in Dying Light 2, where the raytracing mode makes an early section where you have to climb up some platforms in the dark really hard to play. Similar stuff in the trailer for Cyberpunk.
 

hlm666

Member
The guy who wrote the paper literally calls the technique Monte-Carlo RayTracing.
Even some of nvidias articles make it sound like Monte-Carlo equation is what makes something path tracing, I'm not saying that is correct or what nvidia intended but I could see how someone could skim read some of their articles and then create that article.

I don't want to see an RTX On / Off video.
I want to see an old GI solution versus new Pathtracing Overdrive video...
They seem to show old rt gi and new full rt gi in that video but they don't compare the same scene sooooooo it kinda gives you what you want but at the same time also makes it completely incomparable lol.
That was wrong should have had my glasses on, read direct illumination as global illumination.
 
Last edited:

OCASM

Banned
New trailer for this.




yeh I tried to find something that didn't go way technical on the light ray mechanics and was about use in games, but on second thoughts and reading more of it after posting it wasn't a good choice.

Particle lighting still seems to be be faked but other than that it looks fantastic. Going from RT on to RT off suddenly graphics look bad and unfinished.
 
Last edited:

nikos

Member
Looking forward to checking his out and hopefully finally completing the game.
 
Last edited:

Black_Stride

do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Even some of nvidias articles make it sound like Monte-Carlo equation is what makes something path tracing, I'm not saying that is correct or what nvidia intended but I could see how someone could skim read some of their articles and then create that article.

Well you could say they arent wrong.
Because, James Kajiya used PathTracing as a subtitle for his paper, the world uses the term Path Tracing to describe when RayTracing is done using the Monte-Carlo method.
If you apply the Metropolis-Hasting method to RayTracing you get Metropolis Light Transport but MLT relies in most cases on Bi-Directional Monte-Carlo Raytracing, so MLT programs are also called Path Tracers.

So if asked whats the difference between RayTracing and PathTracing.....well PathTracing is just another form of RayTracing using different mathematical equations that produces more accurate results than "basic" RayTracing.
 
I don't want to see an RTX On / Off video.
I want to see an old GI solution versus new Pathtracing Overdrive video...

I guess we'll see for ourselves when it launches if its overrated nonsense in psycho vs full. The video with on vs off looks about the same as with off vs on with what we have right now.
 

flying_sq

Member
Finally, path tracing. None of the stupid rt reflections and AO only crap. Path trace your lighting engine and then leave it alone.
 

Xcell Miguel

Gold Member

Buggy Loop

Member
There's so much confusion on ray tracing vs path tracing and nobody's to blame because you have different solutions between the old papers before computers, the offline rendering solutions and the gaming solutions. It confuses even Cherno guy on youtube who is an Ex-DICE engine engineer.

PAPER/Offline theory is :
Ray tracing is follow the needle. Viewpoint→ hit object → bounce in the direction of light sources point you wanted to contribute to the scene.

Path tracing is that same ray as above → bouncing the same ray between scene objects → to light source surface

If you want a simplified explanation on ray tracing vs path tracing in offline renderers, not a 1980's paper, it's pretty good. It's more from a Blender artist perspective.



"Pure" Ray tracing as defined here still requires cheats similar to rasterization, one example is that this solution should only give hard shadows, so soft shadows have to be tricked in, so are caustics.

For them offline rendering, typically
ray tracing is 1 ray per pixel
Path tracing is tens, hundreds, thousands of rays per pixel

But that's not for gaming. In gaming, ray tracing will fire pre-defined amount of rays out per frame.

A ray hitting a surface and leaves with the same angle of entry from the normal of the surface will be a specular reflection and be mirror "like".

Some peoples take the ray tracing approach and divert the ray randomly at each frames for a set number of bounces until it goes back to the light source point. This is when you want to simulate a rough surface material and you have diffuse reflection. If you're estimating a bounce, even though randomly, you're already calculating a "path" per say. This is where both start to intertwine together and confuse the fuck out of everybody.

But the "random" nature of the above approximation for ray tracing is not really how light behaves in the true physics of light. This is where scholars start to define "ray" vs "path" tracing, as in they reserve the name of path tracing for physically accurate paths.

Path tracing "tries" this by removing the "random" factor and really tries to simulate how light would bounce around physically correctly. But it's still too heavy to just cast a ray per pixels, so here comes also random selection of light sources, shadow casts. This selection is with a stochastic approach being often, the Monte Carlo solution in papers most often, probably something in-house for Nvidia.

The definition by Nvidia for the path tracing is this.



What's revolutionary with what Nvidia found and what i believe they are using for Cyberpunk 2077 overdrive patch (copy paste from the ray tracing thread, cause i'm lazy)

Well they've done a brilliant hybrid where the RTXDI, based on ReStir can do with millions of lights with no penalty, they use that for direct illumination and then they use a path tracing solver for indirect bounces.

I mean, no, it's not a Monte Carlo Path tracing solution, but that's the point, for real-time graphics we move away from CGI solutions.

RTXDI based on ReSTIR, i can guess the solution they provided for the game as their ReSTIR PT presentation from SIGGRAPH 22.

We apply our GRIS theory in a proof-of-concept path tracing algorithm we call ReSTIR path tracing (ReSTIR PT). We build on the Falcor GPU rendering framework [Kallweit et al. 2021], and implement ReSTIR PT as chained GRIS passes, per Section 6.3. ReSTIR PT can use any shift map to reuse paths between pixels, but we implement the two from the previous section: a hybrid shift combining random replay and reconnection with our lobe specific improvements, and a simpler reconnection shift that always reconnects to the first indirect vertex. Like many path tracers, ours only evaluates the sampled BSDF lobe for BSDF-sampled vertices and evaluates all lobes for NEEsampled vertices. We treat lobe selections as additional path parameters, as described in Section 7.6, using the sampled lobe roughness to choose between reconnection and random replay.
Our ReSTIR PT implementation handles full surface-to-surface light transport. Volumetric media requires a volumetric shift map; Lin et al . [2021] implicitly defines one possibility and Gruson et al . [2018] propose another, though finding fast volumetric shifts for resampling remains interesting future work.

ReSTIR PT is an unbiased global illumination method that better handles specular light transport, thanks to supporting arbitrary shift maps. While we expect benefits to direct illumination from our GRIS theory, our implementations primarily address indirect light. We use ReSTIR DI [Bitterli et al. 2020] for direct lighting.

Don't know what witchcraft Nvidia did for this honestly. There's so many research on this subject beyond just Nvidia anyway as you can see the list of references. Generalized resampled importance sampling (GRIS) is like a memory storage for reusing arbitrary paths and they use that to derive a path traced resampler. The paper compares their solution to "naive" path tracing.

The whole point of real-time ray/path tracing for gaming is to find these tricks/algorithms to beat the other solutions and get as close as possible to reference image as quick as possible.

ReSTIR is a game changer compared to Monte Carlo algorithms for speed and noise levels
gLq3lvE.jpg


If this works well for Cyberpunk 2077, we're in a revolution of "ray/path" tracing. Next hardware that will accelerate this solution even further will revolutionize game rendering.

What's to remember here is that there's discrepancies between papers, offline renderers and gaming solutions. Even the ray tracing we have right now are with tweaks and hacks to approximate beyond the very definition of the initial ray tracing papers. Rendering is always a hack of something. Path tracing in real-time is a hack of what the offline renderers are doing and restir DI + restir PT are a hack of a hack of a hack :messenger_grinning_sweat:

But if the result in the end is closer to reference image and faster, who the fuck cares.
 
Last edited:

Buggy Loop

Member
Someone made a comparison with the RTX Ultra rather than plain RTX off





Some of them are DRASTIC. Reminds me of Metro Exodus original ray tracing vs enhanced edition. What we probably don't see here either is that the Overdrive's patch is basically the whole scene, while Cyberpunk's ray tracing solution is "local", as in it stops making sense and falls back to rasterization beyond a certain point for shadows, bounces, etc. So for far distanced objects we'll get a way more accurate lighting and shadowing. Should remove the ray tracing "pop in" we saw with reflections.

The longer distance (should be all geometry all the way to horizon with overdrive from my understanding) for bounces and shadows, for an example of what i'm talking about, look at 1:09 in the first video.

I want to focus on the less obvious differences from the outside look as i believe, anything in-shadow / reflections are easy to pick up

MlT2WHF.jpg
LjOUovN.jpg


From top left : Buildings that were completely lost in detail because either the GI didn't get to it or the light bounces were too far off the distance. The antenna, i wouldn't even have noticed it in the original RT solution.
Middle left : Soft shadow of the bridge.
Middle right : Hell, not even any shadow casts on top of the building, looks like purely rasterized floating geometry on top of a flat surface.

IxgpXMN.jpg


GNqWhBF.jpg


Bottom left : Shadows are much more accurate with the overhang above it. Just a bit to the right, light bounces and lights up the building.
Top center : Accurate reflections from god knows where, but it's sharp as fuck now, even far off in the distance (not to mention the statue reflections.
Right : Every light sources now emit rays, all of them! And this little parking lot with lights at the top floor here you see that before they would not have picked that light in the solution as it's probably a rasterized solution from that distance.

Some of the ray traced shots, while leagues better than no ray tracing, still looked "gamey", take the 2:56 shot from the 2nd video compared to overdrive patch, it's not even close.

I'm not sure the media or peoples understand yet what's going on and this might also be due to Nvidia and CD project red being relatively quiet on this tech, but that's it. They cracked a really tough nut, they have path tracing for large complex games with way more light sources than Quake RTX. If 4000 series plays this well (and it seems), then if 5000 series optimize the RT cores even further towards this solution, we'll basically have path tracing everything with no rasterization very rapidly. This is happening way faster than i thought it would.

And they're already on a solution better than ReSTIR (which RTXDI is based on), called Neural radiance caching. Based on NeRF (neural radiance fields), using ML to basically create the models based on very approximated results :eek:

They're insane, Nvidia is insane.
 
Last edited:

Turk1993

GAFs #1 source for car graphic comparisons
Someone made a comparison with the RTX Ultra rather than plain RTX off





Some of them are DRASTIC. Reminds me of Metro Exodus original ray tracing vs enhanced edition. What we probably don't see here either is that the Overdrive's patch is basically the whole scene, while Cyberpunk's ray tracing solution is "local", as in it stops making sense and falls back to rasterization beyond a certain point for shadows, bounces, etc. So for far distanced objects we'll get a way more accurate lighting and shadowing. Should remove the ray tracing "pop in" we saw with reflections.

The longer distance (should be all geometry all the way to horizon with overdrive from my understanding) for bounces and shadows, for an example of what i'm talking about, look at 1:09 in the first video.

I want to focus on the less obvious differences from the outside look as i believe, anything in-shadow / reflections are easy to pick up

MlT2WHF.jpg
LjOUovN.jpg


From top left : Buildings that were completely lost in detail because either the GI didn't get to it or the light bounces were too far off the distance. The antenna, i wouldn't even have noticed it in the original RT solution.
Middle left : Soft shadow of the bridge.
Middle right : Hell, not even any shadow casts on top of the building, looks like purely rasterized floating geometry on top of a flat surface.

IxgpXMN.jpg


GNqWhBF.jpg


Bottom left : Shadows are much more accurate with the overhang above it. Just a bit to the right, light bounces and lights up the building.
Top center : Accurate reflections from god knows where, but it's sharp as fuck now, even far off in the distance (not to mention the statue reflections.
Right : Every light sources now emit rays, all of them! And this little parking lot with lights at the top floor here you see that before they would not have picked that light in the solution as it's probably a rasterized solution from that distance.

Some of the ray traced shots, while leagues better than no ray tracing, still looked "gamey", take the 2:56 shot from the 2nd video compared to overdrive patch, it's not even close.

I'm not sure the media or peoples understand yet what's going on and this might also be due to Nvidia and CD project red being relatively quiet on this tech, but that's it. They cracked a really tough nut, they have path tracing for large complex games with way more light sources than Quake RTX. If 4000 series plays this well (and it seems), then if 5000 series optimize the RT cores even further towards this solution, we'll basically have path tracing everything with no rasterization very rapidly. This is happening way faster than i thought it would.

And they're already on a solution better than ReSTIR (which RTXDI is based on), called Neural radiance caching. Based on NeRF (neural radiance fields), using ML to basically create the models based on very approximated results :eek:

They're insane, Nvidia is insane.

Wait till someone tells you how you can fake all this and that this is all Nvidia marketing gimmick.
 

01011001

Banned
Someone made a comparison with the RTX Ultra rather than plain RTX off





Some of them are DRASTIC. Reminds me of Metro Exodus original ray tracing vs enhanced edition. What we probably don't see here either is that the Overdrive's patch is basically the whole scene, while Cyberpunk's ray tracing solution is "local", as in it stops making sense and falls back to rasterization beyond a certain point for shadows, bounces, etc. So for far distanced objects we'll get a way more accurate lighting and shadowing. Should remove the ray tracing "pop in" we saw with reflections.

The longer distance (should be all geometry all the way to horizon with overdrive from my understanding) for bounces and shadows, for an example of what i'm talking about, look at 1:09 in the first video.

I want to focus on the less obvious differences from the outside look as i believe, anything in-shadow / reflections are easy to pick up

MlT2WHF.jpg
LjOUovN.jpg


From top left : Buildings that were completely lost in detail because either the GI didn't get to it or the light bounces were too far off the distance. The antenna, i wouldn't even have noticed it in the original RT solution.
Middle left : Soft shadow of the bridge.
Middle right : Hell, not even any shadow casts on top of the building, looks like purely rasterized floating geometry on top of a flat surface.

IxgpXMN.jpg


GNqWhBF.jpg


Bottom left : Shadows are much more accurate with the overhang above it. Just a bit to the right, light bounces and lights up the building.
Top center : Accurate reflections from god knows where, but it's sharp as fuck now, even far off in the distance (not to mention the statue reflections.
Right : Every light sources now emit rays, all of them! And this little parking lot with lights at the top floor here you see that before they would not have picked that light in the solution as it's probably a rasterized solution from that distance.

Some of the ray traced shots, while leagues better than no ray tracing, still looked "gamey", take the 2:56 shot from the 2nd video compared to overdrive patch, it's not even close.

I'm not sure the media or peoples understand yet what's going on and this might also be due to Nvidia and CD project red being relatively quiet on this tech, but that's it. They cracked a really tough nut, they have path tracing for large complex games with way more light sources than Quake RTX. If 4000 series plays this well (and it seems), then if 5000 series optimize the RT cores even further towards this solution, we'll basically have path tracing everything with no rasterization very rapidly. This is happening way faster than i thought it would.

And they're already on a solution better than ReSTIR (which RTXDI is based on), called Neural radiance caching. Based on NeRF (neural radiance fields), using ML to basically create the models based on very approximated results :eek:

They're insane, Nvidia is insane.


this mode will melt most GPUs 🤣
I'll still test it for the heck of it on my 3060ti. I might get 30 fps with DLSS ultra performance lol
I really hope they removed all the screenspace fallbacks, especially for reflections
 
Last edited:
Someone made a comparison with the RTX Ultra rather than plain RTX off





Some of them are DRASTIC. Reminds me of Metro Exodus original ray tracing vs enhanced edition. What we probably don't see here either is that the Overdrive's patch is basically the whole scene, while Cyberpunk's ray tracing solution is "local", as in it stops making sense and falls back to rasterization beyond a certain point for shadows, bounces, etc. So for far distanced objects we'll get a way more accurate lighting and shadowing. Should remove the ray tracing "pop in" we saw with reflections.

The longer distance (should be all geometry all the way to horizon with overdrive from my understanding) for bounces and shadows, for an example of what i'm talking about, look at 1:09 in the first video.

I want to focus on the less obvious differences from the outside look as i believe, anything in-shadow / reflections are easy to pick up

MlT2WHF.jpg
LjOUovN.jpg


From top left : Buildings that were completely lost in detail because either the GI didn't get to it or the light bounces were too far off the distance. The antenna, i wouldn't even have noticed it in the original RT solution.
Middle left : Soft shadow of the bridge.
Middle right : Hell, not even any shadow casts on top of the building, looks like purely rasterized floating geometry on top of a flat surface.

IxgpXMN.jpg


GNqWhBF.jpg


Bottom left : Shadows are much more accurate with the overhang above it. Just a bit to the right, light bounces and lights up the building.
Top center : Accurate reflections from god knows where, but it's sharp as fuck now, even far off in the distance (not to mention the statue reflections.
Right : Every light sources now emit rays, all of them! And this little parking lot with lights at the top floor here you see that before they would not have picked that light in the solution as it's probably a rasterized solution from that distance.

Some of the ray traced shots, while leagues better than no ray tracing, still looked "gamey", take the 2:56 shot from the 2nd video compared to overdrive patch, it's not even close.

I'm not sure the media or peoples understand yet what's going on and this might also be due to Nvidia and CD project red being relatively quiet on this tech, but that's it. They cracked a really tough nut, they have path tracing for large complex games with way more light sources than Quake RTX. If 4000 series plays this well (and it seems), then if 5000 series optimize the RT cores even further towards this solution, we'll basically have path tracing everything with no rasterization very rapidly. This is happening way faster than i thought it would.

And they're already on a solution better than ReSTIR (which RTXDI is based on), called Neural radiance caching. Based on NeRF (neural radiance fields), using ML to basically create the models based on very approximated results :eek:

They're insane, Nvidia is insane.


Besides the culling distance of raytraced effects which is nice, its nothing "insane". Reflections are now mirrors instead of actual realistic reflections. No real life reflection is that crystal clear and perfect. It looks horrible especially considering the fact that its a dirty pool on a road. Some interiors look weird. The average gamer will never notice these differences while playing let alone want to waste so much frames. I'll prolly replay with it on and dlss3 when the expansion launches but I'm not wowed. THe game artists already did an amazing job that even with higher RT or even without, the game is pretty af.
 

CGNoire

Member
I guess we'll see for ourselves when it launches if its overrated nonsense in psycho vs full. The video with on vs off looks about the same as with off vs on with what we have right now.
The biggest difference is with dynamic objects. Its all the small clutter thats affected the most.
 

Buggy Loop

Member
Besides the culling distance of raytraced effects which is nice, its nothing "insane". Reflections are now mirrors instead of actual realistic reflections. No real life reflection is that crystal clear and perfect. It looks horrible especially considering the fact that its a dirty pool on a road. Some interiors look weird. The average gamer will never notice these differences while playing let alone want to waste so much frames. I'll prolly replay with it on and dlss3 when the expansion launches but I'm not wowed. THe game artists already did an amazing job that even with higher RT or even without, the game is pretty af.

I picked the harder screenshots for the distances, I hope it’s evident in the indirect lighting that it’s leagues ahead in accuracy of shadows and bounces.

Reflections on buildings are up to devs, if they want a rough surface, up to them.

I disagree for pool of waters. What happens in real life is the wind, rain droplets will make them fuzzy. Otherwise it’s literally a mirror.

I don’t give a shit what the average gamer will or will not see. If we base technology on them, we would still be trying to make fire in a cave because some oonga boomga dude would say « « It’s fine eating raw meat! Look at my jaw! Waste of time making fire »

The kind of peoples who bought 4k TVs and plugged component cables in them.

It’s going to look a lot more grounded in reality with the accuracy of shadows and indirect lighting. For sure peoples will say « I don’t see the difference », always happened with every RT showcases. Their loss.
 
Last edited:
I picked the harder screenshots for the distances, I hope it’s evident in the indirect lighting that it’s leagues ahead in accuracy of shadows and bounces.

Reflections on buildings are up to devs, if they want a rough surface, up to them.

I disagree for pool of waters. What happens in real life is the wind, rain droplets will make them fuzzy. Otherwise it’s literally a mirror.

I don’t give a shit what the average gamer will or will not see. If we base technology on them, we would still be trying to make fire in a cave because some oonga boomga dude would say « « It’s fine eating raw meat! Look at my jaw! Waste of time making fire »

The kind of peoples who bought 4k TVs and plugged component cables in them.

It’s going to look a lot more grounded in reality with the accuracy of shadows and indirect lighting. For sure peoples will say « I don’t see the difference », always happened with every RT showcases. Their loss.

No offense but as I said the game already looks incredible. It feels as if they focused more on promoting RT and getting in nvidias ass than actually adding stuff to the game



This is what modders managed to turn the game into that the incapable dumbasses at CDPR could not. This should've been a priority, not Overdrive RT. But hey, have fun staring at better shadows and mirrors on the roads.
 
Last edited:

blastprocessor

The Amiga Brotherhood
Really don't like the art style of Cyberpunk and feels like a half baked integration. Not something that wows or wants to make you rush out for an RTX GPU.
 
Last edited:

Umbasaborne

Banned
I wonder if 60 fps will be achievable on a 4090 with everything maxxed out and dlss set to quality. I dont mind playing at 40 fps if need be
 

ToTTenTranz

Banned
No offense but as I said the game already looks incredible. It feels as if they focused more on promoting RT and getting in nvidias ass than actually adding stuff to the game

So much this. The jaggy animations and low-fidelity of the unnamed and super repetitive NPCs break the immersion so much more than the lighting system ever did. They look like they came out of Half Life 2.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
Besides the culling distance of raytraced effects which is nice, its nothing "insane". Reflections are now mirrors instead of actual realistic reflections. No real life reflection is that crystal clear and perfect. It looks horrible especially considering the fact that its a dirty pool on a road. Some interiors look weird. The average gamer will never notice these differences while playing let alone want to waste so much frames. I'll prolly replay with it on and dlss3 when the expansion launches but I'm not wowed. THe game artists already did an amazing job that even with higher RT or even without, the game is pretty af.
wow, properly shaded pipes

anyway, a $1600 GPU runs this like a N64 game, enough said. Maybe in five years this stuff will be acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom