Yes, I watched but really I did not see how walking right up to a window or a metal pole to see your reflection justifies a 50% hit. I watched other videos that showed close to no benefits in scenes, while still halving the framerate.You watch my videos per chance?
PC players, are not a monolith of single desires. We all want different things.
Depends on the RT implementation type.
Lol. Its not as simple.
I doubt base NG consoles will be able but i think there is a realistic chance for mid gen refreshesI think a more appropriate question is how long until hardware catches up and you're playing games on 60fps+, 4k res and RT.
I can see that and agree.I'm worried that the progress will stall a bit when the next gen consoles arrive. The performance can't be very good on those and we will again be stuck with them for years.
Lol!I thought "Will Raytracing" was the name of a guy...
That is all
I'm worried that the progress will stall a bit when the next gen consoles arrive. The performance can't be very good on those and we will again be stuck with them for years.
Even on these limited implementations I think it looks amazing and it's well worth the performance hit.
The real question is when games will start requiring it, as devs letting raytracing do all the work in lighting will mean that they don't have to divert time and resources to faking it anymore. This isn't Tesselation or Hairworks or PhysX where it's all nice but optional - this is an actual game changer.
Here are some examples of ray-tracing in PC games.
Wolfenstein Youngblood's implementation (reduces framerate by 50%)
Control (reduces framerate by >50%)
Metro Exodus (reduces framerate by 20-30%)
Battlefield 5 (reduces framerate by over 50%)
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (reduces framerate by >40%):
Now, visual effects can obviously improve over time (DLSS went from a joke to being cutting-edge and probably the main standard for next-gen in like 9 months) and games built around ray-tracing may show the effect better than games that add it on as a lowest priority thing, but ray-tracing has just looked pretty meh so far to me and these performance hits have been massive.
It seems like it's really difficult for some people to grasp this, a fully ray/path-traced real time rendering solution is the logical future of graphics, it may seem expensive now but performance will improve as the transition progresses.It's the inexorable, irrefutable future of video game graphics. There is no debate against this. Rasterization may still be used to some degree in the future, but a majority of the rendering will be raytraced or pathtraced as optimization gets better and hardware can catch up.
I think RT is quite a lot more than a one off example I use in a video to prove a specific point (in that Wolfenstein example I was trying to just prove a point about how small the reflections can be). It can be completely entirely scene transformative:Yes, I watched but really I did not see how walking right up to a window or a metal pole to see your reflection justifies a 50% hit.
It adds some immersion, excellent. But it needs to add more to take away half my framerate in a shooter.
And this is when I jump in, until that, I won't get overpriced cards that try to sell a gameworks type of RT to then dump it after the real thing (not locked to a card) show up. I don't even like the way some of the RT changes look in that Wolfenstein Digital Foundry video (the chrome rail for example).Pure realtime raytracing/pathtracing is the future! That said, the hardware implementation we have now is just a weak middle step of getting there. I am super exited that we now finally gonna have a console implementation of that middle step, meaning it will force hardware manufacturers to push their tech more and more each generation to get to actual true realtime raytracing.
What makes you say that? RTX is just accelerating DXR, and everyone can use DXR, it's pretty open for every GPU vendor. Once devs make optimizations to DXR, RTX will benefit from that as well.And this is when I jump in, until that, I won't get overpriced cards that try to sell a gameworks type of RT to then dump it after the real thing (not locked to a card) show up.
Sure but right now basically useless to include in your game.It's the inexorable, irrefutable future of video game graphics. There is no debate against this. Rasterization may still be used to some degree in the future, but a majority of the rendering will be raytraced or pathtraced as optimization gets better and hardware can catch up.
It's not useless, it really depends on the implementation. Just look at Alex' screenshot of Metro, the difference in lighting and atmosphere is huge.
I think a more appropriate question is how long until hardware catches up and you're playing games on 60fps+, 4k res and RT.
Idk if anything Sony or Microsoft announces for the consoles will beat the fact we're getting hardware ray tracing. It's so exciting.
For PC, sure, I'm still cynical on how well these consoles will handle Ray Tracing at a decent frame rate. Perhaps when the technology develops to be optimised for consoles in the future. Still insist most games aming for a solid 60 FPS or above or open world games will use traditional lighting techniques.
It's not going to be like this year. But it is going to be. Long term it's senseless for devs to continue to do all of the extra work involved in NOT using it.on PC a vast majority of people (me included) don't have the rigs capable of handling raytracing so I certainly hope developers will develop games with those folks in mind and not make raytracing the only standard.
At first I thought I'd go for the performance over the RT version, but it seem like the RT version may eliminate the need for ambient occlusion. Does it? Does RTX take the place of more stuff as well? Subsurface, screen space, etc. AO too, that could be how it makes up for it's pricey performance cost.I think RT is quite a lot more than a one off example I use in a video to prove a specific point (in that Wolfenstein example I was trying to just prove a point about how small the reflections can be). It can be completely entirely scene transformative:
Off:
On:
That's good to know, going by Nvidia's past features I figured it was one of their gameworks class experiments, something like Physx.What makes you say that? RTX is just accelerating DXR, and everyone can use DXR, it's pretty open for every GPU vendor. Once devs make optimizations to DXR, RTX will benefit from that as well.
I think RT is quite a lot more than a one off example I use in a video to prove a specific point (in that Wolfenstein example I was trying to just prove a point about how small the reflections can be). It can be completely entirely scene transformative:
Off:
On:
RT GI in metro replaces screen space AO, among other things.At first I thought I'd go for the performance over the RT version, but it seem like the RT version may eliminate the need for ambient occlusion. Does it? Does RTX take the place of more stuff as well? Subsurface, screen space, etc. AO too, that could be how it makes up for it's pricey performance cost.
In metro it is not 50% of the framerate though. On the High setting, which is what the developers recommend and not ultra, it is decidedly less.Okay, yeah, it's a lot less flat, and that is what I've been wanting from games for a long time now... but 50% of the frames....
First post nails it.It's the inexorable, irrefutable future of video game graphics. There is no debate against this. Rasterization may still be used to some degree in the future, but a majority of the rendering will be raytraced or pathtraced as optimization gets better and hardware can catch up.