With vr, you have to choose to buy and use it. I do wonder what the adoption rate for RT would be if it was a separate add in card that is dedicated to RT. In a way, people have to buy the rt/dlss silicon with their new gpu and so may as well use 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.
What do gamers actually think about Ray-Tracing?
- Thread starter Purgatory
- Start date
With vr, you have to choose to buy and use it. I do wonder what the adoption rate for RT would be if it was a separate add in card that is dedicated to RT. In a way, people have to buy the rt/dlss silicon with their new gpu and so may as well use it.
Associate
I think this is essentially it - and also it's why PC gaming is great because we have the ability to choose which route we prefer.
I play competitive FPS games 90% of the time (mostly The Finals right now, then OW2/Valorant if I feel like ruining my week) - then the other 10% I'll play something like Elden Ring, Wukong or Jedi Survivor etc.
Realistically I spend about 15 minutes making sure my settings give me a nice compromise between visuals and performance and then I never look at them again.
Very true. But back then,the majority of people had CRT screens,which can scale to multiple resolutions and still scale it to the screen perfectly. I remember sitting there constantly changing the resolution,just to see the differences in sharpness etc,and of course if affected the fps. I had a 1280x1024 monitor which is an odd res imo. It would display 1280x720p no problem whatsoever. And i had loads of odd resolutions it would display. Like 848x640 or something...still looked good,but more fps. LCD is what made AA important. I'll leave it at that.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,202
This does still happen with RT effects too though. Currently going through Witcher 3 and I can end up casting shadows over open fires - now I've noticed it it's really irritating.
I think it's a case of it being developed originally on a raster basis with RT effects added after, but just adding ray tracing has not solved the immersion issue there. It does look a bit better overall, but if avoiding immersion breaking is the goal, it hasn't worked there.
I can see if a game is fully RT based from the get go, there may be better results, but we are only just approaching that position realistically. Not too many games like that yet, it'll be interesting to see if (I get it's baked in to unreal 5 etc, but does that not have a raster base anyway? Genuine question) and when it happens.
It won't happen with RT, if it is happening then it's not RT being applied to certain water or/and objects or/and shadows being cast from everything, a lot of games will use RT but also raster based effects too as a hybrid approach such as seen in a few UE 5 titles. FC6 is a great example of a terrible RT experience because shadows are only cast from the sun on trees in that game and then you'll notice that shadows for everything else are mostly baked in or worse, just missing entirely so then of course people say RT is poor/crap and yes it is because of how much FC 6 RT was gimped..... Then go and look at something lke CP 2077 maxed RT (not pyscho) where shadows are cast from mostly every light source and onto every object, in an update later on, car headlights got updated to cast RT shadows on objects then. This is why I never understand when people say "RT is overdone", it's so far from overdone and still incredibly light in the grand scheme of things.
Of course, it's not perfect in such scenarios where both are being applied but more often than not, it is much less immersion breaking than just raster such as the examples shown in my last post, like helldivers SSR is so bad, I turned off SSR entirely therefore losing out on reflections completely. Hitman is also another good example of where RT was shoehorned in on top of raster to the point, it looked good but you could still see the issues of raster and also, this harms performance more when it is done like this as opposed to just having rt in the first place.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,202
I think it's for things like mirror puddles. Puddles only look like that in a perfectly still environment. When you have wind and other movement modelled, but no effect on water, it looks off.
Static puddles is nothing to do with RT either. There are plenty of games raster only where water doesn't react to footsteps and so on either. CP 2077 got this on launch and people assumed it was a con to RT then devs later added water physics whilst still retaining RT.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,202
I get that, but I'm just trying to explain how people might think it's overdone. If light is behaving on the whole very well, then suddenly you have a ruddy mirror on the floor, it just stands out as very obviously wrong.
Actually a separate dedicated ray tracing card sounds kind of cool imo. Wouldn't it make sense as an option?
It's pretty pointless given games are moving towards RT only now, maybe 4 years ago it would have been good but definetly not now.
Extra dedicated cards don't have the best history in terms of sales and uptake. I still have my dedicated Ray Tracing card and dedicated PhysX cards around here somewhere. As much fun as I had with them I cannot really say they where good value for money. The current way with embedded Raytracing and embedded PhysX into the main GPU seems to be working far better then dedicated cards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,042
They should remove cake lighting as well. There are still "legacy" lights in the PT version. There's a mod that removes them: Fake lights no more. That's the name.
Multi GPU is always welcomed.
I don't think a dedicated card would've seen a high enough uptake. I'm all up for it, but the market in the past shows it doesn't really work.
As nVidia had the fastest raster cards and could kind of stagnate on that front for a gen, 1080>2080, and in the bigger scheme saw ai as their future, they got to sell that silicon with the fastest raster and sell RT. In an indirect way rt has done so well because us wanting the best for our current games had to buy into it. I'm glad, but do feel for those that were buying silicon that they may not use much during the initial raster to rt games transition.
I suspect a whole lot of console gamers are not going to spend £700 on a PS5 Pro. That kind of price - for a disc-less model no less - is paddling at the edge of the "enthusiast PC hardware" pool. It won't end well for Sony if they dive in.
We shall see, I've been hearing Nintendo is doomed for the last twenty years too.
Caporegime
I can still see it selling well despite the initial rage we’re seeing online about the price. FOMO is a very real thing these days, and despite the apparent 'cost of living crisis', there are plenty of people who will buy it regardless of whether they actually need it.
I think the difference is that Nintendo hardware tends to be cheap and to have a USP other than the specs. I think this is more akin to the launch of the PS3, when Sony thought they were on the cusp of a monopoly and could charge what they wanted. It turned out they couldn't and until they did some mid-generation course corrections, they ended up in third place for a while.
Yeah I do agree. But I had a HD4870 playing Arkham Asylum, and I was kinda envious looking at people with Physx capable cards. The desire is there imo.
I got really excited with physX, had an original Ageia PhysX only card. Ghost recon with the over exaggerated trees in the wind, Batman and a few others. Unfortunately, it never really went in the direction I imagined. nVidia bought them, got it running on the cuda cores but then stagnated for whatever reason. Games are beautiful today, but physics hadn't really progressed.