In the minecraft demo stage Nvidia shown off, they were surprised that they could make actual lighting illusions like camera obscura work
-
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.
Digital Foundry: Ray Tracing in Games: How Today's Big Tech Gamble Became Tomorrow's Sure Thing [Sponsored]
- Thread starter chandoog
- Start date
I'm out of town right now so I couldn't check myself so I appreciate you taking these shots to try to reproduce the same conditions. I apologize that I came off hostile to the DF folks in my original post because that definitely wasn't my intention.Found the area where this was made and got similar results. Or similar enough. It's the scene and way the light comes up from nearly above.
So first...it's not about being a "fanatic" and no one is being "petty" as you describe. Anything improves as you get more power...duh, but even with what we have now, RT can make a big difference in games and their design today. As described by Dictator in the video...the biggest hurdle at this point in time is actually time and familiarity with the new codebase that developers have to work with so that they can take advantage of raytracing. This goes with any new technology, so it's not only more capable hardware, it's techniques used within said hardware (See usage of DLSS, VRS etc...). It's the same reason why we have great looking games at the end of a generation vs. the beginning even though the hardware is still the same (and no, i'm not including the midgen upgrades). It's a balance of software and hardware that leads to great things, not just the capabilities of the hardware. Raytracing has been out forever ago, it was software techniques that created rasterization because we couldn't simulate light easy (using physics logic for algorithms is much easier than faking lighting).
From my point of view, there's not a caveman like mentality in reference to raytracing...it's just that people who have no clue about its importance to game development, game design, and finished titles talk as if it's just a small thing when it's not. Sure, we have a few titles right now that didn't have time to fully take advantage of the hardware (because the reality of time and budgets and schedules) and it will get better over time with better hardware but more importantly as I stated...developer familiarity.
Just being honest here...your post comes off as some persecution complex than the people being defensive. That's just my opinion though.
Not to mention real time RT will make life a bit easier for environment and lighting artists during development, where they can focus on other areas there by increasing the overall visual quality of the game (or decreasing the overall effort/time it requires).
I keep hearing mentions every now and then that any hardware can do it. I wish we could get a playable demo of something that runs okay. I don't want to spend money on the 20XX series at this stage with its RTX performance but I want to get a taste.
I'm not anti-raytracing. Full raytracing is a holy grail. I just want a worthwhile balance with the implementations we get this coming gen. I see pictures, clips and videos (not Quake II or minecraft, those look amazing) of modern games with it on/off and it looks a bit better but it sometimes feels like something I can forget about if the faked lighting is decent enough, to get the performance back. Especially if I'm still having to wait around for something like DLSS.
I bet if I experience a game where it feels significantly more realistic exploring the level, I won't want to go back. Experiencing it would be harder to forget or dismiss.
I just worry we're not going to get a good balance between realism (more authentic lighting) and performance this time round. Hopefully the RTX 30XX series can lessen the drawback.
Next next gen I'm super pumped for it. This next-gen... I think I'd like to see other improvements a bit more. Hopefully we get a bit of both and not every game is using it with a heavy hand.
I believe DF is extremely excited about the tech. It's obvious. I just wish they'd point out the drawbacks too. Like how sometimes it doesn't do much for scenes while having a heavy performance impact. I watched a video of Metro Exodus with the developer who even talks about it. And how sometimes the result with it off might even be preferrable as the blacks got crushed so much, or the fps dropped so much and there was nothing to really show for it - while their faked lighting was actually rather good. Sure those things can improve a bit with more experience but maybe not always. If they had more performance, perhaps it could have been sorted.
Maybe I'm not clear enough. BOOST THE RTX PERFORMANCE.
Last edited:
If you have any games that support RT, you could try out the founders version of GeForce Now to get a taste for only a little coin.
Lol, how has what I said gave the impression of persecution, its funny that you fail to acknowledge the persecution from the very first post I quoted in this thread where said poster thinks there's some cabal of posters 'down playing RT'.
As I've said over and over again just because people point out that current implementations of RT in games like Battlefield 5 and control are not some giant leap in visuals, people here falsely interpret that as "down playing"
Last edited:
Yo that Control shot is bullshit. It is real, but you have fucked up the settings somehow or found the absolute worst spot in the game.
I fired up the game, 1070Ti, having shadows on high. I approached the wall to have the camera up-close to the face. There are AO and Contact Shadows all across the face... How did you manage to make the hair shadowless in the shot is a mystery.
I fired up the game, 1070Ti, having shadows on high. I approached the wall to have the camera up-close to the face. There are AO and Contact Shadows all across the face... How did you manage to make the hair shadowless in the shot is a mystery.
Are you certain? I thought that was coming later on, and for a slightly higher cost? I'd absolutely pay a few bucks to check it out. I might have to buy a game too, although I think Metro is on gamepass but that's not supported yet. It'd be between Control and Metro right?
It'd be more ethical than buying a 2080Ti from amazon and then sending it back, which admittedly has entered my mind a few times reading these threads.
Thats not a shadow, thats Ambient Occlusion. Do a shot where you have a direct light source on the face.Yo that Control shot is bullshit. It is real, but you have fucked up the settings somehow or found the absolute worst spot in the game.
I fired up the game, 1070Ti, having shadows on high. I approached the wall to have the camera up-close to the face. There are AO and Contact Shadows all across the face... How did you manage to make the hair shadowless in the shot is a mystery.
Yo that Control shot is bullshit. It is real, but you have fucked up the settings somehow or found the absolute worst spot in the game.
I fired up the game, 1070Ti, having shadows on high. I approached the wall to have the camera up-close to the face. There are AO and Contact Shadows all across the face... How did you manage to make the hair shadowless in the shot is a mystery.
Controls Raytracing difference depends where the Chracter is.
In even non raytraced games different lighting has varying degrees of quality, RT lighting will have the biggest difference in indirect lit place and direct sunlight, like in uncharted 4 drakes face will look like crap in a wood shack lit by the outside sun, but his face will look way better in moon light or lit in a dark cave with a flame torch.
Amazing how your Version of the game completely avoids common pitsfalls of shadow maps - might want to post it at GDC and call remedy saying the 2 years they spent making RT was not worth it.Yo that Control shot is bullshit. It is real, but you have fucked up the settings somehow or found the absolute worst spot in the game.
I fired up the game, 1070Ti, having shadows on high. I approached the wall to have the camera up-close to the face. There are AO and Contact Shadows all across the face... How did you manage to make the hair shadowless in the shot is a mystery.
Just go into many scenes with shadow mapd and wht I Show in the Video is extremely common in Control
Last edited:
Yeah something is not right when the direct light source is powerful. It melts the AO, hair is shadows-off or super low resolution, leaving absolutely no shadow in between objects making.
I am at the start of the game, but what the fuck.
I think I found something that completely debunks the official story that I am a new director in the random closet room. My portrait is hung inside it...
Enabling Contact Shadows in UE4 usually blends all the hats/hair on top of the character heads nicely. Do you have similar shots with Gears 5 characters to see what happens to their hats/hair under the direct light? Or some other games like Resident Evil 2?
Yo that Control shot is bullshit. It is real, but you have fucked up the settings somehow or found the absolute worst spot in the game.
I fired up the game, 1070Ti, having shadows on high. I approached the wall to have the camera up-close to the face. There are AO and Contact Shadows all across the face... How did you manage to make the hair shadowless in the shot is a mystery.
If it's real then it's not bullshit is it?
Game assets don't look their best 100 percent of the time, people in this thread be wild man.
Holy shit is this game not a good looker when it comes to specific light shadows/modes changing based on the scene. The problems with getting hair shadows and blending with the scalp are not easy to solve, but the game is just failing in some scenes:
You have to agree that this type of situation is NOT representative of what non-RT shadows look like in 2019 or 2020.
You have to agree that this type of situation is NOT representative of what non-RT shadows look like in 2019 or 2020.
Uh, no, we don't. Every game looks like this when you do this shit. That's the whole point. even your 'glamour' shot looks like total garbage compared to the RTX settings.Holy shit is this game not a good looker when it comes to specific light shadows/modes changing based on the scene. The problems with getting hair shadows and blending with the scalp are not easy to solve, but the game is just failing in some scenes:
You have to agree that this type of situation is NOT representative of what non-RT shadows look like in 2019 or 2020.
Holy shit is this game not a good looker when it comes to specific light shadows/modes changing based on the scene. The problems with getting hair shadows and blending with the scalp are not easy to solve, but the game is just failing in some scenes:
You have to agree that this type of situation is NOT representative of what non-RT shadows look like in 2019 or 2020.
I feel like people are missing the point of worst-case scenario comparisons. Proper RT means every area doesn't need to be carefully managed to keep a natural look, so they're comparing situations that modern lighting systems struggle with.
The point of the similar scene in the video, and indeed every other non-Minecraft/Quake 2 comparison featured throughout, is to show how ray tracing overcomes the shortcomings inherent to traditional rendering techniques.
Edit: Beaten.
Last edited:
Yeah something is not right when the direct light source is powerful. It melts the AO, hair is shadows-off or super low resolution, leaving absolutely no shadow in between objects making.
I am at the start of the game, but what the fuck.I think I found something that completely debunks the official story that I am a new director in the random closet room. My portrait is hung inside it...
Enabling Contact Shadows in UE4 usually blends all the hats/hair on top of the character heads nicely. Do you have similar shots with Gears 5 characters to see what happens to their hats/hair under the direct light? Or some other games like Resident Evil 2?
Contact shadows are a ray casted effect. Albeit much more limited to screen space, a single point light, and short distances. It's literally doing the same thing as Control RTX does, only RTX does it for area lights, many light sources, and for the entire scene!
when you see good shadows in a game, it's raytracing or ray casting, it's just a matter of the fidelity and quality.
with Gears 5 or the other games, they can't use offscreen lights for the effect, they can't simulate penumbra, and they can only use one light for the effect on a character. (Technically you can use more than one light, but it will be performance prohibitive (but getting good RTX shadows for many light sources is also expensive)
It's been happening since the RTX cards were announced. People are either downplaying what they can't afford or are bringing some kind of system war mentality to it (PC vs Console or Red vs Green). That or people are so used to the video gamey look they don't appreciate its short comings anymore.
Ray tracing is measurably better than rasterized techniques, ignoring performance. Naturally it needs to be utilized appropriately. Don't waste rays on stuff that isn't bringing as much to the table, etc.
I've lost count of the times I've seen people claim, usually based on screenshots that tell a fraction of the story, that say, they don't prefer the RT GI in Metro Exodus. Like... Are they saying real life day night cycles are ugly compared to video games?
Ray tracing skepticism will be a thing of the past once AMD hardware with the tech and the next gen consoles have become common place.
I expect some more nonsense with people claiming the PS4 or Xbox One version of a cross gen game looks better because it doesn't have ray tracing, but once enough people own the hardware we'll laugh that people downplayed it.
Or put it like this:
No one is claiming CG in movies should stop using ray tracing and go back to rasterized methods.
Performance is literally the only drawback. Effects that were once hugely expensive like tesselation have become ubiquitous and so will RT... And that's when things will get really interesting because it will absolutely help with game development and the dynamism of visuals in games once devs don't still have to account for releasing versions with no RT.
I'm about 90% certain that if NV hasn't released RTX cards when they did we wouldn't have gotten RT h/w in next gen consoles - meaning that it would've been another 5+ years of higher resolutions and such.
Every game has this issue with shadows from distant light sources. Shadow maps can't solve this without some INSANE amount of additional calculations which will make RT performance hit seem minuscule. RT shadows is actually the prime candidate for a complete substitution of raster alternative since they can be both faster and better looking.
as a counter argument, I believe Nvidia pushed RT because Microsoft felt like it was ready to push forward with DXR. which, in turn, Nvidia figured MS would have pushed for it on t heir console, and reacted appropriately. without the API coming first, neither the consoles nor pc hardware makers would have jumped in yet
API never comes first, the h/w is always first. DXR was made because MS agreed with NV (and other key vendors most likely) that this is how things will develop in the future. This in turn may have pushed both AMD and Intel into making RT h/w which will be compatible with DXR but NV's RT h/w was the basis here, not the API.
Worth noting that it will likely be an industry wide effort of improving both the h/w and the API going forward, with every player contributing to future DXR versions.
Are people really claiming that RT is a waste and rasterization is better? Are you sure you aren't generalizing a bit? People should be allowed to think that BFV or Shadow raytracing implementations aren't impressive, and the RT hardware isn't worth it right now. Showing the worst of rasterization against the best RT implementation is not the best way to engage with this discussion either.
And in Control, it seems like Remedy has skipped a few neat tricks that other non-RT games are using to boost the quality of their shadows. So the downside is real: developers who invest into developing RT implementation right now will not invest the same amount of resources for the top standard lightning implementation. How does the saying goes, you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette?
I feel like whenever someone has anything negative about RT, or complimenting rasterization, it has to come with the preface "I believe RT is the future", because there sure seem a lot of people getting into the mentality that if you aren't recommending/praising RT right now - you are against it.
we have RT because the number of transistors we can dedicate per pixel has grown to the point where it's viable
The problem with RT, again, is that if you need to be "informed" and to have Digital foundry doing amazing videos to show you every little details to get it, that means something is wrong. It will take dedicated usage and art direction, and scenery ideas to showcase RT properly.
When i saw the video and there was the semi transparent reflection in control, i was jokingly thinking "Didn't Mario 64 did that already ?"
Before all that talk about RT, i don't think people realized (i know i didn't when i was younger) reflection in video games were not possible without tricks until now.
Videogames have been pretty good at faking shit al this time
When i saw the video and there was the semi transparent reflection in control, i was jokingly thinking "Didn't Mario 64 did that already ?"
Before all that talk about RT, i don't think people realized (i know i didn't when i was younger) reflection in video games were not possible without tricks until now.
Videogames have been pretty good at faking shit al this time
Honestly how many people look at these details while playing through the game. I understand these things standout when DF videos are made specifically to point these things out but on average play through at least I don't stop by and look at my character and say 'oh hey self shadows...wow' . Give me TOLU2, GOW ,Uncharted 4, Gears 5, RDR2 level of graphics at 4K 60 fps on PS 5 and I'll be satisfied. To me improvements in AI, world interaction , more non-linear paths, more realistic NPC interactions, with no load times are more appealing then some real time shadows/lighting which I hardly notice unless I actually stop and look for them. But anyways thats just my opinion.
Which games? Because all games i've seen and played have a problem like in Control.
And Minecraft. Don't forget Minecraft. I hope you didn't forget Minecraft.
I can't believe the face of a character you never see doesn't look great in the rasterized version.
This just feels like a weird point of comparison. Her face could look good if they cared about it looking good... But no one looks at their character's face in a 3rd person shooter during gameplay segments.
This just feels like a weird point of comparison. Her face could look good if they cared about it looking good... But no one looks at their character's face in a 3rd person shooter during gameplay segments.
You're being clear. Simply put...you're ignoring the fact that everything you enjoy about games had a beginning, had growing pains ,and has been improved to the point where you yourself find them acceptable.
The fact you won't give ray tracing the same courtesy is your choice but reality exists and we're fully aware developers are smart and talented enough to know how to strike balances in their game design. We know that tech needs to implemented and used in abundance in order for better solutions to come about.
Also... games have bad performance without ray tracing while using the techniques you're accustomed to.
You don't make a good point. You're just showing that you didn't get it.
You don't have to be informed like you're implying. You don't need like some pixel count specialist or anything. It's literally night and day. The reason people need to be shown us because they haven't seen it in action in the first place. I it's not that dissimilar from vr: until you've seen it in action it's not always clear, but once you have it's obvious. Proper rt makes games look realistic in a way that your brain notices immediately
VR seems like an extremely bad point in the favor of ray-tracing as VR has sold pretty terribly outside of Half-Life fans.
What do I not get.
If you saw the face of the character more during gameplay, the lighting conditions would likely be adjusted to make her face look better.
Things you don't see are things that don't get much processing power.
Using ray-tracing, they used a lot of processing power on her face even though... you don't see it at all.
Anyone bringing up that the face doesn't always look bad: no crap, but it's not just about the face, that's just a striking example. That same level of failure to look realistic is constantly happening with faked lighting. We're used to it, but you notice the realism difference instantly when playing with rt
It's constantly happening in spots you don't often don't see and that's a purposeful choice to save processing power.
No. It's constantly happening all over the place. It's a facade, unless your game has a 100% static camera and lights, it is always there.
The big thing all you goofballs seem to be missing is:
When we make 3d art for videogames, we cheat. Most effects are sleight of hand, and only work right in one specific situation. Because people make buying decisions based on "wow factor" screenshots rather than how good a game looks holistically, that usually means some combination of preventing certain kinds of situations in games (or making them very rare) and using hacks that look great for the actual game you're playing, but would look horrible if the game's environment changed (like, had more transparent surfaces, or had more lights, or had more ambient light, or had a day night cycle, etc)
The reality is you usally can't just "use processing time to make it better" without rt -- instead, you make tradeoffs that make one thing look better, and other things look worse.
Raytracing isn't a hack, a solution. Because of performance reasons, for now, it has to be applied strategically to solve certain problems and not others. But you'll never be able to make an apples to apples rt vs raster lighting comparison, because you have to either pick an unflattering situation for raster (where artists get caught cheating) and it's "unfair", or a specific situation where cheating works fine, and so it's "not any better."
But you're definitely gonna notice that games look more consistent and better *all the time* once you give up on whining about framerate or cost or whatever and play games that were made, for the first time ever, with good 3d rendering technology in mind.
When we make 3d art for videogames, we cheat. Most effects are sleight of hand, and only work right in one specific situation. Because people make buying decisions based on "wow factor" screenshots rather than how good a game looks holistically, that usually means some combination of preventing certain kinds of situations in games (or making them very rare) and using hacks that look great for the actual game you're playing, but would look horrible if the game's environment changed (like, had more transparent surfaces, or had more lights, or had more ambient light, or had a day night cycle, etc)
The reality is you usally can't just "use processing time to make it better" without rt -- instead, you make tradeoffs that make one thing look better, and other things look worse.
Raytracing isn't a hack, a solution. Because of performance reasons, for now, it has to be applied strategically to solve certain problems and not others. But you'll never be able to make an apples to apples rt vs raster lighting comparison, because you have to either pick an unflattering situation for raster (where artists get caught cheating) and it's "unfair", or a specific situation where cheating works fine, and so it's "not any better."
But you're definitely gonna notice that games look more consistent and better *all the time* once you give up on whining about framerate or cost or whatever and play games that were made, for the first time ever, with good 3d rendering technology in mind.
It's a bit frustrating that you still can't understand what the comparison is trying to convey. The comparison is meant to show what happens when rasterization inevitably breaks down. Several people have pointed out to you that in that specific gameplay situation, there is nothing that can be done using our current rendering methods to properly light and shade the character's face, which is where ray-tracing comes in. It's presenting the worst of rasterization precisely because it meeds to highlight one of many areas where rasterization simply doesn't work without artists manually tweaking the scene, and where raytracing automatically produces the correct result. Since this is a gameplay shot and not a cutscene, dedicating manpower to enhance that would obviously be a waste of time.
Again, people have pointed out to you repeatedly that there are no tricks short of manually tweaking the scene that would make it look right. You despite all evidence to the contrary keep insisting that Remedy simply didn't bother. We need to stop going in circles.
You haven't actually answered the question. Again, I ask, what is the problem with using idTech2, one of a set of extremely revered engines in the programming sector for its development of technology, portability and ease of extension, as a technology demonstration for ground breaking realtime ray tracing tech? Something that we've actually been trying to do with the idTech engines for yonks?
There are so many bad takes about rtx some that stuff from genuine ignorance about rendering technology and others that come from lowkey platform wars. And then there's these two posts. Like, why do people feel so adamant about doing the equivalent of holding up a sign that says "I'm misinformed"
Are you really going to convince people to get in the RTX bandwagon by showing them Quake 2 and Minecraft?