Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Cyberpunk 2077 Ultra performance
- Thread starter g67575
- Start date
Only it wouldn't - Cyberpunk is only rendering about 200m full detail and beyond that rendering a low detail version of the world. The path tracer in Quake 2 for instance uses a cheat beyond a certain distance for specular because the results are close enough without a big performance hit, etc.
I don't think that is correct - I'm not 100% sure of the technique used but the ray traced reflections render the scene from angles SSR, etc. can't handle - what they seem to be doing is re-rendering a simplified version of the scene to ray trace against which doesn't contain all objects and/or all lighting effects, etc. to ray trace against.
Last edited:
Look here from GTA V clip i posted. Now that game has some "ray tracing" mods that are not made at the level CP or WDL or Spiderman are made but i can guarantee they are using the same technique for their geometry reflection.
You can nuke the whole city and you'll still see the shiny buildings reflected in the puddles.
So you get a huge performance hit to see the cars and the people reflected. The rest is there to stay as it is.
"main light that comes from the sky is ray-traced, giving it much better shaping and details in shadows". Yeah like that crappy shadow we already talked about.
You can nuke the whole city and you'll still see the shiny buildings reflected in the puddles.
So you get a huge performance hit to see the cars and the people reflected. The rest is there to stay as it is.
I understand that and sorry but i just read that stupid interview with CP creators where they said that only the light from the sky is RT, the bounced light is done in the classical way. So now you need to look for the light that comes from the sky to see how great RT is.We are talking about Quake 2 RTX and the implementation of path tracing
"main light that comes from the sky is ray-traced, giving it much better shaping and details in shadows". Yeah like that crappy shadow we already talked about.
So what do you get from losing half of your FPS?
RT On
RT Off
If performance is so abysmal on a 3080 with just some parts being rendered with real RT reflections then imagine what the full shebang would do to framerates. It just shows that RT has a long way to go before mainstream gpu's can handle it without shortcuts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
Actually, that "long way to go" would come a lot quicker if Nvidia knew what they were doing when they helped CDPR implement it. However, as demonstrated there is no real optimizations done in software that would allow, lets say, a 3060TI to use RT at 4K 60fps. It's all "stick" and no "carrot" as they say. You either buy a 3090 for decent performance with DLSS or 3080 for mediocre.
That's what should have happened since April 2020...that's what? 9 months or so? And yet this is what we get? Half baked RT calling it hybrid at a huge performance penalty. Which can be done just as good if not better as a mod on a 7 year old game like GTA V.
I have to ask, because you should already know, GTA VI will be much bigger/better then Night City and will also use ray tracing that even a 6700xt/3060ti will probably do at 4K. What's going to be the excuse then when that game is released? That we had to start somewhere (CB2077)?
We're sorry but your RTX card is not so great at RTX so we need to cut most of the RT in our game. But we'll still make you think that almost everything you see its ray traced, look how bad the water looks when it is not ray traced. Heck if Control cripples your card with 10 rocks and your own reflection, then the RT water in CP will kill it, you won't get 3 FPS when you look at the water.
As I've mentioned before - something people are overlooking is that with CP2077 we have the whole performance impact of rasterisation then a big slice of the overhead of a proper ray tracing implementation on top of that just to add some mediocre effects mostly just neatening up the parts where stuff like SSR fall apart rather than using the benefits ray tracing can bring.
Without having to support non-RT hardware a lot more could be done within that performance budget with RT if the whole game was rendered using such techniques.
Soldato
Probably best to read what people are talking about before chiming in... They weren't even discussing CP
Some people seem to be seeing abnormally poor performance in CP2077 with even better hardware than myself - I can play at 1440p all settings utra + RT ultra with DLSS quality and get ~60 FPS most of the time while others with even better hardware only get 40-50 FPS - something isn't running at all right with the game see my post here:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/forums/posts/34382802
Better read the title of the topic before chiming in. Sometimes i get accused for not sticking to the topic, sometimes for not talking about anything else. Make up your mind.Probably best to read what people are talking about before chiming in... They weren't even discussing CP
Look here from GTA V clip i posted. Now that game has some "ray tracing" mods that are not made at the level CP or WDL or Spiderman are made but i can guarantee they are using the same technique for their geometry reflection.
You can nuke the whole city and you'll still see the shiny buildings reflected in the puddles.
So you get a huge performance hit to see the cars and the people reflected. The rest is there to stay as it is.
I understand that and sorry but i just read that stupid interview with CP creators where they said that only the light from the sky is RT, the bounced light is done in the classical way. So now you need to look for the light that comes from the sky to see how great RT is.
"main light that comes from the sky is ray-traced, giving it much better shaping and details in shadows". Yeah like that crappy shadow we already talked about.
So what do you get from losing half of your FPS?
I was posting full scene pictures 'lit from the sky', which showed quite a surprising difference.
SSR in it's simplest from will produce a 100% accurate reflection, but as you can see from the picture you posted, it does not look realistic due to the limitations of SSR.
Last edited:
I'm not seeing this on my setup - though I couldn't find the exact same spot yet to test:
https://imgsli.com/MzU5MTg
Though it does beg the question in many scenes what you are gaining for the performance hit in CP2077 as many scenes the differences are subtle even though I can find ones where the difference is bigger.
EDIT: Found some bigger patches of white - but it isn't as bad as in those images but the version with RT disabled is less correct than with it on even though with it on it is darkening the white significantly.
Lol watch the GTA5 video in slow motion from 3:15 and check how well the reflections are aligned with the scene when camera moves fast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhijHPDswGo
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhijHPDswGo
You know i am sure that if i check the DF reviews i will hear a lot of BS about how different RT light is because it is not only the direct light but the greatest thing is that the light bounces and so on and so forth. I will check now just to be sure but i think i heard from them how a darker place was getting light from RT bounced light compared with that poor classical GI
Yours look better in the RT version but that screenshot was posted by Wrinkly trying to show us how great RT is. And the RT shadow looked bad.
.
I am saying that most of what we get as RT right now, is not real RT but we are made to believe it is RT ( like most of the reflections we see in Control or Spiderman or any other game. Or the light in CP - if it is true that the bounced light is put there in the classical way, then why we hear reviewers talking about how great the indirect RT light is?
I have nothing against RT ( i just don't think it will get too far due to hardware limitations ) but i am looking forward to see future implementations.
Only Quake 2 RTX has a proper path tracing implementation of any sort which is fully used for all rendering (albeit even that isn't without some cheats*) - all the other games use a combination of some or all of using ray tracing only or partially in screen space, using simplified re-renders of the scene often missing a lot of details and often captured at a far lower resolution. In CP2077 for instance a small amount of ray tracing is used as a reference for scattered light and only from a limited number of sources (primarily the sun) and then the rest faked up using traditional techniques referenced against the smaller number of ray traced samples (I'm overly simplifying the system they use). A lot of the shadows are generic imposters projected into the scene rather than using proper ray tracing as well again with a limited amount of ray tracing used to guide the results. The sad thing is in many cases just getting a lite version of those features running still has a good slice of the performance overhead of a more complete solution for ray tracing the whole scene but is the minimum implementation required just to get some small level of the features in use.
Quake 2 RTX still has many compromises - especially the ray budget right now just doesn't allow for denoising results to an optimal level - but it is far far more capable than people who haven't spent time experimenting with it allow for and can significantly exceed the visual results of traditional techniques even though it can't hit the heights of offline ray tracers yet and is no way limited to the Quake 2 engine for results. We still need ideally 2-4x the ray budget to be able to satisfactorily remove noise from specular lighting, etc. despite the claims of some there is no reason why it can't be used to render a game like CP2077 with viable performance.
* For instance specular lighting is only fully path traced out to medium distance - the specular lighting on far objects uses a fast approximate cheat which is mostly indistinguishable to the real thing though not 100%. Caustics are only partially implemented (for time rather than performance as the stock maps don't really have features that would use it) and use fast approximate simulation which can look quite fake in certain scenarios (but again the developer never spent any time on it).
EDIT:
Turned off the sun light to show all the windows, etc. are doing reflections, etc.:
With lots of reflections and refraction, etc. as well as other features going on there isn't a huge performance difference to a standard map this holds true for even more complex scenes as well - for LOLs ran it at 4k on my 3070FE - 1440p is more where playable performance is at:
Last edited:
They are only using RT for some of the effects. Ray-Traced Translucent Reflections, Ray-Traced Indirect Diffuse Lighting and Ray-Traced Contact Shadows. The intent is to enhance game graphics with ray tracing. If you had the real expensive effects pathtracing was designed to do, then no game would be real-time. RT lets you sample the entire scene one ray at a time. Rasterization can only render what is in the current scene. RT might be extremely flexible but it can be computationally intensive.
RT allows you to use raster, in what is called hybrid rendering. This is for performance reasons. You dont have to use RT everywhere, you just use it to enhance the overall quality of the image. When people talk about DX12u games they are talking about the combined RT and raster performance. This is where the 3080/3090 lead the market. Basically a full path traced render can be photo realistic.
This is what Cyberpunk 2077 would look like if we had the power of offline rendering. This is from 2017. Cinema 4D with Octane Render.
This is V-Ray 5 for Cinema 4D at present.
Night City like renders with V-Ray. 3ds Max
Last edited:
That isn't true - not like the way you are implying it. Sure you can't get the level of fidelity an offline renderer can achieve - but you can fully path trace a game with shadows, reflections, refractions, caustics, etc. all simulated via path tracing to a level far above any rasterisation techniques can achieve and no cheats of using simplified low resolution versions of the scene, etc.
I've been playing quite extensively with the Quake 2 RTX implementation and working with a group that is expanding on its abilities (nail and crescent*) so I do have some idea.
* They've still got a long way to go but making some decent headway on expanding the Quake 2 RTX renderer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIOJ6QURT5k
Last edited:
Hardware at the moment can only do a limited amount of Ray Tracing. You cant do a game like Cyberpunk 2077 and Ray Trace everything. Those V-Ray renders are full ray tracing.