Is raytracing in game a meme? I can see the applicability for special effects, specialised uses (i...

because its showing off real reflection and lighting. its not the ray tracing making everything glossy, they just used glossy surfaces to show everything off.
until ray tracing, reflections were a copy of the object being reflected. ray tracing actually traces the path of light and makes mathematical calculations in real-time as it encounters surfaces or other light sources and matierals

youtube.com/watch?v=tjf-1BxpR9c

No
Raytracing offers much higher quality than any fake lighting technique
It also makes everything much easier for developers
And it can make games much smaller since you no longer need 100GB of lightmaps

The reflections in Battlefield V are pretty cool from a technical perspective since something like that was impossible before
Overall it's a pretty shit demo for raytracing though

RTX is a meme.
Ray tracing and OpenRays will be useful.

You use fake lighting and lightmaps in the same post while praising raytracing? you do realize that lightmaps are raytraced, right? we have the technology and it's being used, except that the information has to be baked because it can't be done in real time

as a matter of fact, when it comes to light, baked lighting will look better than raytraced lighting because of the number of samplings

things that raytracing is actually better at
>reflections
>shadows
>dynamic lighting

yes, if you compare a non-raytraced dynamic scene without baked lights and the same scene with raytracing, the raytraced one is going to look better
but if you compare that raytraced scene to a baked one, the baked lightmaps look better

you cannot compare throwing millions of rays and having hundreds of indirect bounces with what a video card can do in real time

now the shadows and reflections are going to look much better, yes, but the lighting itself won't. Unless we're talking about fully dynamic scenes

>opens mouth
>bullshit spews forth

I guess my post was too articulate and difficult to comprehend for you. Oh well. Some people like you are beyond helping.

It's true though. it will not applicable in Games. At least for now.

>opens mouth again
>vaguely defensive bullshit spews forth
go back

>it wont be applicable in games
>except for the games already supporting it
>oh and future releases
>but i swear its not a viable tech!

>yes its a meme
>reflects only a few of quintillions possible

Attached: 1534973964758.jpg (600x1152, 143K)

lol who made this

This gen of graphic cards are a meme but the tech isn’t. It’s like 3D in the 90s when you could see the triangles

Some poorfag Nvidia hater with a repressed cuckold fetish.

I know, but lightmaps take forever to bake and they can only be used with static geometry
Real-time raytracing on the other hand seems to work with all geometry
So in terms of games real-time raytracing should always look better and more consistent

It's like when HDR first came out and only the top cards could do it at 20-30fps. Raytracing won't be relevant until the mainstream cards can do it without a big performance hit.

it's an option for the faggot who spend 1k+ on a gpu
if the consoles don't have it will be just un add-on

The effect that movable objects have on indirect lighting is negligible. It's the big objects that make the biggest contributions. Things such as a red curtain in a room with white walls. That's when you'll notice the red indirect lighting. On the other hand, let's say your character is wearing a red jacket. Yes there will be some indirect red lighting on the wall if you're using raytracing, which will be lost if you're not, but the effect is very, very negligible.

The only reason why raytracing resources should be spent on lighting is when you want the lights to be dynamic. If they are going to be static you should be spending your raytracing budget on shadows and / or reflections depending on the scene. That's where baked information is blown out of the water.

If you compare a scene with a high quality bake to a raytraced one, unless you have very big dynamic objects such as wall collapsing, the baked scene will always look better.

And again remember that you have a budget of rays that you can use. Unless we're talking about very dynamic scenes it will always pay off more to use that budget for reflections and shadows.

>The effect that movable objects have on indirect lighting is negligible
Yes, the light that bounces of movable objects is mostly irrelevant
But movable objects itself look much better when ray-traced and they fit much better into the rest of the scene with proper shadows in AO

And with GPUs getting faster we will sooner or later have enough performance to do everything correctly

>do everything correctly
Dream on. Did you read Plato’s leaky jar analogy? Well that’s what graphics are. Once we’ve got gpus that can handle the calculations it will turn out that if you only had twice as much memory you could have the details seen in architectural renderers. And when you got that memory then if you only had more cpu power you could have bone and soft tissue simulations to have more realistic animations. And when you finally get that, well you get the idea

Raytracing is a meme for gaming at least in the short term. It will make games look 1% better for a 10% performance drop or something like that.

Attached: nvidia.jpg (1024x785, 501K)

>Apparently in Battlefield V allows the reflection from mirrors in real time. I don't know why people are amazed for this feature, I guess it's just marketing like always.
My point is that why would gamers give a fuck about that? You're not going to stop playing to look at the technical brilliance of a reflection

I do, I spend probably hours looking at reflections nad graphical effects in BF4
>Playing when not high
How can people play Battlefield under 6 gr dried?

There's no denying that it's a step forward, but at the price Nvidia's asking, they can keep it. And without rtx into account, even going by Nvidia's own slides, it looks like a step back in price/performance (almost double the price for ~50% increase in performance for 1080-2080 for instance).

Decided yesterday to go for a 1070ti on sale over here for little over 400€.

Attached: NV-GeForce-RTX-2080-Performance.jpg (2560x1440, 124K)

you can play quake 2 with raytracing if you want to see it in action real time with current hardware
youtube.com/watch?v=x19sIltR0qU

DUDE

What Nvidia is showing for video games is.
It'll still be a long way for real time ray tracing to be a thing for games, what they have now is incredibly primitive.

Can't you play your old games with your old card?

>regurgitates bullshit without even understanding it
>someone else provides some actual insight into the whole situation
>starts sperging out like the faggot that he is because he has no actual arguments
consider necking yourself you autist

>muh (((real))) ray tracing
There are already plently of games out there that have decent reflections. I'm sure that faggots like you that sperg about "real time reflections" and "hurr, before it was just a copy" know fuck-all about programming. The reflections are still "just a copy". Except now, it matches the meme-tracing calculations just a bit more.

>Is raytracing in game a meme?
Not at all. In 10+ years it will probably be awesome.

>why would gamers give a fuck about better graphics?
are you an absolute moron

Ray-tracing isn't a meme, but Nvidia's RTX and its integration of ray-tracing is a meme.

>mirrors are useless in a shooting situation
You absolute brainlet. Stop thinking like a woman.

The best thing about RTX is that it showed the average IQ on Jow Forums is probably in the 80s range.

Could they use raytracing tech for sound?

Developers have spent literal decades faking what raytracing is supposed to do, and they've gotten good at it.

Attached: voxel based gi.jpg (1280x360, 299K)

The point of RTRT is that it's dynamic. Good luck running real time GI without RTRT without blowing a few thousand for 2xTitan XPs to get 30fps.

Yes, raytracing are just rays, so that's what stuff like Steam Audio and UE4's new system do. Of course for sound you need a lot less rays, so it can run on the CPU no problem.

Raytracing is a meme gimmick fad like VR.

Attached: 0708.jpg (348x380, 23K)

Is that why it has had widespread use since the 80s?

Raytracing isn't a meme but it's too early to get significant benefits.

I don't game enough to know: are there any game engines that support mirrors reflecting objects that are outside of the 'first order' view? E.g. it'd reflect something around a corner.

Rear-view mirrors in racing games don't count that's just a second 'camera'.

>when HDR first came out and only the top cards could do it at 20-30fps
In this particular case you're only talking about NVidia cards... for some reason those cards are a lot as in significantly slower in HDR than SDR - there's close to zero difference on AMD cards. It's kind of an oddity, NVidia uses some kind of color compression technology to speed things up (a lot) and it's limited to SDR.

Are there standard APIs (DirectX, Vulcan?) for ray tracing, or is this all proprietary to Nvidia for now?

>Raytracing is a meme for gaming at least in the short term.
My guess is that it will play out like most new technologies have: games won't really take advantage until the next generation GPUs come along and the newly released RTX cards will be too slow to play them at acceptable framerates with raytracing on. It will be one of those things you'll have to turn off so you get 60+fps instead of 20 in the few games that support it. And support will be limited to just a few games developed with sponsorship/partnership with NVidia. If you think otherwise then please go look at the Steam hardware survey. Most people are not gaming on a i7 with a 1080ti. The vast majority are using low-end cards (1060/1050ti/1050 and lower/older). Game developers are not going to invest heavily in a graphics technology less than 1% of their customers have.

What was wrong about it? Be specific.

It is part of memory compression that Maxwell and later Nvidia silicon employ. It seems that have fixed it with Volta/Turing.

Well the idea of raytracing is doing complex computations that are usually too hard to do on a cpu in realtime, supposedly you could do something like that with positional audio and echo's that is like the sound equivalent.
I remember seeing a Quake 3 arena video of something like what you are saying, they have like realtime echo's that would move if you moved past the point where the sound was.

Given the low-rez 'graininess' of real-time ray tracing, what is it good for besides reflections?

you don't need a lot of definition for indirect lighting
battlefront, a shit game as it may be, has some beautiful bakes, and you would be surprised by how low res they are
if anything crisp reflections need way more resolution than bounced lighting

contact shadows are also a great use of raytracing, although HBAO+ is pretty good already