• 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.

NVIDIA ‘Ampere’ 8nm Graphics Cards

Guest2 said:
It’s sad that there is practically no physics in COD MW. Just the player models and no interactive world at all like Half life 2 had.
I guess there’s only so much devs can do with 7 year old hardware in consoles.
Hopefully PS5 hardware will bring physics back to gaming
Click to expand...

Hopefully, not sure if the demand is there tho.
Half life 1 had more physics than most games these days.
Was it red faction? You could literally shoot anything and it would deform. What went so wrong since then.
I think crisis physics should be the minimum for any game going forward.
Rt sure looks like it will be useful but I would rather more physics tbh.
 
There is interactive physics which goes back to Half-Life - that is just one calc, like a see-saw (3 collision detection plus gravity). Then there is physics effect, like particles, fog, smoke, water, cloth (Doom particles and blood effects spring to mind). World deformation like you say, that is all down to what kind of gameplay the devs are after. Physics effects in games are everywhere now we're just completely used to them.

Ray tracing will be everywhere in the future. The reason nVidia is supposed to be dropping the RTX name, the name is pointless, its the future. :)
 
Last edited:
keyser said:
There is interactive physics which goes back to Half-Life - that is just one calc, like a see-saw (3 collision detection plus gravity). Then there is physics effect, like particles, fog, smoke, water, cloth (Doom particles and blood effects spring to mind). World deformation like you say, that is all down to what kind of gameplay the devs are after. Physics effects in games are everywhere now we're just completely used to them.
Click to expand...

Yeh i would label them as effects rather than physics.
 
Guest2 said:
I agree, but that has nothing to do with ray tracing with/without. To me I can clearly see the presence of better lighting when ray tracing is enabled.
Add that to games with high res textures and decals then were onto a winner... yes, the fps will be shocking but then that was the case years ago with new graphical advancements;

Higher resolution
AA
Bump mapping
Shadows of any sort (initially)
Advancements in shadows
Tessellation

The list is much longer but those are example I remember where in the early stages it each totally crippled the game. Now they are just part of it. Remove high res, aa, shadows and effects and you are left with nothing.

I remember when SVGA came out. 640 x 480 instead of 320 x 200! It was unreal at the time.
Yes, the fps dropped so badly most games were unplayable unless you shrunk the screen to a stamp size but it was like playing a different game. So clear in comparison to VGA

Redalert in SVGA was a game changer, even if it totally wrecked the FPS. Then hardware caught up and it was possible a year or two later.
Click to expand...

game changer, even if it totally wrecked the FPS. Then hardware caught up and it was possible a year or two later.[/QUOTE]

Yes I think that is true the lighting is clearly much better and historically new features take time to adopt but as I recall (just to put context and to quantify things) the GPUs and VGA Graphics cards that bought you higher resolutions and features like DX11 tessellation and compliable shaders etc... didn't cost £1.2k and a massive price hike over previous gen. You just got the benefits as part of the upgrade to modern hardware. I get it that RT is a tough nut to crack and its looking much better if the leaks are to be believed I just not a head in the sand kinda guy when looking at questionable practices and Turing in particular.
 
Grim5 said:
Yea and know

RT affects shadows, reflections and lighting but not texture quality. The biggest impact on photo realism is simply the texture quality
Click to expand...

With proper full scene ray tracing (which isn't what we are seeing in games) the surface materials (textures) also are part of the equation. In Quake 2 for instance they use a basic implementation of physically based materials and use data from the path tracer as an input.

MyBrainz said:
DayZ has some really nice textures which is maybe the closest i have ever seen to photo realism in a game.

No Ray Tracing here..
Click to expand...

Though the textures are nice at a distance they look flat and 1 dimensional on the surface - with a proper material shader and using input from ray tracing they'd be taken up another level of realism again.
 
MyBrainz said:
DayZ has some really nice textures which is maybe the closest i have ever seen to photo realism in a game.

No Ray Tracing here.. :)

snMuQ1m.jpg
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Those are a LONG way from any kind of photorealism... modded Skyrim is way better than that. Those fern leaf textures at the front are about as basic as it gets.

Anyway, I think you are misunderstanding what Ray Tracing (RT) is. RT is about lighting, not texture quality or clarity. https://www.techradar.com/news/ray-tracing and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_(graphics)
 
BigBANGtheory said:
Yes I think that is true the lighting is clearly much better and historically new features take time to adopt but as I recall (just to put context and to quantify things) the GPUs and VGA Graphics cards that bought you higher resolutions and features like DX11 tessellation and compliable shaders etc... didn't cost £1.2k and a massive price hike over previous gen. You just got the benefits as part of the upgrade to modern hardware. I get it that RT is a tough nut to crack and its looking much better if the leaks are to be believed I just not a head in the sand kinda guy when looking at questionable practices and Turing in particular.
Click to expand...

Top of the line GPUs have always been expensive.

I remember buying a Matrox Mystique 220 4MB in 1997 for £150. It was absolute garbage
Not long after in maybe 1998, my friend got a Diamond Monster 3D II 3dfx Voodoo2 12MB. At least double the price but the best GPU ever created.
I've just had a quick look and there are even videos of Voodoo 2 in SLI running Doom 3!
 
MyBrainz said:
DayZ has some really nice textures which is maybe the closest i have ever seen to photo realism in a game.

No Ray Tracing here.. :)

snMuQ1m.jpg
Click to expand...

Am i missing something? That looks pants
Sure Crysis 1 was better, especially with mods

2769269-5977715418-12064.jpg


 
Richdog said:
Are you serious? Those are a LONG way from any kind of photorealism... modded Skyrim is way better than that. Those fern leaf textures at the front are about as basic as it gets.

Anyway, I think you are misunderstanding what Ray Tracing (RT) is. RT is about lighting, not texture quality or clarity. https://www.techradar.com/news/ray-tracing and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_(graphics)
Click to expand...

I was talking about texture quality, and yes those close ups DO look crap, but the rest looks decent compared to some games, me and many others know how well Bohemia Interactive do well in art and detail, especially weapons etc.

And i'm not misunderstanding anything, my first post here after over 3400 other posts and you say i'm misunderstanding? Maybe you didnt read my post properly.. i was responding to somebody talking about textures and RT. :rolleyes:
 
Simon Belmont said:
Agreed, with half the world unemployed atm and if price is high (I bet it will be even higher then last gen) only the super rich will buy.
Click to expand...

Do they think there is enough of them to form a market big enough to profit from?

I mean, they could make a GPU that only the single richest person on the planet could buy and if decides not to but it....

There is a point where the price gets so high that the market for an item becomes too small to make a profit. I don't know where that point is for GPU's but Nvida is welcome to keep pushing their luck if they so choose. More people will take there money to AMD, consoles and/or the used market.
 
Twinz said:
This excuse would apply if they priced the GPU at $10,000.The word "expensive" covers any price without context.
Click to expand...
Depends if there is demand for a $10,000 gpu. If there is, someone will make.
Im pretty sure there are already gpu’s ghat cost that. Niche market and maybe film editing / production
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom