What do gamers actually think about Ray-Tracing?

[ICDP]

There is no way you played the game with RT Lighting on Psycho and using the RT Ultra preset and got a game that looks like a PS4 game, maybe in framerates sure since the 7800XT needs to be using RT in Medium settings to just touch 60fps at 1080p.

So what's the deal here?

I’m not speaking for @GhostDog1981 but you don’t need playable FPS to sample Psycho settings on AMD, just turn it on as a comparison.

At max setting on my 4080 CP2077 can go from stunning in the city, to laughably bad in the desert areas. The draw distance is terrible outside and there is still a lot of LOD pop up in the more open areas. There are also some internal scenes where RT and especially PT makes the scene far too dark.

 

[Nexus18]

What there is to point out since reflections disappear of screen while looking away? Screen space issues are well known...
Is not necessarily wow for some that are used to raster fakery, but it definitely helps with the "stability" of the image overall. @Nexus18 also pointed out the shortcomings in other titles...





comparison

It's a magical puddle!

I could even go and get plenty of examples from RDR 2 (arguably the best game for raster visuals) where light leaks through rooms, puddles have that artifacting around edges and reflections disappearing.

 

[GhostDog1981]

I’m not speaking for @GhostDog1981 but you don’t need playable FPS to sample Psycho settings on AMD, just turn it on as a comparison.

At max setting on my 4080 CP2077 can go from stunning in the city, to laughably bad in the desert areas. The draw distance is terrible outside and there is still a lot of LOD pop up in the more open areas. There are also some internal scenes where RT and especially PT makes the scene far too dark.

You said it nicely for me.

On Psycho the FPS was still playable 50-60 fps with upscaling.

I guess the only gpu that can play maxed out (non upscale) RT at cyberpunk is a 4090. Not many of us have that around to use nor the financial outlay that makes any sense for computer games.

 

[ICDP]

You said it nicely for me.

On Psycho the FPS was still playable 50-60 fps with upscaling.

I guess the only gpu that can play maxed out (non upscale) RT at cyberpunk is a 4090. Not many of us have that around to use nor the financial outlay that makes any sense for computer games.

Even a 4090 will struggle at 4K, so 1440p most likely.

In my 4080 I can crank all the RT settings to see what I’m missing. I can enable fake frames etc but ultimately the difference with full PT vs Psycho RT is not enough visually, to warrant me buying a 4090 for the 30% higher FPS because 30% faster than crap is still crap.

In short, the difference between ultra and psycho is marginal and PT looks marginally better but too much FPS hit. IMHO the hit is not worth the marginal improvement that you have to pixel peep to notice. Ooh the decals on the side of my car are now reflected in that puddle.

 

[tommybhoy]

Currently playing Control now that i can with all the RT, it just looks like all the floors have a mirror finish.

Couldn't get into it.

30% faster than crap is still crap.

Summed up perfectly!

 

[D3K]

Also unlike you, remember that many of us are diehard technology addicts and all of this new tech being put into games is fuel for our minds, we enjoy looking at it and experiencing it just as much as playing the games themselves.

Nail on head. There's a lot of enjoyment to be had from marveling at the visuals we're achieving with RT, and it's still in it's infancy so only gonna get better.

General take in this thread is that the majority agree that RT is bringing better visuals to the table, with the perf hit / cost of entry being it's main issue. Unfortunately there's a few circle jerkers that are desperate to win some points by being laser focused on those negs and hand waving away the positives.

 

[ICDP]

Nail on head. There's a lot of enjoyment to be had from marveling at the visuals we're achieving with RT, and it's still in it's infancy so only gonna get better.

General take in this thread is that the majority agree that RT is bringing better visuals to the table, with the perf hit / cost of entry being it's main issue. Unfortunately there's a few circle jerkers that are desperate to win some points by being laser focused on those negs and hand waving away the positives.

Oh the irony re the circle jerk comment. You and others only post positive about RT and how it’s the future. When anyone posts anything negative they get rounded on by the RT defence league, or we get inundated with pointless manipulated comparison screenshots of RT off vs On.

Finally you are starting to understand than most of us see RT as a step forward but that it is not there yet. You have managed to turn this into an extremist position of “with us or against us”

 

[D3K]

most of us see RT as a step forward but that it is not there yet

Reads like a reworded version of "RT is the future"

 

[mrk]

Not to finger point or anything but it does seem that it's generally those that suffer the biggest performance hit from the higher settings are the ones that complain the most. I 100% guarantee you that once the same folks have GPUs that don't have such a big impact in the future, that suddenly the tune will change. Those people seem to forget that many of us have been playing with RT right from the early days on RTX 20 series cards just scratching 60fps with DLSS Performance yet still getting great enjoyment from the graphical effects and seeing the potential for the future which we are now in and seeing unfold as more new games come out with path tracing or "full ray tracing" as it's annoyingly being labelled even if some of those games aren't fully ray tracing everything.

Some have said the difference is marginal with path tracing, this is simply not true, and they seem to keep repeating this line even after multiple people or outlets have posted comparisons online multiple times in multiple games. Granted that many games don't use the full range of effects for ray tracing, some only have RTAO for example, whilst others only RT reflections. Very few actually make use of the full transformative features like RTGI, RTDI, thought the less transformative ones are still good enough to benefit the games in a positive way like having reflections that do not vanish when you move around the camera which is a rather obvious distraction with traditional screen space reflections, or shadows that don't look janky at any distance as they're not using traditional shadow maps any more.

I refer to my own evidence of RT effects being transformative to back up my post:

Sunlit scene for indirect bounce illumination:
https://imgsli.com/MjQ4MTM2/0/2

Outdoor under shade scene:

DLSS/FG on/off >> PT vs RT vs Raster - Imgsli

imgsli.com

^ This is the important one that highlights the difference between PT, RT and Raster the most. Only one looks near photo realistic for lighting, shadow and reflections/colour.


Indoor scene:
https://imgsli.com/MjMxNzA0/0/2

Night scene lit by artificial light casting shadows:

Cyberpunk 2077 2.1 // Path Tracing vs No Ray Tracing - Imgsli

 

[ICDP]

Reads like a reworded version of "RT is the future"

Exactly my point. But the RT crowd act like we are there already and attack people for daring to say RT is meh. It is pure arrogance to assume the only complainers are those who “can’t run it”, or just don’t understand what it does.

I know what PT offers, I know what RT offers and does. It’s just that the majority of us don’t care and the gamer surveys back that up. Not every gamer is a graphics whore who needs to have all setting maxed and will use fake frames and upscaling to get “playable” FPS and then without a hint of irony call it “maxed out”.

 

[mrk]

There is no attacking, there is only pointing out the obvious which is an observable fact rather than an assumption or personal opinion. Essentially 100% of people given what's known from the thread so far in this thread who have moaned about the lack of anything meaningful from RT vs non RT are on cards that don't run RT that well.

The fact that you refer to frame gen as "fake frames" in 2024 still highlights my point exactly, you have an axe to grind and simply cannot accept the fact of the matter, that RT does a good thing (apart from games where it's broken like Jedi: Survivor, Hogwarts etc). And FYI those "fake frames" can be enabled or disabled, with it off the games with path tracing still run at over 70 fps, but why stay there when you can have over 100fps for even smoother motion. It all helps improve the overall immersion and gaming experience.

 

[GhostDog1981]

Exactly my point. But the RT crowd act like we are there already and attack people for daring to say RT is meh. It is pure arrogance to assume the only complainers are those who “can’t run it”, or just don’t understand what it does.

I know what PT offers, I know what RT offers and does. It’s just that the majority of us don’t care and the gamer surveys back that up. Not every gamer is a graphics whore who needs to have all setting maxed and will use fake frames and upscaling to get “playable” FPS and then without a hint of irony call it “maxed out”.

I drop all my settings to low on COD to get 300fps to max out my monitor and reduce latency.

It honestly doesn’t look that much worse than ultra max settings that I used to get 140fps with.

It makes me think we should be welcome to turn down settings for the particular gaming situation. Ie fps shooters don’t need pretty puddles or reflections if the aim is to take someone down as quickly as possible. No time to admire the scenery.

 

[ICDP]

There is no attacking, there is only pointing out the obvious which is an observable fact rather than an assumption or personal opinion. Essentially 100% of people given what's known from the thread so far in this thread who have moaned about the lack of anything meaningful from RT vs non RT are on cards that don't run RT that well.

The fact that you refer to frame gen as "fake frames" in 2024 still highlights my point exactly, you have an axe to grind and simply cannot accept the fact of the matter, that RT does a good thing (apart from games where it's broken like Jedi: Survivor, Hogwarts etc). And FYI those "fake frames" can be enabled or disabled, with it off the games with path tracing still run at over 70 fps, but why stay there when you can have over 100fps for even smoother motion. It all helps improve the overall immersion and gaming experience.

In your opinion only. I can objectively state that RT with PT does look better most of the time. In fact your “proof” screenshots are highly subjective because in some areas the darkness in PT is just overdone and unrealistic. That apartment shot is a perfect example with extra shadows but the light areas are now subdued and the dark areas are like night. It just does not look realistic to me.

You keep assuming most people saying they don’t care about RT just don’t understand it.

 

[mrk]

Let's not beat around the bush, if you were able to run any game with RT/PT at high levels of performance then you absolutely would use it and not bat an eyelid. This is my point, you are convincing yourself as to why you don't care, yet at the same time have just said you can see RT/PT does look better. If it looks better, then surely it's a greater gaming experience no? So why are you saying you don't care? Because the performance hit is too big for you right now? Will that view change when you next do a GPU upgrade and you will then care?

That's the level of disjoint I am highlighting.

 

[ICDP]

Because it doesn’t always look better, in many cases in dark areas it just looks wrong. You “proof” screenshots show this perfectly in dark areas that are just far too dark to be realistic. The lighting just looks wrong.

The way I would describe is it looks photo real but photos aren’t real life vision.

 

[mrk]

dark areas that are just far too dark to be realistic.

Either your monitor is set up wrong or you are looking at different screenshots. The dark areas are perfectly dark dependent on the light that's is available elsewhere in the non dark areas. That's...... how path tracing works? It simulates actual physics of light and now uses ReSTIR GI so there isn't a limited number of rays/bounces to tend with either.

Maybe you can point out which screenshot you are referring to.

The only thing I can think of is that on an LCD panel, dark scenes that are very dark will mute out all of the detail that would otherwise be visible on OLED where contrast is infinite. On an IPS or VA panel this simply is not possible and all you see is a washy grey "dark" which would make one assume that the scene was too dark. I've played the game on all of these monitor types as have them around the house.

 

[ICDP]

I have two HDR fully calibrated 4K monitors that are used for professional photoshop work.

They are your comparison screenshots and to my eyes the PT interior shot looks too dark. The RT Psycho looks to have better (less) contrast but the shadows are missing. I prefer the RT scene to be honest as it has better more realistic lighting than the PT one.

 

[mrk]

Are they LCD or OLED? Doesn't matter if they are HDR/4K or for professional photoshop work (I am a professional photographer for ref so have been through this whole process for the last 15 years). An LCD monitor is not going to display the full range of detail in games that are dark, which is why OLED displays are so popular for games these days.

 

[TNA]

I have two HDR fully calibrated 4K monitors that are used for professional photoshop work.

They are your comparison screenshots and to my eyes the PT interior shot looks too dark. The RT Psycho looks to have better (less) contrast but the shadows are missing. I prefer the RT scene to be honest as it has better more realistic lighting than the PT one.

Your eyes need upgrading then sir. Nvidia will have a service available for this soon.

They are eyeing up buying specsavers apparently. The service name will be called RTXSavers.

The more you visit the more you see and more importantly the more you save

Mrk has beta tested this service well and can vouch for it

 

[mrk]

Is this indoor scene too dark?

Or what about this?

Or this?

Or this?

All of these interiors paint light naturally where they would be in real life base don the source of light and the type of light they are. That doorway shot with the toilet even glistens some sunlight off the can and bottle in the darkness exactly how you would expect in reality.

None of these are too dark on OLED, every bit of detail is visible in the blackness.