This also shows in a way why many games with added RT as after-thought do not look that good (or even look worse). If devs and artists design scene with fake lighting and then add real light calculations to it, it might look very different from what they desired it to look like and what "fake" light provided. The whole game would have to be re-lit again, light sources moved around etc. to make it look good with RT in mind, usually - and that tend to cost too much so most devs do not bother. In other words, only games that are from the start made for RT look actually good/proper with it (not just realistic but as artists intended and as it makes sense from player's standpoint) with it.
-
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.
The RT Related Games, Benchmarks, Software, Etc Thread.
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
- Status
This also shows in a way why many games with added RT as after-thought do not look that good (or even look worse). If devs and artists design scene with fake lighting and then add real light calculations to it, it might look very different from what they desired it to look like and what "fake" light provided. The whole game would have to be re-lit again, light sources moved around etc. to make it look good with RT in mind, usually - and that tend to cost too much so most devs do not bother. In other words, only games that are from the start made for RT look actually good/proper with it (not just realistic but as artists intended and as it makes sense from player's standpoint) with it.
I don't think there has been one game where RT has made the game look worse, at least from the ones I've played. What ones have you found this to be the case?
The only one I can think of where I have seen people say this is metro ee and largely because ee can appear washed out when side by side with the original but reality is, the original was just very vibrant/contrasty.
Metro is one such example and not even because of wash-out looking, but there's plenty of places that are just too dark (which wasn't intended by devs, as it wasn't nowhere near that dark without RT), making it just hard to play in places, without pushing gamma up to compensate (which caused issues in other places). There's been quite a few such examples in games that had RT bolted on later - it looked more real, but actually made the game worse in places, because of light being wrong in comparison to what was intended by artists initially. In the end games should be made playable first and foremost and then pretty as a bonus.
Few other games had actual physics taken from puddles of water and the likes (even just simple particle effects of splashing water) after one turns on RT in them - turning water surfaces into glorified mirrors with 0 realism. That, in my opinion, looks much worse overaly.
That said, few interviews by game devs said pretty much the same - they either have to design game with RT in mind from the scratch or redo whole lighting later to make it look as intended. If they skip the latter part, game looks prettier but might be much less playable. It's good vs cheap design/development, really.
Last edited:
Soldato
Imo until acceptable affordable entry class capable RT'ing performance is here, we're a long while away from exclusively RT'ed from the ground up games.
Clearly, vendors don't want to pump out cheap RT'ing hardware, so until then (out with vendor funded development) it'll remain bolted on.
Clearly, vendors don't want to pump out cheap RT'ing hardware, so until then (out with vendor funded development) it'll remain bolted on.
Last edited:
It's the other way round, RT fixed that with areas being too dark e.g.
Can also see some examples on their site for it (hadn't seen this before, a lot of good info and comparisons here from them)
IN-DEPTH TECHNICAL DIVE INTO METRO EXODUS PC ENHANCED EDITION — 4A Games
OUT NOW! We’re happy to let you know that the Metro Exodus PC Enhanced Edition is now released, bringing on board incredible improvements for Ray Tracing-capable GPUs, including Field of View options, DLSS 2.0, and much more. It is also a free entitlement to current owners – as it is so extensive
www.4a-games.com.mt
Which other examples are you referring to, only ones I can think of where RT lighting is used is chernobylite, DL 2, icarus (this one was transformed in terms of night time/dark areas, without RT, it was nigh on impossible to see anything without upping gamma or/and using torches planted around) and cp 2077, all of which look far better too with RT, at least imo, having said that I play on calibrated/accurate oled displays, which handle dark areas far better than any LCD (especially if not calibrated to an accurate standard).
In regards to water physics, presuming you are referring to cp 2077? I don't think that was a limitation of RT but rather just simply down to the devs not bothering in the first place, it has since had the update to add physics to water and from what I recall even when RT was turned off, physics still didn't work. Any other games where this is the case?
I could be wrong here with regards to the last sentence but were those comments not entirely down to performance rather than the visuals/outcome? 4a enhanced and iirc, the devs of hitman mentioned that if a game is hybrid RT + raster, it will run significantly worse than a game, which is only RT as is the case with metro ee and the original.
The problem we also have is people saying raster. is being "gimped" to make RT look better, which might very well be the case (more so in sponsored titles) but the more likely reason is simply because the devs don't want to put in the time/effort required to get raster methods looking good in the first place.
Last edited:
Yup we won't be seeing many metro ee or avatar RT only titles for a good while. Suspect it'll be the usual of what we have seen so far where only RT shadows, reflections, AO and less so lighting + GI , maybe nvidia sponsored ones will add/dial up the RT far more now though due to the 40xx....
Alex from DF made a good tweet earlier, which I thought summed things up quite well
Not referring to anyone in this thread but it is definitely weird seeing enthusiast pc gamers who buy the best hardware they can in order to get the best visuals etc. so against a technique that is literally the next step in achieving "next-gen" visuals and not even in terms of pretty shiny graphics but it will also assist in having more dynamic environments with regards to destruction for example.
Last edited:
Soldato
You're not going to be pro anything if you can't use it.
Look at it from the other side.
It's probably the buy in, the majority of gamers don't have 3080+ class GPUs to take advantage of it.
It's not just DFs findings, HU reported more or less the same last week, they have a poll.
When was the last time DF et all couldn't access the hardware to use RT'ing?
Edit:
HU poll
10% very important
40% it's ok
31% underwhelmed
10% Waste of time
Look at it from the other side.
It's probably the buy in, the majority of gamers don't have 3080+ class GPUs to take advantage of it.
It's not just DFs findings, HU reported more or less the same last week, they have a poll.
When was the last time DF et all couldn't access the hardware to use RT'ing?
Edit:
HU poll
10% very important
40% it's ok
31% underwhelmed
10% Waste of time
Last edited:
I know, that's why I said I am surprised by the "enthusiast pc gamers" like on this forum who are so against it i.e. people who do have the hardware to run it well
That's why metro ee is by far the best example, game looks fantastic and it runs great on a huge range of med to high end gpus. Of course, a lot of people will still be running older gpus where they don't have the support though, which is the main issue i.e. lots still using 1060s. Obviously that will change going forward though since every gpu released since turing supports RT now.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,202
Supports isn't the same as "performs well with" though. Ray tracing may well be the next step forward but it is the next step, you need to have the hardware to be able to perform well with it to gain traction amongst masses, not solely enthusiasts. Buy in is very important, you can be as enthusiastic as you want about a hobby, rent needs paying first.
It'll take 30 or 40 series class cards to come down to 9/10 type prices before mass adoption. At that point, if it is still pursued as strongly, it'll take off. Right now, ray tracing can look very good, but the performance hit is too much, save for the top end.
Soldato
Your looking at it from a 3080 users pov, I've went 2070>3070>80, the 80 is the only GPU that I've felt can actually run RT, you think FSR was bad, DLSS 1* was terrible on the 20 series so you had to turn off RT'ing.I know, that's why I said I am surprised by the "enthusiast pc gamers" like on this forum who are so against it i.e. people who do have the hardware to run it well
That's why metro ee is by far the best example, game looks fantastic and it runs great on a huge range of med to high end gpus.
Last edited:
Slight missunderstanding I reckon - I was talking about first implementation of RT in Metro (where it still had DLSS 1), as that was just bolted on and had bunch of issues. Of course, with the second iteration they redid the whole thing, and it looked proper. Which is kind of what I said - when devs spend time and money to do it properly, or game's designed in the first place with RT in mind (light positioning, how the scene is set up etc.), then it can look great or just more real. If it's just bolted on top of existing raster setup, it can often cause unexpected and worse results. There's been enough complaints online (easy to find) where people complain about first iteration of RT in Metro making game too dark and near unplayable in places, but second one fixed that.It's the other way round, RT fixed that with areas being too dark e.g.
Can also see some examples on their site for it (hadn't seen this before, a lot of good info and comparisons here from them)
IN-DEPTH TECHNICAL DIVE INTO METRO EXODUS PC ENHANCED EDITION — 4A Games
OUT NOW! We’re happy to let you know that the Metro Exodus PC Enhanced Edition is now released, bringing on board incredible improvements for Ray Tracing-capable GPUs, including Field of View options, DLSS 2.0, and much more. It is also a free entitlement to current owners – as it is so extensive
Which other examples are you referring to, only ones I can think of where RT lighting is used is chernobylite, DL 2, icarus (this one was transformed in terms of night time/dark areas, without RT, it was nigh on impossible to see anything without upping gamma or/and using torches planted around) and cp 2077, all of which look far better too with RT, at least imo, having said that I play on calibrated/accurate oled displays, which handle dark areas far better than any LCD (especially if not calibrated to an accurate standard).
In regards to water physics, presuming you are referring to cp 2077? I don't think that was a limitation of RT but rather just simply down to the devs not bothering in the first place, it has since had the update to add physics to water and from what I recall even when RT was turned off, physics still didn't work. Any other games where this is the case?
I could be wrong here with regards to the last sentence but were those comments not entirely down to performance rather than the visuals/outcome? 4a enhanced and iirc, the devs of hitman mentioned that if a game is hybrid RT + raster, it will run significantly worse than a game, which is only RT as is the case with metro ee and the original.
The problem we also have is people saying raster. is being "gimped" to make RT look better, which might very well be the case (more so in sponsored titles) but the more likely reason is simply because the devs don't want to put in the time/effort required to get raster methods looking good in the first place.
Small example of how RT can be done really badly is in World of Warcraft - they added RT shadows a while ago, but most light sources do not even cast any shadows in that game. It looks really bad, when you move around and nothing makes sense to your brain - things that should cast shadows, do not, then shadows appear randomly casted by invisible lights etc. One of the better examples of RT added really badly, just bolted on top without actually preparing light sources in the game to work with it. Then there's FC6 and few other games with really badly done RT water puddles (0 interaction with other objects aside reflections), etc.
RT as such can be a real improvement in image quality or it can work against it - it's all in the hands of devs, as shadows and reflections and even GI (my fav bit of RT) aren't everything if other things fall apart. Sadly, lots of corporations like to do things cheap and quickly just bolt it on, without spending any money on actual development. That also reflect why the raster can look bad at times: "Hey, we added RT, so hard and expensive, no monies and time left on making raster look good!" I reckon.
Soldato
Exactly, my lad runs the 3070@1080p, he 'looks' at RT'ing then turns it all off when he's playing the games, his gaming friends all running Nv gpus up to 3060 class and they all prefer fps- as none of them run AMD, it isn't an AMD v Nv fanboi opinion, they can't take the fps hit running DLSS/FSR.
Last edited:
Soldato
I know, that's why I said I am surprised by the "enthusiast pc gamers" like on this forum who are so against it i.e. people who do have the hardware to run it well
That's why metro ee is by far the best example, game looks fantastic and it runs great on a huge range of med to high end gpus. Of course, a lot of people will still be running older gpus where they don't have the support though, which is the main issue i.e. lots still using 1060s. Obviously that will change going forward though since every gpu released since turing supports RT now.
It's not that people are against RT IMO it's that people are annoyed that to get decent performance with RT, Not triple digit numbers, Just decent performance you need a card that is £600+ to run it at very mediocre levels i.e 3080/6800XT, And even then if we're honest RT still looks a bit... meh.
And with the 4000 series that "base" level to hopefully get RT that is better performance will be pushed up to £950 for the base 4080, Which is actually a 4070, And the 4070 coming out in the new year will still likely be up round the £700 price mark and I'd hazard a guess the 4060 will be around the £500 price mark, This is way too much for some extra graphical features.
I like RT reflections and RTGI, They look nice but the entry price point to enable these graphical options at decent performance is too damn high.
Last edited:
Soldato
Agree with that too, but I'd go further and say NV are only releasing 80, 70 and 60 class GPUs pushed up the stack to 90, 80, and a smaller but we'll try and mug you even more off with another80but we've cut it down.
Last edited:
Half the time I can't tell any difference with RT on/off. Certainly not worth the extra cost. Anyway Nvidia are now developing path tracing tech (probably for 5000 series) which will no doubt need more powerful and more expensive cards
When I say enthusiasts, I am referring to people with the hardware who are still so "anti-RT", that means people who have 3080 and better.
A lot of gpus, even rdna 2 are capable of running RT, settings just have to be lowered somewhat, that and having FSR, DLSS, NIS, RSR, xess make it more relevant for many people, of course there are still some who refuse to use them because "fake resolution".... which is fair enough but by not using that and having to lower graphical settings to achieve a certain fps, you are in return making the "overall" visuals worse looking
Again that is why I refer back to metro EE, it runs better than the original version, even on consoles and developers have also stated when done from the ground up properly, it can run better than what you see with raster. it is just that there are many still waiting on RT hardware, that and games obviously still being made for PS 4/xbox one isn't helping to let go of the old out of date ways.
Like I always say, RT is here to stay, it will simply evolve from here on as we have seen over the past 2 years where raster will eventually be phased out so it's really only a matter of time but sadly, I think we'll see a lot of people whine about raster being gimped until the 100% switch over to RT only though. I think avatar could be a real game changer for showing what ray tracing is really capable of for consumers but more so for other development companies. Metro EE was a good example too but for some reason, people always seem to brush over it and refer back to **** RT games like BF 5 or games where there is very little RT used.
It's good to see intel at least competing with nvidia on the RT front now too as that was my concern with only having nvidia and amd in the gpu race, if you want a good RT experience i.e. maxed then us RT consumers only had/have 1 choice.
When turing released, we only had 1-2 games for RT, bf 5 and control, both of which ran horribly even with dlss. Turing is similar to rdna 2 in newer/better games with rt where it can be used much better than likes of bf 5 and control. Like any development and learning new tools, performance and getting the best from said tools will improve just from knowing how to do things the proper way, as 4a enhanced said, consoles are capable of far more than what we have seen so far
But yes, we are still obviously relying largely on dlss/fsr to achieve >60 fps @ high resolutions.
Ah ok fair enough. I can't remember the first/original one that well so can't comment too much, I suspect it was largely due to how new the tech was as well i.e. developers first time using a tool they were unfamiliar with, which is why we see newer games like cp 2077, icarus that do the RT + raster hybrid better after there has been a bit more research/implementations done from other game studios before hand.
Aside from metro, I still can't think of anything else though, if anything seeing more of this:
e.g. DL 2 and cp 2077
Having said that CP 2077 raster looks incredible and better than most other games raster lighting etc.
But agree with things like WOW, I don't even consider it to have RT as it is pointless. FC 6 is somewhat decent but heavily gimped for obvious reasons, same as re village but in the scenes where they are used/demonstrable, it is a significant improvement over raster.
I have been playing rdr 2 again lately and it's lighting, shadows etc. are absolutely stunning but at the same time after having seeing RT, you can't help but notice a lot of the raster drawbacks such as reflections randomly disappearing/distorting just because you move your camera of axis slightly among lighting bleeding through objects + walls.
Again see metro ee
But yes agree, it isn't great when you only have 1 provider pushing the RT era, well hopefully 2 going forward now.... Thankfully Sony and microsoft are heavily pushing for it too whether amd like it or not.
Ray Tracing and Path Tracing are essentially the same thing (both calculate rays of light). There are some differences in how things are being calculated, speeding up the process in path tracing. Essentially it just makes things faster, but you get the same outcome. Hardware needed (RT cores etc.) is exactly the same, but because it's faster they can do a bit more with it, within same FPS.
However, in a way it's cheating the system - RT does it like nature does it, bouncing all rays through the scene till they return to light source. Path Tracing does lots of optimisation, discards huge number of rays that would have small effect on the scene and because of that it can do things faster, but image might not be as real as it would be with more traditional RT. It's good enough though and much faster, hence (like with raster in the past) speed >> minor quality hit.
Last edited:
There are games where raster is done so well it's almost on pair with RT. Then turning on RT you have to compare it side by side to spot differences. It doesn't mean RT is done badly, it just means raster can also be done that well. However, it has limitations and it definitely cost a lot of development time to do right plus isn't that flexible. RT, in the future when it's actually mainstream (I reckon 10-20 more years), will make creating games much easier form that standpoint at least, cheaper and faster. But till that happens, people will choose FPS over looks (with small exceptions).
I don't think it will even be that, look at how far RT has come in the space of 3 years, more so the past 1-2 years.
Last edited:
And it pretty much hit a brick wall. As John Carmack said himself in regard to realistic VR (RT being a part of it) - we need at least 50x speed increase to makes these things look actually real. But we can't get that, as Moor's Law is dead and we are already at the edge of what we can achieve on silicon. We can get few times faster at most and that's it. New tech will have to come and possibly not based on silicon - such tech doesn't even exist yet and it will take at least a decade to push something into mass production. Possibly longer. This is one of the reasons NVIDIA pushes DLSS 3 so hard - they see it as the only way forward to increase FPS because they can't do it with brute force (pure hardware solution) anymore. They also use that (as one of the reasons) as an excuse for hiking up pricing. The only other way forth would be even bigger chips, bigger GPUs in effect and way more power use - and consumers will not buy that. I highly doubt 4k series will sell well for the current prices at least.
Last edited:
- Status