all shadows were turned OFF during the "RTX OFF" demo in the live stream.
Then they turned shadows ON during the "RTX ON" demo
Seriously? They could've at least turned the shadows on for the RTX OFF part. This is false marketing, since all games in the last 20 years have shadows (with the option to turn it off, but NVidia only turned it off for the "RTX OFF" part ffs)
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
gist.github.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
dude don't you understand? Nvidia just now invented shadows for pc games.
any game in the last 20 years hasn't had any shadows bro
They disabled shadows from dynamic spotlights.
Dynamic spotlight shadow are unironically hard to do though.
Because devs didn't bother to implement usual dynamic shadows for this scene.
back in the past it would only take a dozen japs to do this.
Graphics wise SH2 was a masterpiece.
But even there they mostly used flashlight as a single light source. And you wouldn't even notice the limitations because of good game design.
Dunno if serious or seriously retarded.
Those shadows are drawn using Raytracing you fucking nigger.
If there's no alternative way to draw shadows implemented, of course RTX Off would remove shadows.
t. dumb /v/ retard who never even drew a triangle himself
The real question is will it bring back functional mirrors in games
Are pipo unironically dishing out a THOUSAND US Federal Reserve Notes for shadows in video games?
Oh sure you aren't wrong, but that is not what nvidia was implying. Or hoping we would think.
They are pretty much tasked with convincing the audience of the advantages of "RTX" vs traditional rendering techniques.
Given this, the average viewer reads "RTX Off" and assumes the scene is rendered or lighted/shadowed using traditional techniques. This is what they want you to think, but isnt the case.
OP is saying that nvidia is being misleading when they showed this comparison, and that nvidia's new tech would not be as impressive if compared to a properly lit/shadowed scene using traditional techniques. You dumb fuck.
RAY TRACING CAN BE FOUND IN OLDEST GRAPHICS BOOK. THIS IS FUCKING JOKE LEVEL MARKETING BUT IT WORKS BECAUSE MONOPOLY. TAKE IT IN YOUR CAPATILIST ASS.
/thread
yes
>RTX disables the nice UI
fuck RTX
those are dynamic lights, having shadows for them would kill performance in a normal game
Luckily we now have RTX technology, which achieves a marginally better effect at only an 80% fps hit.
>pay extra to see shadows from firecrackers at low fps 1080p only
bravo Jen-hsun
>you wouldn't even notice the limitations because of good game design
it's amazing what some games did to make up for the limitation of their era
for example in GTA SA usage of limited draw distance and complex highways gave the illusion of a huge world
>UI takes up like a third of the screen
>nice
games have been doing shadows from multiple light sources for years with deferred rendering, am I missing something?
someone make an rtx on/off with a clos-up of a light switch being on and off im on my phone and can't into photoshop on android
you're thinking of deferred lighting, not shadows
like this
shadows for all these lights would be insane
>2000+18
>no functional mirrors
This is exactly the future?
>80% fps hit
card can do 4k 80fps on demanding games
RTX on it's 22 fps @ 1080p (we don't even about the other options, such were those ultra textures or medium, lod, fov, etc...)
that's more than a mere 80% hit.
it cripples the card and we can't even say exactly by how yet. But since it was already shit in the fucking announcement, expect it to be even shittier than you're anticipating.
Ray-tracing way would be kinda the same you'd need to calculate if there are intersections for every single light source, try calculating that shit.
>tfw it was 22fps with antialising disabled.
well back in the past most people who did this were guys who wanted to make something good. Today it´s more about beeing creative people, who rip off everything else because muh childhood. Progressive people who wants their shitty agenda. Plus costs are now higher so games needed to be done faster. Marketing costs are higher, because average customer only cares for a game 5 seconds and you need to constantly remind him that the game is out. People now use Game Engines like Unity, which is like "70% content plus spying if you aren´t a good goy and 30% marketplace content" etc etc etc.
youtube.com
I know you hate him. But he's praise the new turing design, and it seems like it'll be great in 3-4 years, right when AMD is potentially ready to compete in the classic GPU market again. This is their strategy, to overtake while they have the lead. Why they're risking it all with such high prices, when the gains are marginal? I don't know. It seems to be the flaw in their otherwise good plan.
The performance increase is going to be 10-20% at best, on all existing titles, and it's going to be the GGDR6 majorly.
And this is because of their new core layout, watch the video. It will become much stronger.
h-ha-hairworks 2.0?
or physX 2.0?
with shadow mapping you would have to render the scene a shitload of times and do a shitload of texture reads, with ray tracing you just send beams in random direction and if you hit a light you're lit, and combined with de-noising you get very accurate shadows
>all shadows were turned OFF during the "RTX OFF" demo
Are you blind OP? Only the dynamic light shadows were disabled, just like Jensen even said they would be without RTX, the whole point was to show how easy RTX makes dynamic light shadows work
actually the direction doesn't have to be random you can point the beam straight toward the light source and see if it intersects with anything in between
imagine being this dumb. here is another shot from the demo. notice how the flames aren't actually on screen? that's RTX
This is why I admire console games. Jow Forumspcmasterrace /v/edditors like to throw a shit fest but I find impressive size/graphics on consoles to be more impressive since they have to work with hard limits while pc is "throw more hardware at it"
>drumb
>never even drew a triangle himself
Dragon's Dogma can do it on PS360, it's stencil, but it's there.
1000 times rendered image vs every single pixel * 1000 * all objects in the direction.
deferred shading is still cheaper.
The age of unique console hardware that allowed the developers to use tricks like the flashlight shadows on SH2 is gone though, now they're just mid range PCs, not even that If you're talking about the OG Xbox One/PS4.
not when you have ray tracing hardware, 10 gigarays/second, and denoising
1000 shadow maps is practically impossible
have you even noticed the arrows in my picture? explain the "reflection" of the fire inside the concave headlight. I'm waiting.
>GLFW baby talking
cute
what's your problem? it's hard to tell exactly because of the perspective but the reflection is totally believable
OP is fag, now it's gore thread!
it's not a tiny fire on the left behind the car, there's more than what you can see on the screen, that's the point
my "problem" is in fact the problem that there never could be any reflection at the marked spots (also at the right side of the car) with "real raytracing", cause there can't be any light by that source. impossible.
You know what's funny, little dumb Nvidiot fanboy?
all reflections were turned off for the "RTX OFF" during that demo.
Then the day after, press were shown the demo again, but this time the character could move freely. Now all reflections were turned on during the "RTX OFF"
really makes you thingk
The shadows are not comparable. The raytraced shadows are far more accurate and visually pleasing. Is it enough to justify the difference in price and performance for a video game? probably not at this point in time.
Given the way the gaymers have recieved RTX I think it would have been better for Nvidia to hold raytracing back from the consumer cards for another generation or two. There doesn't seem to be any demand in the markets that geforce serves for raytracing GPU's.
Why are shadows so hard to do?
Don't we understand how light interacts with things well enough to make an algorithm for this?
Just like, take a light source, make cast a sphere of influence and morph the sphere based on any 3D models its hits.
Then each model's parts are assigned a opacity value. 100% opaque items fully block the sphere, deforming its shape.
0% opacity is ignored, and everything else has an inverse square function that reduces the distance of the sphere's distance depending on opacity.
Any light that hits a surface brightens it a percentage based on the light source's strength and casts a shadow with a darkness relative to the opacity level, which is then deformed based upon the angle of the light and its relationship to the object.
Seems like this is a pretty simple thing to convincingly boil down to a math formula that a CPU could easily process billions of per second.
It isn't only the unique hardware that made such tricks possible. Consoles APIs provide a closer-to-metal development approach which alongside the defined hardware they can even with vastly inferior hardware hold up visually. This advantage will be gone when Vulkan becomes more widespread as it has similar philosophy of finer control over hardware.
yes there could, notice how the reflection doesn't go all the way to the center, because that part is obscured, but the cone shape isn't fully obscured by itself because it's a big ass fire that is not just behind the car
I'm not even him or nvidia funboy, but that is objectively false.
They show screenspace reflections on RTX OFF in flamethrower scene a bit later.
massive kek
you have to do it for millions of pixels 60+ times a second with hardware that a poorfag can afford, current techniques use take an obscene number of "shortcuts", that's why this new tech is exciting although it has some way to go before it can fully be realized, ray tracing has long been considered to be the holy grail of real time computer graphics
its an explosion, a tall expanding light source catching the headlight edge and making a "reflection". did you watch the video, do you know how light works? its a very realistic looking effect to me
>another thread where OP is a complete mouthbreathing tech illiterate cunt
should be a bannable offense on Jow Forums
You can thank r/amd for that.
that fucking spurdo i just spit my Listerine tooth cleaning liquid on my 4K IPS monitor
luckily it was only small amouts kek
>0.04 JIGGARAYS have been deposited to your account
It is not that hard with only one source. But once you get to multiple sources, raytracing becomes faster.
DOES THIS MEAN I CAN RUN GAYTRACING AT 60FPS ON 1080P NOW?!?!?!
Look at what great art direction can do
its the reflection of the tank front side and other things that are outside of the screen
Do we really have mouthbreathers in here that seriously believe raytracing is inferior? I still call bullshit on Nvidia but come on niggas.
Jen-Hsun Huang LITTERALLY SAID THAT HIMSELF, AT THE LAUNCH.
It was hidden, while glorifying the huge, massive, colossal almost alien technology increase, he stated that true, complete, realtime ray tracing is 10 years away.
Nvidia is betting on it, and hiding it's weak performance, just to cut AMD Radeon out. As they did with x64 tessellation of Wither 3 etc. by Game Works, but in the case Vulcan should succeed over DX, Nvidia now has a hardware way of tilting the benchmarks.
> Babbies in here that think raytracing is some sort of new technology
When did Jow Forums become anti-tech? Realtime raytracing would literally be heaven.
Is this real-time?
>realtime ray tracing is 10 years away.
Jen-Hsun Huang said that. Realtime, complete ray tracing is not here yet. Jow Forumss not anti tech, but EVEN Jow Forums is not stupid enough to pay $1200 for something, that's primarily design to hopefully cut AMD, and now Intel, in the benchmarks to come:
Because there are no shadows with RTX off.
>you have to do it for millions of pixels 60+ times a second
Why do it on a "per pixel" basis?
That's fucking dumb.
Do it on a per-model basis, and assign values to "chunks" of the model that dictate opacity and albedo.
That's more than good enough.
> Amd confirmed for no shadows
Wow, Epig games shud hire u nobody ever thought of this XD
You don't get ray tracing do you? It doesn't go in chuncks, it goes directly from the view points, "eyes", to the visible points, "pixels", and shows what they reflect to. So on pixel is ray-traced individually, if it is to work and be the holy grail it's predicted to be. If you chunk it, then what's the point?
I wasn't describing ray tracing, I was describing a method to get reliable dynamic shadows without doing dumb ass ray tracing.
Why does it need to be so granular? It seems like this is just engineer wank.
Models are made up of POLYGONS, so the best would be to do it on a per-polygon basis.
Per pixel is fucking pointless.
probably, but we're talking about shadows, those boxes don't cast shadows
then you have to do depth test etc per pixel
No, you don't.
Computer graphics aren't real life.
Items in 3D model are made of triangles called polygons. You can get their x/y/z positions and depth very easily by getting the locations of their vertices.
Doing it on a per-pixel basis is wasteful and stupid.
Spotted the brainlet. Did you ever try to initialize the DirectX on a C++ source code. There are a couple of matrices you need to initialize. One that is the object relative position. Another that is the world position. Another for the camera position and one more for the camera focusing "compression" where you set the camera lenses.
When it draws on the screen everything that is not inside the final matrices multiplication is not rendered. To do reflections you need to setup so.e workarounds.
On raytrace there are no workarounds. It just works.
Did you just reinvent shadow volumes?
Except that ray-tracing is not a gimmick.
Devs were buying 2x titans before just to run full path-tracing engine (like brigade) at 720p at 30fps.
And now cards have specialized hardware for that.
Yeah, retarded normalfags gaymers will have to pay the technology tax, but i think it's actually a good thing.
And if Nvidia keeps high prices, Radeon can easily come back. And i would expect them to be even better at ray-tracing than nvidia.
I don't know enough about this shit, maybe?
It seems logical to do it this way.
at some point you have to draw pixels, polygons can overlap in intricate ways, you don't seem to have thought this through
I crave real ray tracing like a mofo, but this fake shit is faker than the 4 GiB of a 970
Ray-tracing works from the camera outwards.
So it doesn't matter how many light sources there are.
In fact more lights makes it slightly faster because the ray will stop bouncing once it hits a light.
A scene like this is relatively hard with ray-tracing because the rays have to "find" the one light source on top which only a small percentage will do withing a couple of bounces.
Just like there were no reflections in the bf5 demo until they turned on placebo tracing
That's what line clipping algorithms are for.
Ray tracing seems ass-backwards.
You're tracing the light from the destination to the source when light moves from the source to the destination.
/
geforce 540m good or bad?
We just cannot afford to go full path-tracing (yet).
Nvidia right is trying to legitimize the technology for real-time games. It would be cool to use that tech for sound instead, but dumb normalfags wouldn't understand.
We are taking baby step right now, but performance would be there eventually.
>To do reflections you need to setup so.e workarounds
which is what you see at this gay ass fake shit "BF V" demo, in plain sight.
still haven't recovered from your 3,5 GiB 970 card?
