Erm...ok?
-
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.
Assetto Corsa Competizione Dumps NVIDIA RTX
- Thread starter tommybhoy
- Start date
One of the reasons I think they choose Quake 2 is that it is easy(ish) to rip out most of the traditional rendering systems and overwrite much of the traditional rendering techniques as the game uses baked in lightmaps that are compiled using a system similar to ray tracing albeit lower quality and completely static so there isn't a lot of work needed to make levels render "mostly" right (albeit RTX ignores quite a lot of hand placed point lights in Quake 2). More modern games use a lot of faking with a mixture of different systems and lots of special casing at level design time to create a look so not so easy to just rip out the rendering backend and replace with an RTX implementation - someone would also have to go through all the levels, etc. understand what the original designer/artists were trying to achieve and recreate a lot of it to look even remotely right.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
The path tracing implementation in Quake 2 RTX is capable of it, it is just hard to achieve that "ray traced" photo-realistic look with the material and geometry pipeline limitations of a 25 year old engine
With a more modern engine using the same implementation scenes like you posted would be possible - RTX in Quake 2 does reflections, GI, approximation of refraction and caustics, etc.
(I'm also running it on a 1070 so none of the performance benefit of Turing)
Again, I don't agree. Yes, we know it's a 25 year old material but what you do with it can provide a better representation. We aren't talking minecraft IQ (<--image in link) and yet they are doing better then this.
There is one caveat to path tracing/ray tracing. You need an artisan in graphics to pull it off. This isn't something a typical developer can do by themselves. They need that "out of box" prospective in order to pull it off with the resources you have.
For example:
Now this isn't a direct comparison. I want to show you how:
Soft Lighting, GI
better use of AO
the actual use of shadows
the removal of spot lighting
etc.
Can make the image look better. Had there been someone of the trade there to "proof read" the final IQ, like an artisan, I'm sure that Quake would have looked a whole lot better.
Again though the RTX path tracing system as implemented in Quake 2 can do that (albeit some of it is quite constrained currently) - but the engine itself has no support for static meshes, geometry pipeline is barely more advanced than Minecraft - there is no support for curved surfaces, etc. and you can't even do stuff like vertex alpha manipulation to do texture blending between surfaces without hard edges, so it is hard to show it off.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
I understand that. What I'm getting on about is that added time should have been spent to make the necessary changes. This is what Ray Tracing/Path Tracing is all about when one wants to transition it into gaming. The true experience in development is "pathfinding". Someone has to find a way to make the transition less cumbersome and involving. It has to start somewhere. Using older games that are "easier" is the only way to do that.
What is the point in that demostration when it's not done correctly to only make excuses for why it's not a decent representation?
You cannot say "development side" because the time, money and resources wasn't invested to show developers how to transition with less overhead.
You cannot say "Better IQ" because it simply not possible do to the lack of resources put into it to show what RT/PT is all about.
In all it's just showboating. To say Nvidia was 1st to put "it" out there. That's what I'm really seeing in all this. And to me it's just not enough. Specially when someone can do it better using minecraft.
Last edited:
You can build a cube scene in Quake 2 aslong as you use the right materials that looks like Minecraft with ray tracing - Minecraft has practically nothing of traditional rendering techniques to peel away and no complex geometry.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
In hindsight of our conversation, the developers of ACC made the correct call. A lot of time, effort and resources are needed in order to bring RT into their racing game at a acceptable frame rate. Then have an artisan come in and "proof read" those "design decisions" to make sure that RT/PT actually add to the game's immersion and actually show accurate IQ features.
This is no small feat. Even before they could take on such a project the game in it's current state would need to be as bug free as possible. Something they are still working on now.
As it stands using RT in any game where you don't have a small army of personal as support is a daunting task to say the least.
This is no small feat. Even before they could take on such a project the game in it's current state would need to be as bug free as possible. Something they are still working on now.
As it stands using RT in any game where you don't have a small army of personal as support is a daunting task to say the least.
I think it is more the performance versus the work required (especially as anyone racing seriously will want high FPS) - currently only a 2080ti could render the game with visuals even a close approximation of the images you posted above at like 720p/40FPS kind of deal.
About as good as it gets in Quake 2 - and I'm no Artisan - unfortunately the stock textures don't have anything like needed for the floor material or window trim and skirting, etc. and headbutting the geometry limits like a ********** - not even going to attempt the horse when the smallest brush you can create almost as big as the whole model and no static mesh support in the engine. (Can't even make the plant pots round).
Built it from scratch in about 30 minutes - don't have time to create and get my head around how materials are imported in Quake 2 RTX.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
And that's the thing. It takes time. It can be done better but it takes time, resources and someone who's an artisan to give the game it's fine touches.
Last edited:
Just... don't... look.. too... closely...
Yes I made a ****** horse it is like 3 polygons...
In a modern engine though that could import static meshes, etc. with RTX I could have slapped that together in a few minutes with close to photo-realistic results even on a closer inspection instead of spending like a couple of hours fudging something - but if I can get Quake 2 looking even half way there just imagine what a professional team could do with modern features.
I am sure he could have bought a ferrari instead of all those cards if he saved the money.
RTX is just not there and will not be there next year either maybe on 5nm an 4080TI or something, just too computationally intensive for high frame rates and requires large area of silicon. Its definitely the future but nvidia jumped on full well knowing its just no where near ready but used the hype around RTX and their market dominance to hike up prices, brilliant strategy financially speaking. They generated hype and charged us double for it.
Last edited:
Permabanned
Once the next gen consoles hit the market we'll see ray-tracing in plenty of games going forward but I can't see it being added to older games, We saw a similar situation with DX12 where we were told by lots of different game devs that they'd add DX12 support at a later date just for it to never happen?
I expect we'll see a similar situation with Ray-tracing.
I expect we'll see a similar situation with Ray-tracing.