Do you actually have RTX card to say this.?
All the games I tried with DLSS worked on my 21:9 1440p monitor without any issues.
-
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 thread which sometimes talks about RDNA2
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
- Status
Do you actually have RTX card to say this.?
All the games I tried with DLSS worked on my 21:9 1440p monitor without any issues.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
Exactly, in this context it really shows how hilarious and ridiculous it is to argue why you think rt is important.Yes but the 2000 series, and now the 3000 series, are showing us that real-time ray tracing is not ready for prime time.
It's riddled with compromises, and this is due to the fact that it remains computationally very, very expensive.
Those Pixar animations you talk of - they weren't done in real time. What's more, they used rendering farms to produce them in an acceptable time-frame. Pretty much supercomputers
What we have in the guise of the 2000 and 3000 series cards is a fudge. Full-scene real-time RT is still years/decades away.
So we have DLSS and upscaling and low-res sampling and a limited number of rays. And it *still* cripples FPS, even this "RT-lite" implementation.
It's like skipping a rock across the pond and declare how important that rock was. As it sinks to the bottom of the pond. To never be seen again. ROFL.
Ray Tracing is not the point for me, Kudos to Nvidia for bringing it to mainstream, seriously credit where credit is due and for that Nvidia absolutely are due credit. It will get more usable over time and you have to start somewhere.
I also don't have a problem with DLSS, as a concept its fine, again its there you can chose to use it or not, for me the problem is the marketing behind it, as if its a button you can press and suddenly it makes RT performance usable at the same as native Image Quality or better.
It very obviously isn't that, that's a lie.
I also don't have a problem with DLSS, as a concept its fine, again its there you can chose to use it or not, for me the problem is the marketing behind it, as if its a button you can press and suddenly it makes RT performance usable at the same as native Image Quality or better.
It very obviously isn't that, that's a lie.
What if in this picture they turned SSR off and then compared the image with RT on. Because SSR high or ultra didn't look bad enough?From the DF video. Is that really hard to do?
Yes but the 2000 series, and now the 3000 series, are showing us that real-time ray tracing is not ready for prime time.
It's riddled with compromises, and this is due to the fact that it remains computationally very, very expensive.
Those Pixar animations you talk of - they weren't done in real time. What's more, they used rendering farms to produce them in an acceptable time-frame. Pretty much supercomputers
What we have in the guise of the 2000 and 3000 series cards is a fudge. Full-scene real-time RT is still years/decades away.
So we have DLSS and upscaling and low-res sampling and a limited number of rays. And it *still* cripples FPS, even this "RT-lite" implementation.
I am pretty sure that you don't need any ray-tracing to achieve photo-realism in PC games:
Unreal Engine 4 and 5 are a proof for this:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
We have yet to actually see a starting point because Nvidia has never released hardware that can actually run fake ray tracing, gaming ray tracing natively higher then 1080p at decent fps. Perhaps in three or more generations from now we may actually see a starting point.
And dlss is simply a crutch showing how hanidicap the hardware is in rendering it. I am all for dlss as its a reminder that we have not seen the starting point of rt in games yet.
This is why I'm glad amd concentrated more or rasterized performance.
Last edited:
And really high res textures (8k, 100s per model), high res models, particle effects and volumetrics, and good compositing work.
Well if you learn a bit about what RT is used for then you will realise it's more than just reflections. Immersion is what drives graphical fidelity forward. Of course it's a personal choice, but to make a choice you need to understand the options or else you often end up making the wrong choice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 2,890
- Location
- Exmouth, Devon
Yes but the 2000 series, and now the 3000 series, are showing us that real-time ray tracing is not ready for prime time.
It's riddled with compromises, and this is due to the fact that it remains computationally very, very expensive.
Those Pixar animations you talk of - they weren't done in real time. What's more, they used rendering farms to produce them in an acceptable time-frame. Pretty much supercomputers
What we have in the guise of the 2000 and 3000 series cards is a fudge. Full-scene real-time RT is still years/decades away.
So we have DLSS and upscaling and low-res sampling and a limited number of rays. And it *still* cripples FPS, even this "RT-lite" implementation.
I said it wasn't done in real time (in the brackets). Most likely my poor grammar failed me again.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 2,890
- Location
- Exmouth, Devon
Oh of course and the continuing advancements within those also.
Yeah I wrote that poorly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 2,890
- Location
- Exmouth, Devon
Yes you are probably right. I read somewhere it'll be open source.
When I said hate something that did not defined as a person. Which goes back to the same thing. You had nothing more to say. And after reading this response is still the same. I can have a realistic view of Ray tracing without hating it.
Your screenshot claim is just an excuse. It is what it is. RT offers little to anything of IQ value to performance. Whether it be screenshot, in motion, yt or in game. As I told you before the game is still rasterized with elements of rt. Those elements have keep rt implementation restricted and clumsily used.
You may post that you are in good spirits but when your actions show me something different it overrides what you say. Actions speak louder than words. And your actions demonstrate that you are triggered by my view of ray tracing. Just own up to it.
You make it impossible to take your response to me seriously when you lie. Just own up to it.
There is no such thing as ignoring consoles that's a ridiculous claim. And the results of cb2077 using rt are poor. We can also thank dlss set to blur in order to get higher fps.
This generation of mid-range GPU cannot run ray tracing natively at 60 fps at 1080p and higher with all iq set to high. So, again you tell another lie. You see what you are doing? You have to lie in order to make rt look palatable. If rt was actually this modern marvel you make it out to be you wouldn't need to lie for it.
The only time you can use rt natively in cb2070 is for screenshots. But you will quickly enable dlss to actually play the game. Among other iq reductions.
Ray tracing is nvidia new tessellation. Nothing more nothing less. It will be abused and overdone. Because there hardware is tailored for it. Even though it cannot do so at acceptable frame rates natively using resolutions higher the 1080p.
RT demo'd in cb2077 is a complete disaster do to the contravsory surrounding the game.
And it will reach end of life sooner rather than later.
Toodles.
Just a few random that I took earlier without looking for anything special. This is at 1440p, DLSS Quality(1080p super sampled) and RT Phsyco. That means I could be playing at 1080p without DLSS with the same FPS. I get 45 - capped 60 with my 3080 installed in an ancient PC : 3770k, 32GB DDR3 and STAT3 SSDs.
I find the RT version very natural looking, while the refuse bags especially look out of place in legacy mode. Again we can see pre baked shadow in legacy mode that should not be there. There is quite a change in lighting between the two.
In RT mode we get proper soft shadows and nice lighting on the concrete walls. Legacy puts rather odd shadow below the NPC and overall lacks lighting detail. Some nice reflections with RT increasing immersion.
Glass doors that show detail of the area behind that I've just came from, while carrying a victim. I'm a tidy killer
It's worth noting the lighting on the walls through the doors is corrent in the RT version where as the non RT is more random. It's very noticeable when moving through the area. Can you make sense of the RT version?
I don't know why you keep trying to have a dig at Nvidia when you know that Apple, AMD, Intel and Microsoft are all investing in RT. It's just Nvidia are in the lead at the moment.
Both of the above screenshots are awful. In different ways, the lighting is awful in both.Just a few random that I took earlier without looking for anything special. This is at 1440p, DLSS Quality(1080p super sampled) and RT Phsyco. That means I could be playing at 1080p without DLSS with the same FPS. I get 45 - capped 60 with my 3080 installed in an ancient PC : 3770k, 32GB DDR3 and STAT3 SSDs.
<snip: I couldn't see any difference in that first example>
In RT mode we get proper soft shadows and nice lighting on the concrete walls. Legacy puts rather odd shadow below the NPC and overall lacks lighting detail. Some nice reflections with RT increasing immersion.
<snip>
As you say, in the non-RT version there are dumb circular shadows under the NPCs.
In the RT version there are no NPC shadows at all. That's not an improvement
As you will know, artificial lighting is much more point lighting that natural daylight, which is infinitely more diffused (due to clouds and atmosphere, and the sun being millions of miles away...)
At night, each of those discrete (and close-by) light sources should cast their own shadow. This is what happens when you walk at night between street lights. Each light casts its own shadow.
The second screenshot with no NPC shadows is just as bad as the first.
Is it worth spending close to a thousand pounds and tanking performance, to go from one kind on inaccuracy to another different kind of inaccuracy? Both of which are immersion breaking.
Just a few random that I took earlier without looking for anything special. This is at 1440p, DLSS Quality(1080p super sampled) and RT Phsyco. That means I could be playing at 1080p without DLSS with the same FPS. I get 45 - capped 60 with my 3080 installed in an ancient PC : 3770k, 32GB DDR3 and STAT3 SSDs.
I find the RT version very natural looking, while the refuse bags especially look out of place in legacy mode. Again we can see pre baked shadow in legacy mode that should not be there. There is quite a change in lighting between the two.
In RT mode we get proper soft shadows and nice lighting on the concrete walls. Legacy puts rather odd shadow below the NPC and overall lacks lighting detail. Some nice reflections with RT increasing immersion.
Why is there more water in the 2nd picture? I noticed this in the BFV screenshot too, DLSS adds more water to the picture or what? Are both pictures taken with DLSS on or one is native 1440p and the other is 1440p DLSS?
And that fat lady on the right has her feet inside the concrete. Looks like she will sleep with the fishes soon.
I strongly disagree. There is a lot more depth in the RT image, the lighting (on the npc legs for example) is much flatter without it, and that's not at all realistic.
If only the spent more time fixing issues instead of bolting on ray tracing. I'm sure the money gained from Nvidia sponsorship has been offset by all the refunds too.And that fat lady on the right has her feet inside the concrete. Looks like she will sleep with the fishes soon.
Aside from the fact I have no idea what you're talking about, both of them are extreme inaccurate.
My guess is most people won't care all that much as they play through the game.
But since RT's was heralded as a way to increase immersion through life-like accuracy, when I find an RT scene with completely inaccurate lighting, I'm going to give it a hard time
Because RT has a performance cost.The other image is inaccurate, but at least you aren't tanking your frame rate
Both of the above screenshots are awful. In different ways, the lighting is awful in both.
As you say, in the non-RT version there are dumb circular shadows under the NPCs.
In the RT version there are no NPC shadows at all. That's not an improvement
As you will know, artificial lighting is much more point lighting that natural daylight, which is infinitely more diffused (due to clouds and atmosphere, and the sun being millions of miles away...)
At night, each of those discrete (and close-by) light sources should cast their own shadow. This is what happens when you walk at night between street lights. Each light casts its own shadow.
The second screenshot with no NPC shadows is just as bad as the first.
Is it worth spending close to a thousand pounds and tanking performance, to go from one kind on inaccuracy to another different kind of inaccuracy? Both of which are immersion breaking.
As I've said before, screen shots don't do it justice. You need to experiance it. On the RT side there is a lot of faint soft shadow that you notice during play. I find 45-60 FPS plenty from my old 3770k and DDR3 for this type of game, but I'm not a pro gamer. My card was £719.99, £50 extra for the OC model over MSRP and an extra £20 for OCUK. Not bad to be honest. Maybe with a faster CPU the 3070 would have done but I like to buy the next card up and then undervolt.
Same scene, only difference is RT.
- Status