• 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.

What do gamers actually think about Ray-Tracing?

lol, so are we really at the the “it’s your monitor that’s the problem” stage? People can only form a positive opinion on RT, or they are called liars, stupid or are accused of having faulty or cheap monitors?

I could view it in a cheap LCD, or a very expensive OLED, it doesn’t change my opinion that the PT scenes you posted are too dark. The funny thing is you were the one who accused me of having an axe to grind. Now I’m accused of having cheap tat monitors that just don’t let me see what mrk can see. The absolute ******* arrogance.
 
lol, so are we really at the the “it’s your monitor that’s the problem” stage?
No, I merely asked you a question because you seem to not be giving full details in your posts whilst making statements that don't make sense ( which then lead to you being asked specific questions to understand why you are making those statements. I should point out that you have done this in other threads too, I only just realised this as i tend to not bother looking at usernames when generally replying to threads but your level of wtf has lead me to recall other posts now and yes turns out you're the same guy.

You said that the game looked too dark in the screenshots, I know this to be objectively untrue quite literally, and as I know monitors figured I'd ask what monitor you are using, and pointed out another observed fact, that if you're on LCD then of course it might seem like it's too dark, you aren't seeing the full contrast range of black, and given that this game relies on dark scenes, it isn't rocket science to put 2 and 2 together.
 
Last edited:
I think it’s time to call an end to this bickering and say people can have different opinions about RT. I personally think until the hardware for the masses improves at midrange then RT is something most people won’t care about.

The few that have amazing GPUs well they can enjoy it and preach to the unwashed but the unwashed determine the direction of travel of game developers not the few with 4090s.
 
the unwashed determine the direction of travel of game developers not the few with 4090s.

nvidia are the ones pushing it, like they do with every tech, and right now nv want RTX in games. DF made a good point about why physx is under used in games - because nv stopped pushing it on devs.
 
nvidia are the ones pushing it, like they do with every tech, and right now nv want RTX in games. DF made a good point about why physx is under used in games - because nv stopped pushing it on devs.
Are they though? Plenty of amd games have RT too, obviously not to the same effect as Nvidia for obvious reasons but it's clear what direction the "industry" is moving whether people like it or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrk
I think it’s time to call an end to this bickering and say people can have different opinions about RT. I personally think until the hardware for the masses improves at midrange then RT is something most people won’t care about.

People keep posting that Steam GPU user stats and what the model with the highest percentage?

It's not even mid range at the moment is it. Anywhere between 40-50% have less than a 4060. And that's just Nvidia's stable.
0.88% have a 4090 lol.

I have a laptop with a 4080 (desktop equivalent would be somewhere in between 4070 and 4070ti) so I imagine my "bracket" would be less than 0.14%. :D
 
Are they though? Plenty of amd games have RT too, obviously not to the same effect as Nvidia for obvious reasons but it's clear what direction the "industry" is moving whether people like it or not.
It's because RT saved developers time, and we all know what time constraints devs have been under the last few years with all of the hurried releases with umpteen bugs etc. Why spend loads of time manually crafting a well lit world when you can let RT do it instantly and to a higher level of quality with none of the drawbacks of screenspace (reflections for example) :cool:

And now that Sony have their own upscaling tech and they are hard pushing on ray tracing possible at 4k 60fps with PS5 Pro, you can bet any money that RT will be massively used in games from later this year onwards and all of the people who were anti-RT and anti-upscaling will suddenly fall silent.
 
Last edited:
Are they though? Plenty of amd games have RT too, obviously not to the same effect as Nvidia for obvious reasons but it's clear what direction the "industry" is moving whether people like it or not.

The ultimate point wasn't nv / amd or the industry as a whole, it was a counter to the argument that consumers are leading the direction. If that was the case we'd still be stuck on games that use Mode 7 for pseudo 3d.

But let let's be honest: AMD follow nvidia. If nv hadn't been going ham with RTX then unlikely AMD would've led the innovation. Also I was referring to the entire RTX suite (frame gen, io, rt/pt, dlss, etc) which AMD are still playing catch up on. Sure game by game you get allegiance with one or the other, but it's still nv leading the charge.
 
Now I know you are talking rubbish or trolling, there is no genuine outlet or gaming community online that considers Cyberpunk looking like a last gen game, whether RT or PT or even raster, the game looks like one of the most next gen open world games there is.

You don't have to take my word for it, we all have access to the internet and can spend 10 seconds doing a quick google to prove you are just simply wrong.

Just to go over this, but you realise in reality and not PR BS, that Cyberpunk was made with the PS4 in mind right?

I am sure someone will bring up the PR BS that says PC was lead platform, but yet the game still looked terrible, every screenshot taken from you guys has really low fidelity in many areas.

CD Pojekt budgeted their high fidelity on major NPC characters you interact with and specific main areas where the narrative takes you, outside that, which is bulk of the game is actually quite poor fidelity.

This was a last gen development cycle that persists in the game still.

An old thing about Witcher 3 by the way


Don't be in denial if this train of thinking was not present for Cyberpunk ( or for most multi platform games )
 
It's because RT saved developers time, and we all know what time constraints devs have been under the last few years with all of the hurried releases with umpteen bugs etc. Why spend loads of time manually crafting a well lit world when you can let RT do it instantly and to a higher level of quality with none of the drawbacks of screenspace (reflections for example) :cool:

And now that Sony have their own upscaling tech and they are hard pushing on ray tracing possible at 4k 60fps with PS5 Pro, you can bet any money that RT will be massively used in games from later this year onwards and all of the people who were anti-RT and anti-upscaling will suddenly fall silent.
RT only saves time if the lighting model they used in game was RT only and no other forms of lighting, but yes it would have otherwise saves time in that respect.

Raster is still required for RT lighting to bounce off, I think a poster on these forums whos worked as a developer produced an incredible insight into this.
 
It's useful in some games, both RE 2 -3 benefit from having RT with reflections as the standard implementation was so terrible.

Otherwise, I don't use it.

The heavy hitters with hard to run RT I don't own as they suck. I refunded Cyberpunk after 45 minutes of playing last year. The game is just boring.
Is it objectively better in every game? I tend to find it just a different version of the game, where you can pick and choose which visual style you prefer.

Anybody remember early GTA IV version 1.04 ENB ? You could have mad looking reflections and that's mostly what people are hyped up about with Cyberpunk as it is mostly always shown in the dark and with wet surfaces.

Then there has been a camera mod which helps to add visual immersion, but I know for a fact it would be unplayable with the mod, nauseating, annoying etc.

Whilst the cam mod looks great for a video, playing it like that is nothing like real life, you are not a video recorder, which again is about visual style choice.
 
Last edited:
RT only saves time if the lighting model they used in game was RT only and no other forms of lighting, but yes it would have otherwise saves time in that respect.

Raster is still required for RT lighting to bounce off, I think a poster on these forums whos worked as a developer produced an incredible insight into this.

AKA Metro Exodus and a few others that have RT only reflections and/or lighting. The future is going to be RT whether people like it or not, realtime dynamics environments are only possible with RT if full immersion is considered.

every screenshot taken from you guys has really low fidelity in many areas.

This is some kind of troll attempt surely. There is not a single person with a bit of sense that can look at a screenshot like this:

xGLm1Jp.jpg


And go "Yeah mate that's low fidelity", and this is one of my weaker screenshots.

Just to go over this, but you realise in reality and not PR BS, that Cyberpunk was made with the PS4 in mind right?
It's never publicly admitted but through quotes and interviews from the CDPR investor calls that they held often after launch we can get a grounded understanding of the PS4/XBOX situation. CDPR are quoted stating:

"The biggest question during this call was how it could have been this bad with last-gen versions of the game. How did this go unnoticed, how did the team think they could hide it from the public, and just what could have been done to prevent this.

Nowakowski mentioned, "It is more about us looking – as was previously stated – at the PC and next-gen performance rather than current-gen. We definitely did not spend enough time looking at that."


Which aligns with leaked info that CDPR didn't initially want to release a PS4 version as their vision was for a next gen game which simply wasn't possible on last gen PS/XBOX, but because of contractual agreements that they had, and the lack of testing on PS4/XBOX, and the fact that red flags raised by portions of CDPR development team went ignored (also admitted to by the same interview but I won't bother quoting that here as not relevant in this context), we end up with what we see about the PS4 version.
 
Wouldn't that sign that looks like a target shine the lighter blue colour stronger than the exceptionally strong purple in the steam?

There is also no green light blending into the steam which would likely overpower both as these are much brighter colours.

The green is almost making the human look like shrek but has zero effect on steam.
 
Last edited:
No because the pink neon has more surface area. This is with path tracing, this level of volumetrics is not visible when using no ray tracing effects, so yes once again, ray tracing offers a more realistic visual presentation than raster.

The bartender looks green because his height is much closer to the green neon directly above him, whereas the cookers are a ways off from the green neon up there, you can even see the diffuse fall-off on the wall as the distance from the neons increases. You seem to be just trying to find flaws at this point.
 
xGLm1Jp.jpg



RED. Purple emitters and purple reflective bounce, absolutely tiny area, huge area of light bounce.

Blue area. Absolutely gigantic area of green and brighter light than the target sign.

White circle to showcase how far down the green bounces and it's strength.

Light green line to show you the top of the ventilation box is near enough the same height as the surface of his forearm.

Yet the human is a lit up popsical and there is no light on the vent box from the green. Zero smoke interaction.
 
Last edited:
xGLm1Jp.jpg



RED. Purple emitters and purple reflective bounce, absolutely tiny area, huge area of light bounce.

Blue area. Absolutely gigantic area of green and brighter light than the target sign.

White circle to showcase how far down the green bounces and it's strength.

Light green line to show you the top of the ventilation box is near enough the same height as the surface of his forearm.

Yet the human is a lit up popsical and there is no light on the vent box from the green. Zero smoke interaction.

Worth while to watch this video to see the full scene:

 
RED. Purple emitters and purple reflective bounce, absolutely tiny area, huge area of light bounce.

Blue area. Absolutely gigantic area of green and brighter light than the target sign.

White circle to showcase how far down the green bounces and it's strength.

Light green line to show you the top of the ventilation box is near enough the same height as the surface of his forearm.

Yet the human is a lit up popsical and there is no light on the vent box from the green. Zero smoke interaction.

Yeah nice try, but that's not going to get a single bite.
 
Last edited:
Worth while to watch this video to see the full scene:

Might be an issue with how RT is setup, the purple looks wrong in motion also, the green should flood the lower light emitting sign, that's how light works in reality also.

You will notice as the camera pans, the purples comes in and out of view almost like screen space reflection.

The target sign should only be lighting the local area against the wall it is placed on.
 
Back
Top Bottom