This is a test to see if people can see ray tracing. It's too bad they don't provide direct feed of what they're seeing so we can play along too.
-
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.
Can you even see ray-tracing?
- Thread starter Cow Mengde
- Start date
This is a test to see if people can see ray tracing. It's too bad they don't provide direct feed of what they're seeing so we can play along too.
Facts. Can you even see shadows? Can you even see light? Can you even see reflective surfaces?
i personally think it's a boondoggle by nvidia. too bad amd is way too inept to take advantage of this opening.
what they did with Turing big GPU is astonishing, they reengineered the freakin reticle limit, so they could make the biggest GPU mankind has ever seen! This thing literally has almost THREE TIMES the transistors of the ENTIRE Xbox One X SOC, which also happens to include 8 CPU's. It's also almost THREE TIMES as many transistors as 1080 TI. It should have INSANE, BLISTERING, NEVER BEFORE IMAGINED, performance.
Then they took HALF of that GPU and made it useless for anything but raytracing and DLSS.
If there were no tensor corex on the 2080Ti, it should be AT LEAST twice as fast as the 1080Ti, instead of 30% or whatever it actually is. And that speed would cascade down the product line.
what they did with Turing big GPU is astonishing, they reengineered the freakin reticle limit, so they could make the biggest GPU mankind has ever seen! This thing literally has almost THREE TIMES the transistors of the ENTIRE Xbox One X SOC, which also happens to include 8 CPU's. It's also almost THREE TIMES as many transistors as 1080 TI. It should have INSANE, BLISTERING, NEVER BEFORE IMAGINED, performance.
Then they took HALF of that GPU and made it useless for anything but raytracing and DLSS.
If there were no tensor corex on the 2080Ti, it should be AT LEAST twice as fast as the 1080Ti, instead of 30% or whatever it actually is. And that speed would cascade down the product line.
Wait till Metro Exodus releases so the internet can tell us it looks better without the RTX GI and AO.
No lies detected, but personally ray tracing is (will be) worth it, and I'm glad they started now. But why they don't have what you're talking about as an option is perplexing.
Ohhh, ray tracing is related to that weird reflection issue I noticed in the RE2 demo? Where reflections underneath Leon would be different? So ray tracing is some way to tell whether a reflection should be obscured by an object in front of it or not?
That's screen space reflection which can only reflect what's visible on the screen. It can't tell what's behind leon in that frame. That's why the reflection isn't complete. Ray tracing fixes that and provides complete reflections even of what's not on screen.
Probably nobody would buy the raytracing chip if it was optional.
But I guess another concern is the thinking is it'll be another gen or two before we have enough resources for "fast" raytracing right? Well, how many node shrink do we have left to get that performance?? Aren't we approaching the size of atoms?
Well I'm sure NVidia isn't dumb. They must have thought of it.
Ray tracing is one of those technologies that, in my opinion, should have stayed in the oven a little bit longer.
It's a really cool technology that is in the future going to be really worthwhile but artists are, for the most part, very good at faking reflections and I can't help but think the R&D could have gone towards improving performance at higher resolutions and looking at ways to make overall improvements so developers can have more raw power to work with.
I just think it's too early and a little bit pointless at this juncture to focus on raytracing.
2-3 years from now I would have said yes, after we can get the sort of power to drive 4k/120hz.
It's a really cool technology that is in the future going to be really worthwhile but artists are, for the most part, very good at faking reflections and I can't help but think the R&D could have gone towards improving performance at higher resolutions and looking at ways to make overall improvements so developers can have more raw power to work with.
I just think it's too early and a little bit pointless at this juncture to focus on raytracing.
2-3 years from now I would have said yes, after we can get the sort of power to drive 4k/120hz.
I can see it because I know what to look for, after all that time spent with offline raytracing renderers. I also know how ridiculously complex they are to compute and how far off any reasonable attempt at doing it in games is. Seems you can spend those resources on other methods to produce better results than something like screen space reflections, that probably still take less compute power than even the simplest raytrace solution.
Much like HDR I think it will be hit and miss for the few games that use it until the hardware needed hits more of a mass market price point and / or it turns up in consoles (which is when the industry at large will implement it in most AAA games).
Well right now we just have it patched in after the fact for things like reflections OR shadows OR whatever metro is doing. For the uninformed, I can see why it might be hard to notice what it's doing until games combine ALL of those. I think we're a very, very, very long way away from games being built from the ground up with ray tracing powering all aspects of the rendering pipeline. Gotta start somewhere though.
Introducing ray tracing brings a lot of benefits, that at the moment do cost a lot. The biggest thing that is does do is not 'fake' things like reflections, contact shadows and bounced lighting. Ambient occlusion will be one of the biggest overall benefits, as right now screenspace AO has obvious artifacting such as halo / outlining. Gameplay wise, a shiny mirror or metallic surface would reveal players about to bust into a room - something that wouldn't really be captured with screenspace reflections.
It'll be a long time until real-time raytracing will be feasible, what we're seeing now is a hybrid where certain passes are being computed at low quality and then de-noised to improve quality.
It'll be a long time until real-time raytracing will be feasible, what we're seeing now is a hybrid where certain passes are being computed at low quality and then de-noised to improve quality.
I think it needed to be pushed out the door just to counteract the chicken-and-egg problem of software support. Same as VR: it's in a decent-enough state to be salable now, and can only get better with time as market growth drives new innovations and new entrants.
You have to start somewhere. Technologies take time to improve and the only way to do that is to jump in. Nvidia is getting a lot of shit over RTX but someone had to be the first to make the push.
This is one of those things that the non technical people will notice for sure but won't actually be able to point out what the difference unless both are put side by side. This is likely because they would not really understand what was " wrong" in the first place even if they'll go "Aha !" once you point it out to them. It's partly because we've never really had accurate reflections at a high consistency before.
Still reflections should be easy to spot and determine that they are indeed superior....compared to GI and shadows, the reason being while they will notice that the ray traced GI and shadows are different they might not understand why exactly it's superior or even believe that it's superior. For instance, ray traced shadows would lead to accurate contact hardening shadows with penumbra, antumbra and umbra...this will lead to a fuzzier looking shadows and when compared to razer sharp shadows people might thing " Oh this looks worse because it's not sharp). Now while you can get rasterised solutions for contact hardening shadows (HFTS, PCSS) they will still not be as accurate as ray traced ones. For GI they might thing that ray traced GI is " too dark" compared to rasterised GI solution like probes.
I do not believe RE2 has any rtx implementation. If RE2 had ray traced reflections then that door would have been fully reflected.
Still reflections should be easy to spot and determine that they are indeed superior....compared to GI and shadows, the reason being while they will notice that the ray traced GI and shadows are different they might not understand why exactly it's superior or even believe that it's superior. For instance, ray traced shadows would lead to accurate contact hardening shadows with penumbra, antumbra and umbra...this will lead to a fuzzier looking shadows and when compared to razer sharp shadows people might thing " Oh this looks worse because it's not sharp). Now while you can get rasterised solutions for contact hardening shadows (HFTS, PCSS) they will still not be as accurate as ray traced ones. For GI they might thing that ray traced GI is " too dark" compared to rasterised GI solution like probes.
Yes and No, Yes because due to the way SSR works part of the door would not be reflected due to Leon's body obscuring the door and that particular part being outside of "screen space" (i.e. what's visible on screen) and not get reflected. No because the PC version's SSR is buggy and breaks a lot more than it should, parts of the door should still be reflected there.Ohhh, ray tracing is related to that weird reflection issue I noticed in the RE2 demo? Where reflections underneath Leon would be different? So ray tracing is some way to tell whether a reflection should be obscured by an object in front of it or not?
I do not believe RE2 has any rtx implementation. If RE2 had ray traced reflections then that door would have been fully reflected.
Last edited:
Of course you can, in the same way you can see:
- PBR
- Chromatic aberration
- Dynamic resolution
- checkerboarding
And most other techniques devs use these days.
- PBR
- Chromatic aberration
- Dynamic resolution
- checkerboarding
And most other techniques devs use these days.
This is clickbait that's meant to create a controversial argument. If you know what ray tracing is, you can see it. It's not some sort of illusion.
Even if you don't know what to look for, it's still visible. It's just not something that's going to jump out at you, because it simulates the way things should look naturally.
I think we will get to a point in time when, once people are used to ray tracing, it will be jarring to see games without it.
Even if you don't know what to look for, it's still visible. It's just not something that's going to jump out at you, because it simulates the way things should look naturally.
I think we will get to a point in time when, once people are used to ray tracing, it will be jarring to see games without it.
At some point, more shader performance is not going to do much for image quality if you still have to use not-at-all accurate techniques that don't look good without considerable tinkering and contriving of situations. Take screen-space ambient occlusion, there is not much more to be gained from continuing to investigate slightly better ways to guess which pixels to paint darker, based on very sparse and incomplete information. Especially when the result of this technique is static and can't react dynamically to lighting changes in the scene.
This tech is going to mean a much more unified and straight-forward way to simulate light in all conditions. Whether observers know it or not, the simulation of light is one of the greatest single things that can help convince the brain that objects in a scene are believable and grounded in the world. It's going to allow developers to increase the scope of their imagination, actual day and night cycles with considerably less effort, characters able to hide in and emerge from shadows, mirrors that behave accurately in all scenarios. A lot of people don't realise how the scope of games are designed around what's possible to do with realtime graphics. Just give it some thought. Why have you never played a round of Battlefield that begins pre-dawn and continues as the sun rises and on through the day? Because it would be far too complex to do to a necessary standard with current techniques.
People complaining about Nvidia spending their transistor budget on specialised hardware are mostly laggards when it comes to technology adoption anyway. A technology company that wants to break new ground and be leading a field shouldn't be listening to laggards, so kudos to the engineering teams for bringing this to realtime graphics.
This tech is going to mean a much more unified and straight-forward way to simulate light in all conditions. Whether observers know it or not, the simulation of light is one of the greatest single things that can help convince the brain that objects in a scene are believable and grounded in the world. It's going to allow developers to increase the scope of their imagination, actual day and night cycles with considerably less effort, characters able to hide in and emerge from shadows, mirrors that behave accurately in all scenarios. A lot of people don't realise how the scope of games are designed around what's possible to do with realtime graphics. Just give it some thought. Why have you never played a round of Battlefield that begins pre-dawn and continues as the sun rises and on through the day? Because it would be far too complex to do to a necessary standard with current techniques.
People complaining about Nvidia spending their transistor budget on specialised hardware are mostly laggards when it comes to technology adoption anyway. A technology company that wants to break new ground and be leading a field shouldn't be listening to laggards, so kudos to the engineering teams for bringing this to realtime graphics.
It's a dumb question and irrelevant. It is like asking "Can you see the number 3?" and sometimes you show them a 2, sometimes you show a 3.
Show someone an area in BFV with non-reflective surfaces and they won't be able to see RT. Show someone an area with indirect reflections and they will see it. Show someone Quake 2 RTX and they will see it.
Plenty of people have no idea what they're seeing, have poor memory, or poor eyesight. But the differences are huge when in a situation where it is necessary.
Show someone an area in BFV with non-reflective surfaces and they won't be able to see RT. Show someone an area with indirect reflections and they will see it. Show someone Quake 2 RTX and they will see it.
Plenty of people have no idea what they're seeing, have poor memory, or poor eyesight. But the differences are huge when in a situation where it is necessary.
I'll find fully rate ray seems to be dramatic and obvious. I suppose I would be fooled by a fake done with pre-existing methods color but I've only seen demonstrations from good sources.
The partial ray racing at these cards do? I don't know. Seems far less impressive. An order of magnitude.
The partial ray racing at these cards do? I don't know. Seems far less impressive. An order of magnitude.
So you're telling me you cannot see that awful shit in Chromatic Aberration or see pixel suddenly shift during a DR change?
Right now ray tracing is a lateral step to put us on the right track that leads to an obviously better way of both making and rendering games in the future. It's hugely important, but I don't at all envy whoever has had to come up with how to market this right now in 2018/2019.
Moving away from 25 years of very smart shortcuts in order to do things the right way is hard.
Moving away from 25 years of very smart shortcuts in order to do things the right way is hard.
I agree, they need to be able to top this generation of cards, and the next one, which is becoming increasingly harder.
They also don't want to sell you a product that's top of the line for the next 10+ years, would not be good business doing so.
See above, Nvidia aren't dumb, they know what they're doing.
(which essentially could be seen as milking their consumers as hard and efficient as possible, sadly)
People do not realise they are pregnant until they give birth sometimes.
I am not sure how interesting the question is "do people in general notice these things?"
If you were to flick back and forth in a standard format, yes, people can use pattern recognition to see the difference. They may not know what they see though.
I am not sure how interesting the question is "do people in general notice these things?"
If you were to flick back and forth in a standard format, yes, people can use pattern recognition to see the difference. They may not know what they see though.
Sorry, I read a lot of sarcasm in that. The internet is a terrible place, sometimes.