-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Battlefield V: Official DXR Dev Update – Up To 50% Performance Increase
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
Great news. The performance already exceeds expectations at 1440p. Looking forward to seeing these improvements.
DICE should really just appoint you the community manager, Theorry. You've done far more marketing and advertising for the game than EA has since the reveal.
I'm super curious about how much of this update is on the Nvidia side and how much is on DICE's side. I'm a wee bit worried about trends where ray trace patches come out and the game has to be updated before it's at a playable level.
Super cool update nonetheless :)
Super cool update nonetheless :)
Nice. I might actually grab the full version now. Played the trial and was mostly happy with performance at 1440p but my one month of EA Access is running down...
As I understand, Dice aren't using any proprietary Nvidia stuff, just working with Nvidia on implementing DXR (which isn't platform specific). I'm not sure when we can expect any other vendors to start offering cards compatible with DXR, but when they do, these effects should all be available.
I'd love to know what that destruction/dynamic geometry related bug was.
Anyway, all of that makes sense, and I think the community as a whole will get much better at effectively using this technology over the coming months and years. And not just raytracing, but also the new pipeline architecture and variable rate shading, which I'm also really excited about.
Anyway, all of that makes sense, and I think the community as a whole will get much better at effectively using this technology over the coming months and years. And not just raytracing, but also the new pipeline architecture and variable rate shading, which I'm also really excited about.
By the time second generation RTX cards hit the performance should be good if they can keep up the optimization work.
By the second generation RTX cards hit there will be new RT enabled games with RT usage being a lot higher than what BFV is doing and the performance will likely stay more or less the same, at least on the Ultra quality levels.
Just in time for my new PC that is about to arrive this week. Can't wait to give this a try and get a glimpse at the future.
Really impressed with how DICE has handled the performance issues. Hoping that other developers embrace this new tech in the same manner to help move things forward.
I still want to raise a problem that isn't directly about the tech, but about game design. I'm not sure this thread is the place, but I'll try planting the seed anyway.
Beside a general fascination about the tech (that I also share) you also have to remember that games aren't simply tech. Something that looks pretty doesn't mean it's also functional, and in the same way "realistic" isn't always preferable.
When it comes to Battlefield I always had a problem with the transition from BC2 and BF3/4 because the latter games had a lot of "environmental noise" that wasn't there in BC2. In BF4 (and BF5 even more) there's always some particle effect on screen. Dust, fire sparkles or whatever else. The ultimate effect is that BC2 showed for the most part the static geometry of a map. The terrain, the buildings, the trenches. What was shown on screen was functional to the mechanics of movement and shooting. More importantly, when you saw something "moving" on screen than it was likely another player to shoot at.
The effect is that from BF3 onward it's a lot harder to separate the functional visual cues from all the "shimmering" and visual noise that crowds the screen everywhere. It simply takes a lot more time to parse and interpret the image.
Now, all this could be just the simulation of the confusion of war. But in BF5 these shiny, vibrant reflections are a setting you can turn on and off. My opinion is that they represent a disadvantage for those who decide to turn them on. They once again add even more noise to the image, more bright effects in a game that is already too bright to parse.
Try to play a shooter in a hall of mirrors. It's not ideal.
So, beside all the fascination about the tech and the beauty of static screenshots, is this stuff really useful to the experience of playing this game?
That's one aspect. The other aspect is about computation budget. It's obvious that these reflections require a whole lot of computation power. If you were designing a game, would you really think it's optimal to spend so much of your computation budget on just reflections and maybe shadows, or maybe you'd prefer to improve those aspects that seem way behind like animations, large scale environments, number of entities and so on? The actual stuff that you directly engage with.
For example, are we sure we NEED realistic reflections when simulated/optimized ones can already offer a fantastic image quality? Do we really need to simulate the whole environment and not just screen space effects? Imho, with all the dev time spent to write that DXR code and computation budget you could have also improved those aspects in a traditional way, and probably with a better practical outcome.
Beside a general fascination about the tech (that I also share) you also have to remember that games aren't simply tech. Something that looks pretty doesn't mean it's also functional, and in the same way "realistic" isn't always preferable.
When it comes to Battlefield I always had a problem with the transition from BC2 and BF3/4 because the latter games had a lot of "environmental noise" that wasn't there in BC2. In BF4 (and BF5 even more) there's always some particle effect on screen. Dust, fire sparkles or whatever else. The ultimate effect is that BC2 showed for the most part the static geometry of a map. The terrain, the buildings, the trenches. What was shown on screen was functional to the mechanics of movement and shooting. More importantly, when you saw something "moving" on screen than it was likely another player to shoot at.
The effect is that from BF3 onward it's a lot harder to separate the functional visual cues from all the "shimmering" and visual noise that crowds the screen everywhere. It simply takes a lot more time to parse and interpret the image.
Now, all this could be just the simulation of the confusion of war. But in BF5 these shiny, vibrant reflections are a setting you can turn on and off. My opinion is that they represent a disadvantage for those who decide to turn them on. They once again add even more noise to the image, more bright effects in a game that is already too bright to parse.
Try to play a shooter in a hall of mirrors. It's not ideal.
So, beside all the fascination about the tech and the beauty of static screenshots, is this stuff really useful to the experience of playing this game?
That's one aspect. The other aspect is about computation budget. It's obvious that these reflections require a whole lot of computation power. If you were designing a game, would you really think it's optimal to spend so much of your computation budget on just reflections and maybe shadows, or maybe you'd prefer to improve those aspects that seem way behind like animations, large scale environments, number of entities and so on? The actual stuff that you directly engage with.
For example, are we sure we NEED realistic reflections when simulated/optimized ones can already offer a fantastic image quality? Do we really need to simulate the whole environment and not just screen space effects? Imho, with all the dev time spent to write that DXR code and computation budget you could have also improved those aspects in a traditional way, and probably with a better practical outcome.
You have to realize this is just the very beginning of a new technology that represents a paradgim shift in how games are rendered. Of course it's a bit ridiculous if you watch at it from the outside to make such a fuss about fancy reflections, but the work that will be put in today will pay off in the future.
I also get where you are coming from. It can be annoying to get killed by someone because you can't see shit, but going back to a bland simplicity like in BC2 is not the answer, imo.
Adapting is the name of the game here, it maybe annoying if you prefer easier to read games, those have a place too, but it also adds possibilities for new gameplay that wasn't possible before. I think that more than compensates the downsides of more complex graphics.
Even when you look at things in the future perspective you have to motivate that this is an ideal way to spend the computation budget on.
There are many different directions for the technology to improve, it just doesn't seem the optimal way to do it. It really does it all sound like advertisement for a product that otherwise would be completely ignored. A way to create desire and sell something that wouldn't get any attention.
And, eventually, it will be forced because everything else will be left behind. So we are now pushed to adopt this tech even if it's not worth it. And it will never gain its worth, it will just be the only thing left on the table.
That is the nature of the beast. We have to upgrade and advance our hardware and software eventually. Without that mindset games like BF would have never been possible to begin with since the tech wouldn't be there.
Also if you want to see what it looks like if all extra power from new hardware is put into other things besides the graphics just look at things like Earth Defense Force or Dynasty Warriors. Don't get me wrong, I love how those games get more and more enemies on screen and get more ridiculous as a result, but I wouldn't want every game to be like that.
Yeah it's weird that they haven't , I mean even if they can't train the game in real-time, they can still train it will pre-rendered footage.
Agreed. Honestly, any game implementing RTX should also use DLSS to properly exploit the hardware of Turing GPUs.
I guess the thing we don't know yet is what Nvidia charge a developer to enable DLSS.
It might be that the Ray Traced version of the game requires a different data set, increasing the cost further
Yeah, even games that is said to support it are nowhere to be found. Hellblade got new hdr update but no dlss, darksiders 3 were also launched without it. If it was easy to implement like what nvidia has claimed why don't have and any retail games that ship with it. Only a benchmark demo that is delayed....
It's fine if the top tier settings tank perf hard, but I'd say the biggest issue with this first gen implementation is the lack of (downward) performance scalability. Dropping it to low only yielded modest improvements, in an ideal word we'd have settings that ran great on 2070 and settings that tanked 2080ti on the same game to cover low end and future hardware.
I've interviewed several developers of titles that are due to implement DLSS and sadly not one of them was able to provide a timeframe yet. I'll try to inquire directly with NVIDIA to see if they can provide a straight answer on when we'll see the first games supporting the technology.
Even without this update, dropping it to Low from Ultra is the difference between playable framerates (~70 FPS avg) to unplayable ones (~45FPS average) at 1440p on my 2080. There's definitely a significant performance improvement from dropping the RT quality.
Looking forward to this patch, hopefully it gets me closer to 90FPS on Low, the difference to Medium is fairly minimal graphically and I prefer the feeling of 90 FPS on gsync.
Check your PMs :D
Well, it is an optional effect. So, it is not really a problem in that sense - you do not expect everyone to use it at first any way.
Your implication there is that reflections/screen space ones/ cubemaps are much further ahead in realism than animation/shadows or other areas where you could spend development budget. And I think honestly that a 1:1 comparison of real reflections vs. what games have always used shows how woefully inadeuqate they are at conveying what real reflections do, unlike a running animation or a shadow map.
People are not at all ready for how incredibly shiny and reflective the world actually is - there are so many damn reflections everywhere...
DLSS requires tensor cores processing which may be impossible to implement alongside raytracing if such tensor cores are used for RT denoising. In case of BFV specifically it should be possible though as they stated that they are using their own compute based denoiser.
This is more an issue with BFV's RT implementation than Turing's h/w. People seem to completely miss the point that RT performance is mostly about s/w and not h/w. It is completely possible to add RTX usage in a way which won't result in any performance losses compared to rendering without RTX - but you might not be able to spot any gains in image quality either.
That's really good. 42fps at 4K is ballpark how other demanding games like Monster Hunter World perform, and those aren't using real-time raytracing.
I hope whatever optimisations were done here can be preemptively applied to Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Metro.
I hope whatever optimisations were done here can be preemptively applied to Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Metro.
Got to play a bit before work, didn't have time for any real MP gameplay but the single player map I was testing ran much much faster. I was able to bring everything up to Ultra @ 1440p with RT on High and hold around 65FPS on my base 2080. I'll probably still drop it to Low for multiplayer but the framerate jump was over 20FPS from before the patch.
With async DXR and some further improvements to pipeline and optimizations optimizations, raytracing on medium quality it should end quite cheap.
With second generation of Nvidia card i can see shadows and reflections being fully handled by DXR in the future with manageable performance impact, but it will improve rendering quality by tenfold.
With second generation of Nvidia card i can see shadows and reflections being fully handled by DXR in the future with manageable performance impact, but it will improve rendering quality by tenfold.