What do gamers actually think about Ray-Tracing?

[mrk]

"But R4st3R is B3tte4!!!!"

Meanwhile...

https://imgsli.com/MjY5ODA2/0/2

Raster + DLAA + Everything on Psycho via custom tweaks:

Path traced + DLSS + Everything on Psycho via custom tweaks:

This is a good scene to this sort of comparison, two massive lit up billboards behind V, you can see Raster doesn't much account for that illumination, which is apparent in most other raster only games too. Then there are the faked reflections that don't seem convincing.

PT looks better, runs better, uses less CPU time & power, uses less GPU power.

Case closed surely.

 

[Armageus]

Why is the bottom one so much brighter near the camera?
(or in general, e.g. the middle tower block is visibly blue in the bottom one vs dark in the top)

 

[mrk]

The bottom (PT) one is accounting for all the ad boards lit up giving diffuse illumination and realtime global illumination to buildings like the one in the BG, it is brighter because there are a lto of emissive light sources in that whole areas and as such you would expect the frame to be brighter as a result.

 

[Armageus]

The bottom (PT) one is accounting for all the ad boards lit up giving diffuse illumination and realtime global illumination to buildings like the one in the BG, it is brighter because there are a lto of emissive light sources in that whole areas and as such you would expect the frame to be brighter as a result.

I prefer the aesthetic of the top one, even if it's less technically accurate
The bottom one is too bright imo - whether that's limitations of the original design being done for both Raster and RT modes, or settings dependent I don't know.

PT looks better, runs better, uses less CPU time & power, uses less GPU power.

Making better use of hardware is always a bonus.

"But R4st3R is B3tte4!!!!"

Case closed surely.

Not sure case is definitively closed, and not sure we need the passive aggressive baiting

 

[mrk]

It's all jokes

The bottom one is how the game should look as that reflects the behaviour of actual light. This isn't possible in a dynamic open world with raster because there is no dynamic RTGI capable of that. In a more linear/static world game it's a different story of course, but in one where everything is "alive" - There is no contest. Even in interviews CDPR said that being able to use this tech allowed them to realise their original vision which wasn't possible at launch.

I chose this scene because it is exactly the type of scene you encounter the most in a cyberpunk game that benefits from ray/path tracing and a prime example to compare with raster.

E. The bottom one is not brighter unnaturally. There are literal house sized billboards behind V which emit diffuse glow to every surface near them. The top one does not even have under-car shadows and lights up the dash for no reason lol.

 

[Robert896r1]

I prefer the aesthetic of the top one, even if it's less technically accurate
The bottom one is too bright imo - whether that's limitations of the original design being done for both Raster and RT modes, or settings dependent I don't know.

Thanks to PT being accurate, I can surmise the light sources that I can't see due to the camera angle but are are impacting the car. With raster, you'd think it was up against a large wall with no light sources.

 

[Bodom]

Only got a 7900GRE Ray tracing in Cyberpunk looks really good getting around low 50fps on Ultra can drop in to the low 40s in some parts of Dogtown with FRS quality @1440p but it still feels pretty smooth, but in the end decided to just run it @4k ultra no Ray Tracing the game looks incredible with HDR enabled and FSR looks a lot better @4k so just using the path tracing for screenshots.

 

[Bodom]

 

[humbug]

"But R4st3R is B3tte4!!!!"

Meanwhile...

https://imgsli.com/MjY5ODA2/0/2

Raster + DLAA + Everything on Psycho via custom tweaks:

Path traced + DLSS + Everything on Psycho via custom tweaks:

This is a good scene to this sort of comparison, two massive lit up billboards behind V, you can see Raster doesn't much account for that illumination, which is apparent in most other raster only games too. Then there are the faked reflections that don't seem convincing.

PT looks better, runs better, uses less CPU time & power, uses less GPU power.

Case closed surely.

Its a great looking game and i love the DeLorean but i'm a classic BMW fan my self....

Also, just an observation, the rear light cluster section, its matt plastic IRL, its not reflective.

 

[TNA]

I prefer the aesthetic of the top one, even if it's less technically accurate
The bottom one is too bright imo - whether that's limitations of the original design being done for both Raster and RT modes, or settings dependent I don't know.


Making better use of hardware is always a bonus.






Not sure case is definitively closed, and not sure we need the passive aggressive baiting

I'll be honest. In that picture I find the top image more aesthetically pleasing also.

This is coming from someone who likes RT and PT. I just say it as I see it however. PT one might be more accurate, but as you say even though the raster one is less technically accurate, it is more pleasing to my eyes.

That said. That is that one shot. There are loads where I prefer RT/PT over raster in this game.

 

[TNA]

The bottom one is not brighter unnaturally. There are literal house sized billboards behind V which emit diffuse glow to every surface near them. The top one does not even have under-car shadows and lights up the dash for no reason lol.

I think this is where we differ a little. You always go for accuracy, even if it means it does not look as good hence why you hardly use HDR (which I find crazy btw). I just go for what I think looks better.

 

[Rroff]

What really makes pathtracing for me is when in motion you can see accurate real time capture of specular light on surfaces, accurate reflections, accurate indirect light and objects causing shadows which are normally skipped with rasterisation due to the performance cost. Once you get used to a game which does that going back is like the difference between 60 and 120+Hz.

 

[Nexus18]

I'll be honest. In that picture I find the top image more aesthetically pleasing also.

This is coming from someone who likes RT and PT. I just say it as I see it however. PT one might be more accurate, but as you say even though the raster one is less technically accurate, it is more pleasing to my eyes.

That said. That is that one shot. There are loads where I prefer RT/PT over raster in this game.

For me it's when in game and you see where the lights are, how strong they are and so on, with pt/rt, it just feels/looks right where as raster, it doesn't sit right with me, cp 2077 raster is very good though, it's more in games where rooms are just lit despite no light sources being about which looks stupid imo.

I think this is where we differ a little. You always go for accuracy, even if it means it does not look as good hence why you hardly use HDR (which I find crazy btw). I just go for what I think looks better.

HDR is accurate too when done right

What really makes pathtracing for me is when in motion you can see accurate real time capture of specular light on surfaces, accurate reflections, accurate indirect light and objects causing shadows which are normally skipped with rasterisation due to the performance cost. Once you get used to a game which does that going back is like the difference between 60 and 120+Hz.

Exactly this. Raster is incredibly jarring to look at now having played mostly RT/PT games for the last 3 years.

Ghost of tshumia is a good exampe, game looks amazing but it's incredibly jarring some scenes. Funnily it's a game where RT shadows would be the biggest benefit and reflections less so as they are very good in this.

 

[mrk]

Also, just an observation, the rear light cluster section, its matt plastic IRL, its not reflective.

It's all good when everything isn't soaked in rain at night

Vs a real DMC:

 

[TNA]

HDR is accurate too when done right

Sure. I like it even when not fully done right anyway (as long as it is not completely rubbish). Just looks better to me.

But for mrk he does not even like it when it is done right as you know

For me it's when in game and you see where the lights are, how strong they are and so on, with pt/rt, it just feels/looks right where as raster, it doesn't sit right with me, cp 2077 raster is very good though, it's more in games where rooms are just lit despite no light sources being about which looks stupid imo.

I will always go back to, how the hell did you ever enjoy gaming before RT

As you know I am less bothered if technically right or wrong. Just the end result and if I like it or not. I don't like RT because I think it is more technically correct. I like it because I actually like the end result better or at least most of the time anyway

 

[Nexus18]

Sure. I like it even when not fully done right anyway (as long as it is not completely rubbish). Just looks better to me.

But for mrk he does not even like it when it is done right as you know



I will always go back to, how the hell did you ever enjoy gaming before RT

As you know I am less bothered if technically right or wrong. Just the end result and if I like it or not. I don't like RT because I think it is more technically correct. I like it because I actually like the end result better or at least most of the time anyway

Yeah main thing when HDR isn't done right that really puts me of is raised blacks, absolute no go on oled but thankfully we got rtx HDR now which is incredible for those poorly done HDR games.

Haha I know, I think the same myself! It's basically what rroff said with the comparison to refresh rates, you don't fully appreciate higher refresh rate until you go back to 60hz.

 

[Rroff]

I dunno if it is my displays but I've found very few games HDR looks right and has decent blacks and punchy light - on my Philips 436M6 SDR in games often actually looks more HDR than HDR does. A lot of games HDR just looks like they've fudged the gamma curve to simulate HDR from SDR space. (Probably doesn't help most games don't have HDR colour data for textures, etc. either).

 

[MatteRB26]

I've never liked HDR, could also be my display, miscalibrated or just the wrong games... But everything is either too dark or too bright and makes some games unplayable because it's like being flashbanged for no reason.

I tried RT in DOOM Eternal but it didn't really make much noticeable difference except a bit of an extra "shimmer". I've also only got a 2070 (3070 is iffy). I personally prefer frames over lighting.

 

[mrk]

Its a great looking game and i love the DeLorean but i'm a classic BMW fan my self....

Good chance to check out the AV1 NV App recording then and provide you with this:

Here are a couple more sets of daytime PT vs Raster, both have DLSS Quality and Frame Gen enabled, notice how garbled the DMC headlights are in the 2nd set on the Raster, only setting DLAA with raster seems to resolve that, but then you get 59fps lol.

Path traced // Raster:

Path traced // Raster:

 

[gpuerrilla]

I dunno if it is my displays but I've found very few games HDR looks right and has decent blacks and punchy light - on my Philips 436M6 SDR in games often actually looks more HDR than HDR does. A lot of games HDR just looks like they've fudged the gamma curve to simulate HDR from SDR space. (Probably doesn't help most games don't have HDR colour data for textures, etc. either).

Have you tried out the rtx hdr?