Assetto Corsa Competizione Dumps NVIDIA RTX

shankly1985 · 18 Aug 2019 at 17:33

Spyhop said:
Adaptive-Sync monitors (particularly with the LFC feature) makes low-FPS more acceptable, not less.

In objective terms, there's never been a better time to play at sub-60 fps.

Disagree! 30 FPS is still 30 FPS - 40 FPS is still 40 FPS

The frame latency to render and display 30 FPS is still 33ms with or without Adaptive-sync

Rroff · 18 Aug 2019 at 17:46

shankly1985 said:
Disagree! 30 FPS is still 30 FPS - 40 FPS is still 40 FPS

The frame latency to render and display 30 FPS is still 33ms with or without Adaptive-sync

While it doesn't magically mean you can play at 40 FPS and get a good experience difference is before if you were mostly at say 60-70 FPS and got a brief dip you'd have the choice of V-Sync on and probably bouncing off the 30 or 45 FPS multiplier even from a slight framerate drop and/or possibly keeping performance higher but running deep into pre-rendered frame queue adding to the noticeable latency or even dropped frames or having V-Sync off and getting some pretty terrible tearing across the framerate transition. Now brief dips below 60 FPS is barely noticeable with adaptive sync without any noticeable tearing and minimum if any additional latency meaning you don't have to push to have as much of a framerate buffer to keep the experience acceptable.

V F · 18 Aug 2019 at 17:52

The input lag below 60fps is horrid for input response. Where 144+ locked feels so much better. Besides no sim or competitive fps player uses G-Sync or such. They don't want input lag.

EastCoastHandle · 18 Aug 2019 at 17:54

V F said:
The input lag below 60fps is horrid for input response. Where 144+ locked feels so much better. Besides no sim or competitive fps player uses G-Sync or such. They don't want input lag.

Someone gets it!
The same goes for racing sims. It's like their National Anthem, standard of gaming.
I know for a fact that if you have high input lag you will never consistently enter the apex of a corner correctly at the same, high speed. Regardless if you use a game pad or wheel.

You need consistency in Sim Racing. FPS don't matter if your input latency is high. High Input Latency causes you to slow down more when trying to corner and when making other vehicle related maneuvers.

Although at a guess, I am still certain that input lag played a huge role why they dropped RTX. Unreal Engine developers would need to drastically streamline their code to accommodate RTX support in order for it to keep input lag in check. IMO.

V F · 18 Aug 2019 at 18:28

Yep. There is nothing worse than the feeling of a mushy brake/accelerator or steering wheel getting in and out of the corners due to 30 - 40fps. Just like fast flick shots in fps games.

That initial snappyness makes or brakes your lap times.

Spyhop · 18 Aug 2019 at 19:16

Rroff said:
While it doesn't magically mean you can play at 40 FPS and get a good experience difference is before if you were mostly at say 60-70 FPS and got a brief dip you'd have the choice of V-Sync on and probably bouncing off the 30 or 45 FPS multiplier even from a slight framerate drop and/or possibly keeping performance higher but running deep into pre-rendered frame queue adding to the noticeable latency or even dropped frames or having V-Sync off and getting some pretty terrible tearing across the framerate transition. Now brief dips below 60 FPS is barely noticeable with adaptive sync without any noticeable tearing and minimum if any additional latency meaning you don't have to push to have as much of a framerate buffer to keep the experience acceptable.

You're an endangered species mate because you can do logical reasoning.

4K8KW10 · 18 Aug 2019 at 20:51

Rroff said:
Personally I would accept 40-45FPS (and I'm a framerate junky) if it meant having at least 1080p resolution ray tracing even at the level of implementation in Quake 2 RTX but the with scene complexity of a modern engine - messing about with a custom map I got Quake 2 looking like this for instance (on a GTX1070 - Turing cards manage around 6x the framerate)

With the limitations of a ~25 year old game engine... if people can't imagine what they can do with the same implementation on a modern engine.................................

On a modern engine, it should be like ~1 FPS..... No real-time full-raytracing is possible on any RTX card.

Grim5 · 18 Aug 2019 at 20:53

4K8KW10 said:
On a modern engine, it should be like ~1 FPS..... No real-time full-raytracing is possible on any RTX card.

Except for that game, Control, that’s out in like 1 week and uses the full ray tracing package. So like you mean 1fps for every other game right???

Rroff · 18 Aug 2019 at 21:58

4K8KW10 said:
On a modern engine, it should be like ~1 FPS..... No real-time full-raytracing is possible on any RTX card.

Path tracing like used in Quake 2 isn't unduly troubled by scene complexity and the maps I've been messing about with are an order of magnitude more complex than the stock maps with hardly any FPS loss. Albeit only 2080ti this generation is feasible.

One thing that isn't great in Quake 2 RTX bouned/indirect lighting is very constrained with only the sun light having anything like a full implementation and you take a 25% performance hit just from that if it is illuminating a scene.

EastCoastHandle · 18 Aug 2019 at 23:32

Gentleman,

The point of ray tracing is to mimic photo realism (at the very least).
Back in the day I know RT was used in 3d modeling (homes in particular). Not my field though. So, I know how it suppose to look.

If ray tracing looks similar to what was already rasterized then it's not bringing the level of fidelity one should expect from ray tracing.

Problem is, as of today, I've not seen any real true life like ray traced games.
Well, except for MS Flight Simulator 2020 and it's still not clear if that RT or not yet. And it was showcased on console for crying out loud.

LeMson · 18 Aug 2019 at 23:44

EastCoastHandle said:
Gentleman,

The point of ray tracing is to mimic photo realism (at the very least).
Back in the day I know RT was used in 3d modeling (homes in particular). Not my field though. So, I know how it suppose to look.

If ray tracing looks similar to what was already rasterized then it's not bringing the level of fidelity one should expect from ray tracing.

Problem is, as of today, I've not seen any real true life like ray traced games.
Well, except for MS Flight Simulator 2020 and it's still not clear if that RT or not yet. And it was showcased on console for crying out loud.

Yeah I'm skeptical as heck about the new flight sims looks, They could pull a crysis on us and nothing short of quad Titan V's can run it, here's hoping it's incredible though!

Rroff · 19 Aug 2019 at 00:51

EastCoastHandle said:
Gentleman,

The point of ray tracing is to mimic photo realism (at the very least).
Back in the day I know RT was used in 3d modeling (homes in particular). Not my field though. So, I know how it suppose to look.

If ray tracing looks similar to what was already rasterized then it's not bringing the level of fidelity one should expect from ray tracing.

Problem is, as of today, I've not seen any real true life like ray traced games.
Well, except for MS Flight Simulator 2020 and it's still not clear if that RT or not yet. And it was showcased on console for crying out loud.

Traditionally ray tracing was a technique that you'd use if you wanted to get something like photo-realism but it isn't just about photo-realism - just getting somewhat accurate and more crucially realtime light that isn't a massive hack job of baked in shadows, heavily faked up GI and dynamic shadow mapping techniques that have lots of problems and don't work on all objects in a scene, etc. would be a huge advantage as well as being able to have a unified reflection system that can properly reflect parts of the scene outside of screen space, etc.

Ray tracing itself isn't "supposed" to look one way specifically but often the goal is to render something that closely resembles realistic lighting of a scene. Full scene, full resolution ray tracing does tend to have a certain look but you don't have to have that look to have a successful ray tracing engine.

EastCoastHandle · 19 Aug 2019 at 03:09

Rroff said:
Traditionally ray tracing was a technique that you'd use if you wanted to get something like photo-realism but it isn't just about photo-realism - just getting somewhat accurate and more crucially realtime light that isn't a massive hack job of baked in shadows, heavily faked up GI and dynamic shadow mapping techniques that have lots of problems and don't work on all objects in a scene, etc. would be a huge advantage as well as being able to have a unified reflection system that can properly reflect parts of the scene outside of screen space, etc.

Ray tracing itself isn't "supposed" to look one way specifically but often the goal is to render something that closely resembles realistic lighting of a scene. Full scene, full resolution ray tracing does tend to have a certain look but you don't have to have that look to have a successful ray tracing engine.

I disagree on the merit that we won't have the hardware for it in any reasonable form for some time yet. What we are seeing now is the prime definition of heavy faked up ray tracing with reflections here and there. Some refractions found in another game. And, maybe a game will use it for shadows and another with ambient occlusion. Perhaps we will see it used for global illumination. Yet it's full effect is reduce in the neighborhood of 75%-90% to increase frame rates. All of it so far has been nothing more then a hack job at best. And all of it with a simply upscale look to what rasterization offers.

And please, don't remind me of Control. It's no different as it's visuals fall flat from what I know ray tracing to look like.

What I see is a missed opportunity. One I believe AMD will fill. Take the most important aspects of how Ray tracing works, rasterize it and blend ray tracing were needed without the performance penalty we see now unless you invest $1200 for it. This is where it fails today.

Lets be honest here we won't, ever, see photo realism for ray tracing in gaming. It will always have that rasterized look to it. What we should, correction will, see is the most important aspect of why ray tracing is so enticing to developers and blend it into how games are developed today. With the option to add ray tracing in its lighter elements such as reflections, refractions, global illumination, ambient occlusion, etc. While offering developers "it just works" aspect to using it in games development.

That's were the money is IMO. Not what we are seeing now from it. IMO, it's a complete mess when you have to develop a blurring technique just to off set the performance penalty.

Edit:

Just in case anyone is wondering what I'm talking about here are a few examples below:

https://gpuopen.com/deferred-path-tracing-enscape/
https://www.redsharknews.com/produc...der-brings-real-time-ray-tracing-within-grasp

shankly1985 · 19 Aug 2019 at 07:08

Grim5 said:
Except for that game, Control, that’s out in like 1 week and uses the full ray tracing package. So like you mean 1fps for every other game right???

Control isn't fully ray tracing. It's still using rasterization. It's using ray tracing for its shadows only.

DrCrabHands · 19 Aug 2019 at 08:23

shankly1985 said:
Control isn't fully ray tracing. It's still using rasterization. It's using ray tracing for its shadows only.

And Reflections.

opethdisciple · 19 Aug 2019 at 10:58

Kaapstad said:
What use is it to a game dev where one new tech cancels out another new tech.

RTX = better image

DLSS = worse image

From a game devs point of view they have to spend money adding these new features for very little extra benefit visually.

At this point DLSS goes hand in hand with RTX because RTX tanks frame rate, DLSS lifts it up again. Two sides of the same coin.

LeMson · 19 Aug 2019 at 11:10

Why didn't Nvidia slip ACC some money to put RTX in the game O_o

Rroff · 19 Aug 2019 at 11:11

EastCoastHandle said:
Lets be honest here we won't, ever, see photo realism for ray tracing in gaming. It will always have that rasterized look to it. What we should, correction will, see is the most important aspect of why ray tracing is so enticing to developers and blend it into how games are developed today. With the option to add ray tracing in its lighter elements such as reflections, refractions, global illumination, ambient occlusion, etc. While offering developers "it just works" aspect to using it in games development.

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)

HRL · 19 Aug 2019 at 11:18

If only someone would mod Doom, the latest version, for full RT. Would be interested to see what that looked like.

shankly1985 · 19 Aug 2019 at 11:42

LeMson said:
Why didn't Nvidia slip ACC some money to put RTX in the game O_o

I stand corrected it's GI and reflections not shadows.