ResetEraVetVIP
Member
Future visuals with RT…
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ray Tracing is not meaningful and is a dumbness Galore demand
- Thread starter TrueLegend
- Start date
Turk1993
GAFs #1 source for car graphic comparisons
But it is inferior, did you see the new Unreal Engine 5.2 showcase where they showed the jungle demo. Tell me that UC4 looks close to this and that we still haven't made big improvements. Do you still think "you need a hell lot of imagination to see the graphics improvements since uc4 lol that is correct".
vs
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
But it is inferior, did you see the new Unreal Engine 5.2 showcase where they showed the jungle demo. Tell me that UC4 looks close to this and that we still haven't made big improvements. Do you still think "you need a hell lot of imagination to see the graphics improvements since uc4 lol that is correct".
vs
I am not denying the advancements but the stuff is daydreaming and nobody is saying it cannot be done similarly with RT.
If games never looked much better than uc4, I would be fine with it
Buggy Loop
Member
But it is inferior, did you see the new Unreal Engine 5.2 showcase where they showed the jungle demo. Tell me that UC4 looks close to this and that we still haven't made big improvements. Do you still think "you need a hell lot of imagination to see the graphics improvements since uc4 lol that is correct".
vs
To add
Find me a better lighting in horror games
That uncharted 4 room looks comically bad compared to this
Jungle?
Graphics have stopped at Uncharted 4
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
To add
Find me a better lighting in horror games
That uncharted 4 room looks comically bad compared to this
Jungle?
Graphics have stopped at Uncharted 4
Why are we comparing trailers and cgi to real games that are released ?
am I missing something
Buggy Loop
Member
Because you thought that graphics stopped at uncharted 4? Upcoming games-tech from an engine that just released maybe?
The idea we stop at Uncharted 4 is so fucking cute Rofif, you really like to make posts that age like milk.
Boss Mog
Member
I can't tell if the OP is trolling or just that dim. It's like he's a guy from the late 19th century saying "These horseless carriages are a waste of resources, nobody will ever want one".
RT is an amazing feature and it's the future of 3D rendering in games. One day we will achieve modern AAA games rendered entirely by RT, not just shadows or reflections.
RT is an amazing feature and it's the future of 3D rendering in games. One day we will achieve modern AAA games rendered entirely by RT, not just shadows or reflections.
Turk1993
GAFs #1 source for car graphic comparisons
But there are games out now that have better lighting and graphics than UC4, we have surpassed that a while ago.
JeloSWE
Member
It doesn't matter what the OP thinks. Real time RT is the future and where we are heading there steadfast. It will take a while for hardware, engines and developers to fully get there, but there we will get.
I think some people are expecting too much too soon and some thinks it's always 5 years in the future but the reality is we can in principle already do fully path traced game, albeit simpler ones on the top end GPUs from Nvidia. As for when it will become the norm is more about having a broad market penetration with good enough midrange cards and capable consoles. Will the potetial mid gen refresh of PS5/XSX be enough? I don't think so, not for full path tracing but perhaps for better quality reflections/shadow/ao. While Nvidia is really pushing things forward, it's AMD GPUs and consoles that is the lowest denominator and holding things back for all of us. I'm hoping for dear life that PS6 and XSX2 will finally be decent enough for some standard RT in games. But leaving rasterization behind completely might take until PS7 or XSX3.
Last edited:
lukilladog
Member
The future of this, the future of that. I've heard lame assertions like that so many times. The point is that devs and publishers focus on what people want, if it is high frame rates, then that will be the objective. Period.
Lethal01
Member
I got raytracing on PS5 too.
nemiroff
Gold Member
Is that why so many recent console titles are running at 30fps? I mean, just think about it, 30 fps is doubly as much as 15 fps!
Buggy Loop
Member
Get A Horse! America’s Skepticism Toward the First Automobiles | The Saturday Evening Post
The inventor who claimed the first U.S. car ever sold recalls the birth of the industry and the general public skepticism about automobiles.
www.saturdayeveningpost.com
Almost all the tech that Nvidia brought to the table since TNT 2 has been met with resistance and ultimately, they dragged this fucking kicking and screaming industry forward.
Schmendrick
Member
OP has no clue what he's talking about.
lukilladog
Member
Lots of these games were in development before this new era of 60fps. Development will adjust gradually.
lukilladog
Member
There was a poll here some time ago, people prefer performance modes. It's not even controversial.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Why would people "expect too much too soon"? Nobody was talking about this shit until Nvidia needed to come up with a reason to justify the existence of the 2080 cards. Nvidia put it out as a major feature, so obviously people are goign to expect it to be, you know, a major feature.
Buggy Loop
Member
Ah yea, Neogaf, the representation of the gaming world
How's that going so far? 4k 60fps i mean?
lukilladog
Member
Ah yea, Neogaf, the representation of the gaming world
How's that going so far? 4k 60fps i mean?
It is data... What you got?.
Buggy Loop
Member
A brain
How's that 4k 60 fps going on consoles? Devs should listen to neogaf polls right? Still waiting.
By Neogaf's standard, Switch would be DOA. So many other examples of neogaf not being representative of the gaming industry. I wouldn't even know where to start.
Last edited:
lukilladog
Member
Performance modes are going well and gaining in popularity, if you have a brain and can put your biasses on check, you should see that.
JeloSWE
Member
You can argue that Nvidia's market speak is overselling it's features vs reality and I kind of agree. But raytracing is an incredibly difficult problem solve, especially full path tracing. What they managed to do with 2080 was at least 2-4 years earlier than I expected. I have tons of offline 3D rendering experience for over 25 years now, and the fact that 2080 can even do RT at all is amazing to me. You've also have to start somewhere and chip away at the problem. It's a chicken and the egg problem. If there is no hardware then the developers can't start learning to program for the hardware, building engines and eventually games for it. So of course there won't be much that utilizes the RT capabilities of the first generations, this is such a huge and difficult thing to do it's going to take time and iterations to get there. This is what I mean people are expecting too much too soon. It will take a couple of generations for the performance to trickle down to the low end and for techniques and engines to be available for everyone. UE5 and some other engines are starting to get us there now but it will be a while longer until we go full path tracing and leave rasterization completely behind.
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Listen. I am not here to break down uncharted 4 tech.
All I know is when a screenshot from that game comes up on my randomizer, it's usually the best looking one, with Death Stranding right next to it.
And when I replay that game year on year, I am somehow always more impressed.
The game just looks good. better than most stuff nowadays. Better than re4 remake even I would say for some part...
It's not better than tech demos of ue5 nowadays... but nothing is... We are either talking cg here, tech demos or games and as far as games Go, I put tlou2 on first place, uc4 on 2nd and death stranding on 3rd.... and now come to think of it, re4 remake models deserve a good spot somewhere up there
Turk1993
GAFs #1 source for car graphic comparisons
So you say that games like Horizon: FBW, Demon Souls, Cyberpunk 2077, Atomic Heart, Forza Horizon 5, A Plague Tale Requiem, Flight Simulator, Metro Exodus Enhanced, Red Dead Redemption 2, Ratchet And Clank Rift Apart and The Callisto Protocol look inferior compared to those 4 games you mentioned. I knew you was crazy when you where praising Forespokens graphics
.Btw. I also think that those games you mentioned look good, just not beter than the games i mentioned.
Last edited:
TrueLegend
Member
Ok. I have read the comments and I have found most people don't read the original post. Some oblivious responses
1. Pushing RT is happening because of laws of physics
Are you high on drugs? Real life has more complexities than the understanding of acedemia physics. RT is simply advanced method of tracing behaviour of light which is responsible of more realistic shadows, reflection, occlusion and all that but no full blown RT will make it 'accurate', it only brings you close to photorealism. It's not a natural evolution. It's a choice based evolution where the choices are made by key players of graphics industry. However the games today lack physics in gameplay as ever. Infact in last DF direct Alex said that he would like to see better physics in games. Games today have poor physics in terms of motion stimulation so why will RT be natural evolution, it's selected evolution at best.
2. It makes Dev life's easy: OP doesn't know what's he talking about.
Read original post you moron. RT only makes sense from development POV if it the game was only built with RT no fallback or anything. No RT and No game that kind of thing. But RT currently is added as feature. Even Control works fully without RT. I used that as example because Control is only game which is build around RT and you can still turn it off and play happily and even the most hardcore ppl turn it off if choosing RT means loosing performance. That's what I meant when I said DF members playing in performance mode shows you what truly matters.
3. RT is future:
Yeah shithead, but I live in now. I don't care about alien like spacecraft that Tesla has built and is flying over my head in sky if the road i am walking on has potholes. RT has objectively been a bane for gaming releasing today. Its been used as a diversion in many games which are omptimized poorly. Devoting time to RT implementation instead of making sure your games runs like GOW: Ragnarok is the problem. And I like to judge things on evidence and not assumption. I have all the RT games and I can play on 60fps but then I encounter things like traversal stutter and that shit ruins experience far more than what RT adds. And even in games that look transformative at times due to RT it's just few scenes. RT in cyberpunk and Witcher doesn't drastically altar the experience, if you had played Witcher 3 on Ultra with HBAO you would have seen pretty much all of it. In the motion, RT doesn't matter, sure when you stop to look at it you can point out difference 'oh yeah Toussaint houses now cast realistic color tints' but it's just subtle while stutters are immediately noticeable.
4. Also the most dumb arguments are from PPL saying you don't know RT.
You must be dimwit among dimwits if you think understanding RT requires high intelligence. Just get Portal RTX and you can fire many rays and see what it brings and then you can ask yourself if the performance cost is meaningful because yeah seeing reflection of reflection of reflection within reflection is worth it right. It's meaningful to the overall graphical framework right, get out of here. And that's still not path tracing, nope, still uses trickry like ReSTIR GI. Higher graphical fidelity doesn't mean better graphics. For now RT is a lazy excuse. PS5 and XSX both have ssd now and yet a game like 'Returnal' designed from ground up to be next gen has traversal stutter that's where we at. That's the ground and that sucks. Infact returnal is best example of my argument. Despite Returnal having great RT implementation Alex's omptimized setting ask you to turn off Ray tracing and he can't distinguish much between RT audio which he doesn't usually deconstruct and thats the thing if you look for and go on nitpicking RT effects make things look more grounded and photoreal but in motion that amount of difference is as the title of post suggests not 'Meaningful'.
1. Pushing RT is happening because of laws of physics
Are you high on drugs? Real life has more complexities than the understanding of acedemia physics. RT is simply advanced method of tracing behaviour of light which is responsible of more realistic shadows, reflection, occlusion and all that but no full blown RT will make it 'accurate', it only brings you close to photorealism. It's not a natural evolution. It's a choice based evolution where the choices are made by key players of graphics industry. However the games today lack physics in gameplay as ever. Infact in last DF direct Alex said that he would like to see better physics in games. Games today have poor physics in terms of motion stimulation so why will RT be natural evolution, it's selected evolution at best.
2. It makes Dev life's easy: OP doesn't know what's he talking about.
Read original post you moron. RT only makes sense from development POV if it the game was only built with RT no fallback or anything. No RT and No game that kind of thing. But RT currently is added as feature. Even Control works fully without RT. I used that as example because Control is only game which is build around RT and you can still turn it off and play happily and even the most hardcore ppl turn it off if choosing RT means loosing performance. That's what I meant when I said DF members playing in performance mode shows you what truly matters.
3. RT is future:
Yeah shithead, but I live in now. I don't care about alien like spacecraft that Tesla has built and is flying over my head in sky if the road i am walking on has potholes. RT has objectively been a bane for gaming releasing today. Its been used as a diversion in many games which are omptimized poorly. Devoting time to RT implementation instead of making sure your games runs like GOW: Ragnarok is the problem. And I like to judge things on evidence and not assumption. I have all the RT games and I can play on 60fps but then I encounter things like traversal stutter and that shit ruins experience far more than what RT adds. And even in games that look transformative at times due to RT it's just few scenes. RT in cyberpunk and Witcher doesn't drastically altar the experience, if you had played Witcher 3 on Ultra with HBAO you would have seen pretty much all of it. In the motion, RT doesn't matter, sure when you stop to look at it you can point out difference 'oh yeah Toussaint houses now cast realistic color tints' but it's just subtle while stutters are immediately noticeable.
4. Also the most dumb arguments are from PPL saying you don't know RT.
You must be dimwit among dimwits if you think understanding RT requires high intelligence. Just get Portal RTX and you can fire many rays and see what it brings and then you can ask yourself if the performance cost is meaningful because yeah seeing reflection of reflection of reflection within reflection is worth it right. It's meaningful to the overall graphical framework right, get out of here. And that's still not path tracing, nope, still uses trickry like ReSTIR GI. Higher graphical fidelity doesn't mean better graphics. For now RT is a lazy excuse. PS5 and XSX both have ssd now and yet a game like 'Returnal' designed from ground up to be next gen has traversal stutter that's where we at. That's the ground and that sucks. Infact returnal is best example of my argument. Despite Returnal having great RT implementation Alex's omptimized setting ask you to turn off Ray tracing and he can't distinguish much between RT audio which he doesn't usually deconstruct and thats the thing if you look for and go on nitpicking RT effects make things look more grounded and photoreal but in motion that amount of difference is as the title of post suggests not 'Meaningful'.
ByWatterson
Member
I go back and forth.
The raytraced reflections in Hogwarts Legacy have me happily playing at 30fps. The world just looks so much richer.
Elden Ring's raytracing is...fine. It's okay.
The raytraced reflections in Hogwarts Legacy have me happily playing at 30fps. The world just looks so much richer.
Elden Ring's raytracing is...fine. It's okay.
winjer
Gold Member
I would never sacrifice gameplay for graphics.
YeulEmeralda
Member
RTX on
60 fps off
Thebonehead
Banned
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
It's not the same fucking thing. We had fully 3d games that ran at playable framerates on consoles back when final fantasy 7 released. We don't have a single fully raytraced game on consoles that runs well.
3d was a paradigm shift that would change video game design forever. Raytracing is a lighting overhaul. Not the same damn thing
Josemayuste
Member
Agreed, The Last of Us Part II, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Atomic Heart are proof of this, all run beautifully on console, with top lighting effects while looking awesome too.
lostinblue
Banned
They are theorectically inferior when it comes to how much work you have to set them up. From a tech standpoint you always had raytracing features on 3D modeling software and devs basically had to "downport those features" to real-time rendering. Cube maps, light placement, pre-baked shadows, pre-baked lightning, selective light sources... In theory this can all go away in time.
As you say it is cheating and shortcuts, not different from how 16 bit consoles achieved "32 bit graphics" or how pre-rendered graphics were really popular a few generations ago. You were doing games on workstations then porting them down until they worked, it was just more obvious then. There's nothing wrong with this, I totally agree with you, but there's a reason we don't have a lot of pre-rendered games coming out anymore. Current games have elements that are pre-baked for performance and achieving a final look similar to "what if you had RT" sake, it's only normal that if the power to do these by brute force is there, they will be brute forced instead and there will improved quality benefit as well.
Realistic games done with this older philosophy won't suddenly look like crap, but more games will look stellar if "limitations" are lifted. If anything what we had for 3 generations now (photorealistic 3D graphics) is a testament to how talented devs are.
Also, what we're seeing now is hybrid games with regular raster methods and RT, once RT is standard you'll quickly see an improvement in dynamic lights and shadows that never got out of the ground in the last generations apart from a few notable exceptions, either due to how intensive it was or how it had to be scripted. Think how pillars will cast shadows that move when something with a light source goes by. That's a generational leap right there. It's certainly possible on any hardware since PS3/X360, but time consuming and resource consuming to do.
What isn't being said, but I'm not convinced yet is how Ray-tracing doesn't have to take over everything. Regular methods will always be cheaper and let's just say that for an artstyle like Xenoblade Chronicles 3, Wind Waker, Valkyria Chronicles or Figther Z might not benefit from it at all (or they just might as post processing is definetly as possible as with regular casting methods, we'll see). Also I can see it being "optional" and mostly used for effects for at least the next two generations of hardware.
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
I don’t remember anyone saying that.
Everyone was buying 3dfx because it was amazing and mirror floors in unreal were blowing my mind.
lostinblue
Banned
Quake never "looked almost the same as DOOM"
Quake was 3D acelerated, full polygon game. DOOM was by comparison strange (here's a doom rendering engine doomwiki article, notice how they call it "pseudo-3D rendering"), it did what it had to do to run on 1993 computers without any extra hardware being thrown into the mix, basically.
There's a world of difference to Quake 1, it's just that people wanted to play it on their computers that previously ran Doom and often couldn't.
Last edited:
Minsc
Gold Member
I suppose if nothing else you could probably argue for competitive multiplayer games ray tracing is more of a hindrance than benefit. Especially if it's going to turn a perfectly visible room to nearly pitch black like some of the earlier examples posted. But then again often in competitive multiplayer having all options as low as possible is beneficial as well as having a much higher and almost uncomfortable FOV etc.
diffusionx
Gold Member
that's not true, everyone knew Quake was a generation ahead of Doom, and once VQuake/GLQuake came out people were running to the store to get 3D cards. Some people preferred Duke 3D, but Duke 3D's engine was significantly more advanced than Doom and had interactivity etc. going for it.
In any case, going by what is out there now, the difference between ray traced and raster effects is like .01% of the difference between Doom and Quake, come on now.
Last edited:
JimboJones
Member
"Playable" framerates when the entirety of ocarina of time ran at 20fps, FF7 at 15fps in battles!
We are complaining about games now running in the 30-60fps range with real-time raytracing.
Last edited:
Buggy Loop
Member
At this point Intel is more of a threat. Their first ray tracing iteration was strong
Nvidia’s 5000 series is rumoured to kick ass though. Probably tailored made for their new ReStir (RTXDI) with millions of light sources ray traced with no penalty.
At that point, when cards run this well, you literally have path tracing at large scale, forget Quake RTX, we’re talking Cyberpunk 2077 path traced.
Vick
Member
This.
However,
rofif
unquestionably got a point. When it all works, it's pretty fucking hard to find something looking better than UC4 (and this is all on PS4 Pro):Those animations as well, not even Naught Dog improved upon how stunningly fluid and responsive U4 controlled while looking like this:
And in a way, those games did use some form of RT, all the way back to TLOU on PS3:
Resident Evil 4 Remake or Dead Space: Remake, both just released a whopping 7 years after Uncharted 4, are literal generations behind in this regard.
Honest to God, visually all I could think while watching that footage 2 days ago was that it looked like a less stable, ghosting Lost Legacy, with next generation geometry.
Just talking visually here of course, but I'm sure I could trick many people into thinking some portions of that Demo are from Lost Legacy. Don't have a video to compare as Streamable deleted all LL videos I had except for this one:
But in short, to me everyone is right in this case. Uncharted 4 is not a good example for gaming as a whole as U UnNamed said, and at times it certainly looks lacking as you all are saying.
And many bigger, outdoor chapters would improve drastically with the use of ray traced shadows.
Lucifers Beard
Member
Interesting thoughts.
I think that developers should spend more time optimising their games to include best frames and fidelity possible. Metro Exodus introduced ray traced lighting and still ran at 60fps on consoles. Obviously, it’s just one example but it can be done in some cases. I don’t think ray tracing is a waste of resources, providing it’s done properly.
We as players are in a position where we have been asked to pay more money for the product (UK RRP for example went from £50-£55 to sometimes £70 this generation). The increase in price should in theory offset the longer development times (which publishers have even used as their reasoning for increasing the price). This additional time should be used to better optimise titles in my opinion.
Instead shit is just shoehorned into games as an additional feature instead of something that is well thought out and part of the gameplay experience. It’s usually unoptimised, runs like dog shit and then ‘fixed’ down the line. Early access in all but name.
I’d rather developers took another year or longer to make the best game possible that doesn’t require day one patches and has the best fidelity it can. We are paying for these games after all, we are entitled to a working product.
I think that developers should spend more time optimising their games to include best frames and fidelity possible. Metro Exodus introduced ray traced lighting and still ran at 60fps on consoles. Obviously, it’s just one example but it can be done in some cases. I don’t think ray tracing is a waste of resources, providing it’s done properly.
We as players are in a position where we have been asked to pay more money for the product (UK RRP for example went from £50-£55 to sometimes £70 this generation). The increase in price should in theory offset the longer development times (which publishers have even used as their reasoning for increasing the price). This additional time should be used to better optimise titles in my opinion.
Instead shit is just shoehorned into games as an additional feature instead of something that is well thought out and part of the gameplay experience. It’s usually unoptimised, runs like dog shit and then ‘fixed’ down the line. Early access in all but name.
I’d rather developers took another year or longer to make the best game possible that doesn’t require day one patches and has the best fidelity it can. We are paying for these games after all, we are entitled to a working product.
Schmendrick
Member
and with what kind of algorythms do you think that baked static lighting was calculated in the first place?
How is it not just utterly stupid to sneer at the prospect of having that work dynamically in real time?
Last edited:
Hot5pur
Member
It's still very early days for RT and I agree it's mostly meaningless these days. But it's undoubtedly the future, or some lighting tech that emulates it. Basically we've been trying to approximate it until now, so it's how we get to "realistic" lighting. The other major benefit is it's supposed to cut down on dev time if they don't have to do fake lighting.
Graphics still have PLENTY of room to improve. They literally use huge computational resources to render a CGI frame on the order of seconds or more for movies, and games run at 30-60 fps. There is plenty of "future" for graphics.
Graphics still have PLENTY of room to improve. They literally use huge computational resources to render a CGI frame on the order of seconds or more for movies, and games run at 30-60 fps. There is plenty of "future" for graphics.
The Cockatrice
Gold Member
This.
However,
Those animations as well, not even Naught Dog improved upon how stunningly fluid and responsive U4 controlled while looking like this:
And in a way, those games did use some form of RT, all the way back to TLOU on PS3:
Resident Evil 4 Remake or Dead Space: Remake, both just released a whopping 7 years after Uncharted 4, are literal generations behind in this regard.
Honest to God, visually all I could think while watching that footage 2 days ago was that it looked like a less stable, ghosting Lost Legacy, with next generation geometry.
Just talking visually here of course, but I'm sure I could trick many people into thinking some portions of that Demo are from Lost Legacy. Don't have a video to compare as Streamable deleted all LL videos I had except for this one:
But in short, to me everyone is right in this case. Uncharted 4 is not a good example for gaming as a whole as U UnNamed said, and at times it certainly looks lacking as you all are saying.
And many bigger, outdoor chapters would improve drastically with the use of ray traced shadows.
Kinda agree, that talented dev artists can make baked lighting look so much better than most of the weak RTGI implementations we received. Only Metro Exodus did it incredibly well but that game was designed from scratch with RTGI in mind. Most games these days just tackle any RT after and call it day.
Games can look insane without RT as above but I believe RT has blown up recently because it should cut development time but instead big games now take even longer because devs have to use baked as well as RT and the work is twice as much. When the day will come that games only use RTGI or other ray/pathtracing features from the ground up, then this topic will be useless.
StueyDuck
Member
Ray tracing in terms of gameplay would only really be a useful mechanical in regards to realistic reflections.
The classic one for me was the BFV showcase where you could see an enemy reflection in a car, where with Screenspace you would see nothing.
Not many games have a reason for that use though. Here's to hoping a new splinter cell would have some cool uses as I feel a stealth game would be where it would work best.
Horror would also work well but we are still stuck in the bad PT clone except with jump scares of horror games so they may take time
Bonus points to Hitman for having accurate mirrors but if I remember correctly it wasn't Ray traced initially. Not sure if hitman 3 converted rt
The classic one for me was the BFV showcase where you could see an enemy reflection in a car, where with Screenspace you would see nothing.
Not many games have a reason for that use though. Here's to hoping a new splinter cell would have some cool uses as I feel a stealth game would be where it would work best.
Horror would also work well but we are still stuck in the bad PT clone except with jump scares of horror games so they may take time
Bonus points to Hitman for having accurate mirrors but if I remember correctly it wasn't Ray traced initially. Not sure if hitman 3 converted rt
Last edited: