Quake 2 with real time raytracing as an example. I seriously don't understand why people think this looks any better than current dynamic lighting engines currently in modern vidya.
And yet plebs on leddit massive circlejerk about how good this looks but in reality I think they're retarded.
What do you think Jow Forums, is real time raytracing any good at all?
You can't look at a static image any more and judge a rendered pictures quality.
You need to see it in motion to actually appreciate it. And yes, it is impressive.
not
>is
but, will be. the biggest problem is that these old games is that the lighting was not made for ray tracing. so, that's why most of these look like shit.
Even BFV looks no different than any other modern dice game. Really if anything the lighting and water look worse than previous bf games
Yeah let's just stick with shitty screen-space reflections for the next 20 years because retards like you are afraid of progress
It's bad example for raytracing
It looks like a lightmapped scene with 1 light bounce and partially self-lit materials
There are videos in the link in OP, it still doesn't look that good.
Look at this example here, there seriously isn't really any difference. Real time raytracing still doesn't look anywhere close as good as real raytracing done by CGI companies
It's less about quality and more about flexibility. Your image demonstrates a complex lighting environment with accurate reflection and occlusion using a single algorithm, and it didn't require baking.
The movie industry started out using rasterization, and today it is almost entirely path-tracing. Everything technology the movie graphics industry adopts the games industry eventually adopts, usually a decade later. If you can't see the inevitability of ray-traced games then you're likely the type of person who couldn't have seen the inevitable replacement of horses with automobiles.
This only uses raytracing for a small part of the lighting pipeline (same as Blunderfield 5)
Except automobiles are faster and more convenient than horses, so the switch was justified.
Raytracing is slower and doesn't offer anything we don't already have.
>The movie industry started out using rasterization, and today it is almost entirely path-tracing.
no it started out with raycasting and never changed
so did video games, rasteration came with polygons, Doom and Wolf3D were raycasted
Heres a cherry picked screen shot of metro exodus from nvidia showing off rtx
>Raytracing is slower and doesn't offer anything we don't already have.
It does offer things we don't have it's just too slow at the moment to justify it
it says in the faq that raytracing takes complexity out of engines
which would be cool but its a bit of a hype to sell it as major feature
And heres a pic of metro last light with just bog standard dynamic lighting
Lighting should be artistic, not realistic. Also, level geometry should follow gameplay, not try to be realistically cluttered and obtuse to navigate.
Prove me wrong.
Like what? It looks literally no different.
you are probably a pleb so you don't notice the difference. the lighting in modern game engines is all wrong (on purpose to save cycles) and you would notice this if you'd done any visual art at all
>you're wrong and raytracing is right because daddy NVIDIA says so!
yep it will save a lot of production time so more games.
proper GI, reflections, refraction, shadows instead of approximations and screen-space effects
It looks no different because 90% of lighting in current "raytracing" games is still baked
When AMD releases a card to take advantage of the same vulkan raytracing library I'll try it. Having played the stock Q2 this looks amazing, but with Nvidia having a captive audience right now we've seen what they did to the prices of their cards. I'm not paying out the ass just to make one game look good.
Which does what exactly? what do all of these marketing buzzwords actually do to make shit look better? So far it looks like they do jack shit.
>marketing buzzwords
they're scientific terms you stupid fuck
shadows will be more detailed and accurate, especially soft shadows
same with reflections
proper refraction means glass and water will look a bit better
oh and it does perfect anti-aliasing too none of that blurry shit
So whats the point of the huge rush to add raytracing to every game when it creates a massive performance deficit for hardly any improvement.
like dont get me wrong, unless theres a radical shift in baked in lighting, raytracing is the future. But from my eyes it really looks like the quality that most people would want from real time raytracing is 2 years out at least
Why the fuck are you trying to have a discussion on raytracing if you don't even know what screen space reflections are? Fucking idiot.
no, nvidia is shit and you should not buy from them, however ray tracing is not a meme and is currently the best way to get physically accurate renderings
>So whats the point
there is no point, it's a dumb idea to do it right now, until they can manage full real time ray casting they shouldn't bother
>proper GI
>with ray tracing
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
>ray tracing is meme
>look at this static image from a 20 year old game with shitty art, texture quality, and geometry for proof
Ray tracing isn't a meme. Current implementations of real time ray tracing are. Shit like BFV just uses dogshit quality ray tracing for only reflections and maybe shadows. Most lighting is still done using rasterized rendering.
It's more like 5+ years but someone had to start it
The rush to add it comes from Nvidia bribes and the desire of AAA studios to add more checklist features
ray tracing is the only way to have proper GI
pseudo-ray-tracing has come along at an awful time.
It offers wonderful cinematic 30 fps just as DP 1.3 and HDMI 2.1 displays with 120+ Hz are bringing us out of the 60 Hz wastelast we've been stuck in for the last 15+ years.
IMO: nuDOOM-tier graphics @ 120+ fps >>>>> better reflections @ 30-60 fps.
Don't you just love when people opine on subjects they have zero knowledge of? Thanks Nvidia for teaching zoomers that raytracing is bad.
Can any lighting anons tell me if it's possible to get Fresnel-correct reflections with a parallax-corrected cubemap?
>I seriously don't understand why people think this looks any better than current dynamic lighting engines currently in modern vidya.
It does look better. You can't accomplish such shadows and reflections in dynamic lighting engines. It's close, it might not be recognizable during gameplay, but it's inferior.
However quake 2 is a really bad example. There is no reflective surfaces, no lenses, no curved surfaces, there is no room for raytracing to shine there.
>Look at this example here, there seriously isn't really any difference.
Compare shadows near people.
Also this image do not present anything raytracing is actually really good at.
Raytracing allows you for (artistic) effects that are unreachable for classical algorithms.
if the surface is curved then no, remember that cubemaps are rendered from one point in space
lol imagine justifying a $2000 gpu just to play a 25 year old game that looks slightly better and at under 60 frames lolololol raytracing doa
>currently the best way to get physically accurate renderings
Are you sure about that? From what I can tell, it's actually the worst way to get them. It just tanks performance for placebo-tier benefits.
>it might not be recognizable during gameplay, but it's inferior.
>It doesn't actually make things look better, but daddy NVIDIA says it does, so it does.
Just because you can't see, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just like screen door effect is unnoticeable during fast paced VR gameplay, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get rid of it.
yes, your problem is that you have gotten used to modern meme rending which is highly exaggerated and cartoon like
not that i think this is wrong, video games are toys for children and so realistic rendering will never be the most important thing, they can and should make compromises to make them easier to play
>Just because you can't see, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You're fucking hallucinating, nigger
Unless you use something like photon mapping you will not have proper GI. Using only ray tracing will give you shit GI because in real life light bounces everywhere and you can't cast an infinite number of rays.
>Raytracing is a meme!
>Tesselation is a meme!
>HDR is a meme!
>Dynamic lighting is a meme!
>Hardware acceleration is a meme!
Time and time again. Raytracing is extremely valuable for visual fidelty and has a huuuuuge number of applications outside MUH GAMES. This is a very important and logical step forward.
He never mentioned anything about performance you dumb /v/edditor, there are more applications of ray-tracing than your kiddie games
>ragdoll physics is a meme that doesn't justify the massive dip in performance. You can get nearly the exact same effect with a well done animation
lol at all these faggots rationalizing their retarded toy purchase.
I don't own an RTX card and I still think you're a retarded faggot
>I don't have any arguments so I'll just post my brainletmeme.jpg. That'll show em
>expecting an argument in response to a non-argument by a brainlet who doesn't even know what screen-space effects are yet still thinks he's an expert on ray tracing
So because I don't know your corporate marketing lingo, my argument is now a non-argument
>screen-space effects
>corporate marketing lingo
With every post you earn your brainlet title more and more
I use a 745 4gb I got for $60 (snow pesos) and i think you're a retarded faggot
But how can you argue with me when you don't even know about light-speed refracted texture embalming?
>argue with me
I wasn't arguing with you, I was making fun of you. There can't be an argument because you haven't actually put forth a valid argument, only evidence of your room-temperature IQ
I'm not denying that raytracing is the future. But if you've spent 800$+ for this shit 'early-acess' version of it, then I'm sorry but you're retarded.
F-A-G-G-O-T-S~~~~
Are you actually this ignorant or do you just get off on pretending to be a retard on the internet?
>What do you think Jow Forums, is real time raytracing any good at all?
Looking at one of their videos (youtube.com
Especially look at when a barrel blows up: The lighting actually bounces off the walls onto walls that are not in direct line of sight of the light source.
Quake 2 was made with static lighting in mind, so it's not the best game to showcase lighting effects (a game with movable lights would probably be much better)
The first automobiles were NOT faster and more convenient than horses.
or something with actual emissive surfaces rather than just 100 point lights in every room
if you seriously think these 2 are on the same level you are completely fucking retarded
if it was the same, why the fuck does pixar use raytracing then and not normal dynamic lighting???
i'm not an RTX shill, i think the launch was disgusting, but if you're going to come here and claim that raytracing is a meme you are fucking retarded
oh i see you've never taken a physics class, thanks for proving you're an idiot
Ooh, that's a good one! The amount of point lights in our games is too damn high!
>ray tracing
>youtube.com
It made for a nice tech demo a decade ago. Shaders have come such a long way that we don't really need it. Ray tracing would be a nice to have if they could deliver it as a reasonable price. It would also help if there was some standard around it so we don't have to worry so much about manufacturers pulling the plug on it like they did 3D.
Not a single poster ITT has implied that they have bought an RTX card you dumb faggot
ITT: retard thinks that people are for raytracing because nvidia markets it, not because it's objectively better
>Shaders have come such a long way that we don't really need it.
Try playing a third person game with screenspace reflections, it's not pretty
This. I can't understand how people can look at raytracing and not see that it's the logical next step in graphics development. Maybe they saw that fucking retarded "muh diminishing returns" polygon picture and assumed that graphics right now are as good as they're ever going to be.
OP literally talks about rtx raytracing in games. And for that it's still nothing but a retarded meme. Neck yourself Nvidia shill.
disagree, even in something like this you can still see the shadowmap artifacts, it looks bad once you have an eye for it
But I have.
Raytracing, regardless of whatever words you want to use, does not actually make games look better. We don't need to get into semantics and terminology to explain shit because I can see it with my eyeballs. There's no real difference. All it does is makes games run slow.
That's not a refutation of my point. No one in this thread has actually stated they own an RTX card. You've outed yourself as another retard who takes part in GPU tribalism and isn't actually interested in the tech involved. Please fuck off back to /v/
You're implying that ray tracing generated by a non-Nvidia card wouldn't produce the same graphics, you fucking cock mongrel.
>Raytracing, does not actually make games look better.
Yes it does you fucking idiot. Try playing a third person game with screenspace reflections (just turn reflections up to high if you're too stupid to understand what that means) and then look at the reflections of objects your character model is blocking, or simply tilt the camera down and watch as the reflections disappear in a stupid and unrealistic manner.
>hurrr i think quake 2 rendered in software mode is the best looking game ever made and no one can change my opinion because it's mine
okay, nobody cares
raytracing will still be adopted because it simplifies renderer design by multiple orders of magnitude
>You're implying that ray tracing generated by a non-Nvidia card wouldn't produce the same graphics,
Well I am not implying that.
I am implying that a non-Nvidia raytracing card would have the same effects.
I am also implying that a card without raytracing would look the same as well.
Because there's no difference.
You're actually using the same exact fucking principle of "I don't notice it so it doesn't exist" that flat earthers use to justify why they don't believe the Earth is curved.
renderman
brainlet
>there's no difference.
See and fuck off. Dumb faggot.
Except I do believe the earth is spherical. We've gone up there into space, and I can see the satellite footage of the planet from orbit.
Raytracing on the other hand is placebo.
>Well I am not implying that.
Alright.
> I am implying that a non-Nvidia raytracing card would have the same effects.
> I am also implying that a card without raytracing would look the same as well.
> Because there's no difference.
Except there WOULD be. No more pixelated shadows, reflections (think mirrors and metal) and light actually bouncing off the walls.
Prove it
>Raytracing on the other hand is placebo.
I've already provided you with one glaringly obvious reproducible downside of non-raytraced graphics that raytracing fixes. You haven't addressed it because you know it proves you wrong.
Then why does every 3d animated movie ever made use raytracing instead of just animating stuff in source filmmaker?
See
They've implemented something wrong. The reflections are super blurry.
>why the fuck does pixar use raytracing then and not normal dynamic lighting???
Because they make cartoons and not realistic images
Do you see any of those problems in this ray traced image?
No pixelated shadow
The shadows are lighter than direct lighting
Reflections in the glass ball
>graphics
>Mattering
Gaymers are scum
>any general purpose computation machine is just an early-access of RTX.
If you want to fake realistic look, you have to resort to tricks, which are harder to implement in software and increases game development cost. This could be one of the more important aspects of RT.
Complaining about decades old assets without material properties looking sub-par. OP takes the lead for dumbest post in 2019.
dogshit shadows on the non-rtx one
Raytracing is a goy trap.
You don't need raytracing to have good lighting.
Raytracing is a physical approach to lighting. Current methods of lighting are all hacks that give up realistic lighting for performance. Realtime raytracing is the endgame of computer graphics, because it emulates the way light works in the real world. Effects such as reflection, diffraction, chromatic aberrations, etc. would all happen naturally and not have to be specifically programmed in.
youtube.com
There's a clear lack of indirect lighting where there should be.
