another example , and tbh , it adds so much more , to the scenery , feel , mood , if IMPLEMENTED correctly,. a night at the museum game , imagine it , shiny floors , moody lights , shadows , no rtx , just relying on sound mostly, for the ambience, jump scares excluded.Quake 2 disagrees.
Raytraced lighting and reflections and whatever are nice, and more realistic, but they just don't make my jaw drop over a well done baked in global illumination solution.
Like give me the latter at higher resolutions, framerates, and other effects and I'm totally happy to not have real time raytracing.
Would I obsess over a puddle or a shiny surface on which a reflection or light bounce doesn't appear as accurate as it could if it was fully ray traced, like I'm Alex Battaglia or something? I could. People are making a living doing that now. But I wouldn't, cause the game would look awesome and run buttery smooth, and I'd probably want to spend more time playing it than pausing it to find things I wasn't even going to notice before Nvidia paid people to start caring in the first place. Humbug I say, to raytracing
Metro is still the best use of raytracing in my opinion. Not counting Minecraft or Quake.
Isn't that using some form of neural networks and deep learning? if so, than the same RT type cores could be used as hardware acceleration for that, right? Turing RT cores are made for AIAbsolutely with you for the bolded part but isn't advanced physics even more heavy than rtx?? Like isn't this stuff still light years from being integrated in games with realistic graphics?!
Jesus how people can even think that having rtx is more impressive\important than this stuff, i have a semi every time i watch this video.
What I’ve noticed is that the people super into raytracing are more excited about what it means for the future when we have the ability to fully raytrace an entire scene. But right now I agree, we just aren’t at the point where what we can do with it is beneficial enough for the trade offs.
That’s fine - but a lot of people (myself included) think the power could be better used for things other than raytracing. Is it awesome? Sure. But it’s still not at the point where it is game changing enough to make a difference to most - that will come when we can do full pathtracing.I think it's absolutely gorgeous already. I just always have to mention the future because people think it's a "gimmick" that's going to go away when the fact is that within 5 years people won't be able to say a game looks next gen without it.
Nah, he's right.
4k is more interesting and palatable than ray tracing.But he isn't? Because 3D was a prerequisite for video games taking a forward step, whereas ray tracing absolutely is not. At least not yet anyway. That can & should come much further down the road. A better analogy would be someone in 2006 saying the ps3's power should be used to simply render ps2 era games at a higher res, whilst not pushing other elements (physics namely, but also AI, animation, textures & poly count). It would have been a total waste of power. See the point? i.e. blowing the ps5/Series X hardware power on ray traced reflections is totally redundant in terms of making the meat & bones of games better. When it's combined with an equally pointless push for 4k (so that ugly ass low poly NPC's & character models can be viewed with more pixels... because why not?), I say this industry is being pulled in the wrong direction.
4k is more interesting and palatable than ray tracing.
4k an aa magic?!4k is a magic one-size-fits-all fix for jaggies. It's like antialiasing on steroids. That's why it's immediately noticeable. Whether it's a good thing or whether it's just an example of how the tools aren't exactly efficient is another matter. I've seen games at 1080p with really good image quality (stuff like Uncharted 4 on the base ps4 for example) whilst other stuff at 1080p is jaggy as hell.
I still believe high poly character models & more detailed environments at 1080p will look far better than a 4k version of current gen games. Photorealism (if the genre demands it) has many layers & the "realism" of the stuff within the game counts more than the realism of the image quality IMO. Like watching Aliens on VHS still looks way more real than seeing Alien Isolation in 4K.
4k is a magic one-size-fits-all fix for jaggies. It's like antialiasing on steroids.
The only reason Minecraft RTX and Quake RTX exist as (largely faux) "full path tracing" games, is that they have ridiculously trivial geometry, but even in Quake it is a long set of tricks to get there.As pointed out above - the reason Minecraft RTX looks impressive is that is one of only two games (quake 2 rtx being the other one) that uses path tracing.
With this kind of attitude I truly hope you don't lead anything on this planet.Looking at Fortnite RT off looks better most of time here..
Using 20-30% of the resources on RT is a waste for some games that should just go for more res or FPS. Handcrafted baked lighting is better in situations. even in film the lighting is touched up and unnatural before filming and even more during editing. IMOO the best utilization is in photo realistic games. Another issue is that RT is at times over-implemented, in some games every surface is like a polished mirror, real life is not like that.
I think RT is overhyped and utilization will be softened after the fad phase.
The only reason Minecraft RTX and Quake RTX exist as (largely faux) "full path tracing" games, is that they have ridiculously trivial geometry
It is actually easy: more complex objects have lots of fine detail.Out of curiosity, do you actually know what step(s) in particular are affected by more complex geometry?