• 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?

gpuerrilla said:
Possibly but your including remakes/remasters but the point still stands which is its only the higher end cards which benefit from it which Tim alludes to - where he says its not usable so you don't bother with it. Did you watch it at all?

Here is the full RT titles from nvidia:

Click to expand...
No I didn't watch the video. I just spotted your 20 games comment and thought that's odd I have more then 20 RT games. Not sure why Tim is saying don't bother as I have had a lot of fun replaying old games with RT. Its fair enough to say only higher end cards benefit but that's just a time factor. Every year a wider range of RT games get playable on a wider range of GPU's. I do agree some games are hit and miss with RT but overall its been more then worth it for me. Some of the RT mods and RT remasters have brought old games back to life.
 
Tinek said:
That's kind of my point - things can be done very well and you can have good hybrid of raster and RT, with proper performance and visuals, without going full PT route. But that's not what Nvidia pushes for.
Click to expand...

Yup, stuff like Metro EE can be a good start.

No, it's 4 dynamic lights casting shadows per object, overlapping. Nearly unlimited of such per scene. When you have too many shadows per object there's often no shadows left - object is so well lit from all sides you will get flat scene or one shadow is much stronger than the other and we humans really notice well only very contrasting things. Hence, not an issue at all in reality, as I've seen even devs confirming on UE 4 forums. And, that's the old now Unreal Engine 4, from 2017. Lumen adds much more than this, it's more about global illumination than number of dynamic lights and shadows - the latter is just by the way.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that the shadows are less obvious, that's how it works in reality to give it believable look. Still doesn't change the fact that you can go over that limit and you'll need a system that dynamically cuts which light can cast shadows or not based on their intersection. Moreover, how many games have that properly implemented and how many engines outside of that? Starfield is bad at it and was launch recently, for instance. And still... how much the performance tanks with let's say 6? Is it 50% slower, more, less? Perhaps is not an issue at all. Don't know how it goes for all engines and platforms.
Either way, shouldn't be a problem in the future with UE's new features.

I have to repeat myself, in the end a consumer have 0 interest how they make these games - consumers only care if it's fun and for how much. Everything else is just what tiny amount of enthusiasts discuss.
:)
In other words, it's all very irrelevant to the end user.
Click to expand...

Consumers don't care for much in general which turns around and bites them. For instance, if you tell someone that you'll want certain elements to be developed further than the very basic in game X, fanboys will argue against it and love staying/playing in the same simplified version, copy pasted game after game, missing out on something better.

To few people who care sure. To the large market - not one bit, as per multiple polls. Consumers don't care one thing. There's a reason switch and mobile games are still ruling gaming market by far, PC is not doing that great work xx60s cards (so no PT) being the vast majority. You can't really argue against numbers and stay objective. For the market at large, PT is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Funny how people ask for a patch for PS5 Pro



Thing is, switch and phones have their own crowds - phone for instance has the convenience on its side, just like with photos, but isn't better. If graphics would not matter, then games on Xbox and PS would be at least 60fps if not 120 fps, low end visuals, with no real need to upgrade the... GPU (basically). However, this is the 2nd gen that a "mid life" upgrade takes place.

Basically gamers care, but like everything, they care if is delivered at a lower price (which keeps going up anyway, even for consoles).

That tells a lot about the actual quality of these games with regards to fun, when the gamer finds more fun with graphics than with actual game, I believe
It happens a lot, I've noticed, as most modern games just really suck as games and are good just as tech demos. And again, can't argue with numbers here - most of them bomb financially for a reason.
Click to expand...

No, I love the visuals. The game is not a 10 for me without visuals to back it up. That always improves the product. Gameplay alone isn't enough. Video, audio, story, ALL come together for a the perfect experience.

They don't. You confuse graphics tech with creativity. I would say it's the opposite in reality.
Click to expand...
When you have to tiptoe around the limits, then you're affected by those limits.

I don't even know what to tell you here, it sounds so wrong... There's plenty of examples of prize winning photos taken on some of the worst cameras and hardware out there. Because hardware is just a tool and it has nothing to do with creativity nor quality of art. I worked for years with commercial art galleries in London, you wouldn't believe what people pay really good money for (most of that I wouldn't even call art).
Click to expand...

If I'm paying for retro/hypster style, sure, but if I not... sorry, deliver what I want, I don't care about your "art". And by you I mean the photographer from the example.
 
Last edited:
Thought this was an interesting comparison from Hardware Unboxed, comparing RT to RT-off in a whole load of games (It was posted a month ago, but I don't think it's appeared in this thread yet):


A lot of games where the difference is pretty insignificant, or not obviously better than the RT-off mode, or comes at the cost of significant artefacts. Some like there's work to do making it actually worth turning on in many games.
 
Calin Banc said:
It doesn't matter that the shadows are less obvious, that's how it works in reality to give it believable look.(...)
Click to expand...
But that's not how it works in reality, as in that is not how human brain and eyes work. Unless you stop everything and stare at the thing carefully, you will never notice it as a human being - that's just not how our eyes and brains work. If you look at scientific papers, in very simplified words, we only really see well changes in contrasts and movement, we don't really perceive details on most of things that are in our view, only on tiny fraction we currently focus on. We also don't really see colours in the darkness, just contrast, with some details (missing many) - because of how our eyes are constructed. SOME very enthusiastic gamers are able to notice these things, as they trained themselves to focus on such to pretty much expert level - average person never would notice it. Like I can see slightest stuttering in games. Then again, I've seen blind tests of shadows in games like CP2077, with max raster settings vs RT ones. Most people, even experienced gamers, weren't able to tell the difference or which ones are which. Because they look near identical in most cases.

What is really easy to notice though, is crawling noise in darker areas, as it's moving and it's a very visible. Our brains perceive it well, sadly. Also, lagging lights, where light changes, but GI takes even few seconds to fully catch up with it. Artefacts like that are only visible with current RT and PT implementations in games - it's contrasty, it's moving and actually makes (IMHO) image look often worse than just turning off RT/PT. This is where mixing techs do wonders. AI helps here, but most games do not use it and even with it it's not perfect. Standard denoising makes image fuzzy, with reflections lacking details etc. None of that seem realistic to me. We've seen all these issues in CP2077 and many other games too. We're simply not there yet with tech and computational power. One way or another, you will have to live with some compromises.

Calin Banc said:
Consumers don't care for much in general which turns around and bites them.
Click to expand...
Again, if you go to the restaurant, do you ask for chef to show you how things are done exactly, or are you just paying for the meal and expect it to be good?

Calin Banc said:
For instance, if you tell someone that you'll want certain elements to be developed further than the very basic in game X, fanboys will argue against it and love staying/playing in the same simplified version, copy pasted game after game, missing out on something better.#
Click to expand...
This is not relevant to my argument at all.
Calin Banc said:
Funny how people ask for a patch for PS5 Pro
Click to expand...
Really? A random post on X with over 10k views and whole 56 likes seems to be an evidence of people not caring more than caring, I would say. CP's response of no plans to do it got considerably more likes there. In the end, it's just X - hardly relevant to anything gaming related.
Calin Banc said:
Thing is, switch and phones have their own crowds(...)
Click to expand...
And yet millions more people game on both than on consoles or PCs combined. And all the adverts about introducing RT to mobile do not seem to resonate with general public at all. And why would they care how it's made or what tech is used to make such games? Just on a side note, there's a reason Hollywood is constantly lying by claiming they don't use any CGI (ergo, RT/PT) in these or those effects in films, as this seems to be more of a stigma than a pro.
Calin Banc said:
If graphics would not matter, then games on Xbox and PS would be at least 60fps if not 120 fps, low end visuals, with no real need to upgrade the... GPU (basically). However, this is the 2nd gen that a "mid life" upgrade takes place.
Click to expand...
I don't even understand how you connected these 2 things. There are almost always refreshes of products (not just consoles) after a while, to sell more units by advertising it as new and better (even if it's not really). It's not about graphics at all, it's about monies. Even if new version actually removes things like ability to use physical games.
Calin Banc said:
No, I love the visuals. The game is not a 10 for me without visuals to back it up.
Click to expand...
The number of modern games that would get 10 from me is miniscule, irrelevant of graphics - huge majority is lacking in so many places, they could have PT from the future and I'd still treat them at best as tech demo, then. Gameplay first, art (both visual and sound) second, then graphics far behind, to me - nice to have but definitely not making a game good.
Calin Banc said:
That always improves the product.
Click to expand...
If the product is bad itself, you improve it from 2 to 3 with graphics, but it's still a bad product. That's why it comes last on my list - make a good game first, good story, gameplay. Then have good art and then you can add graphical fluff on top, like a paint on already well built house, with good foundations. That said, just like the paint, graphics is subjective - what looks good for one, the other one won't like, etc. - I've seen in person people who consider games with fancy reflections and shadows etc. to be unplayable as too much happens on the screen. Such people prefer to play on low details. This is common in online games like Warthunder and shooters etc. - cut down graphical fluff, so people can gain competitive advantage etc.
Calin Banc said:
When you have to tiptoe around the limits, then you're affected by those limits.
Click to expand...
That's exactly when you actually engage creativity, when you encounter limits. That's when best art is created too. As it always was the case in the history of humanity. When things get easy, people become lazy.
Calin Banc said:
If I'm paying for retro/hypster style, sure, but if I not... sorry, deliver what I want, I don't care about your "art". And by you I mean the photographer from the example.
Click to expand...
Ergo, you don't care about the art, you just want to commission something exactly to your specification. You will get a product, but you won't get art with creativity, in such case. Also, that's not how gaming industry works, unless you're filthy rich. :)
 
arknor said:
I know one thing. Ray tracing is 1000x better than software lumen crap
Click to expand...
And yet it's not. For the simple reason, it's slower and most people with their GPUs can't use it, so for them it's not better, it's worse. When you say something is better, you have to be specific - better how? For whom, when, etc. Current RT/PT implementations have a lot of downsides and shortcuts, both software and hardware ones.
 
Tinek said:
And yet it's not. For the simple reason, it's slower and most people with their GPUs can't use it, so for them it's not better, it's worse. When you say something is better, you have to be specific - better how? For whom, when, etc. Current RT/PT implementations have a lot of downsides and shortcuts, both software and hardware ones.
Click to expand...
Epics own website says otherwise

Loading…

dev.epicgames.com
Lumen provides two methods of ray tracing the scene: Software Ray Tracing and Hardware Ray Tracing.
  • Software Ray Tracing uses Mesh Distance Fields to operate on the widest range of hardware and platforms but is limited in the types of geometry, materials, and workflows it can effectively use.
  • Hardware Ray Tracing supports a larger range of geometry types for high quality by tracing against triangles and to evaluate lighting at the ray hit instead of the lower quality Surface Cache. It requires supported video cards and systems to operate.
Software Ray Tracing is the only performant option in scenes with many overlapping instances, while Hardware Ray Tracing is the only way to achieve high quality mirror reflections on surfaces

Limitations of Software Ray Tracing​

Software Ray Tracing has some limitations relating to how you should work with it in your projects and what types of geometry and materials it currently supports.

Geometry Limitations:
  • Only Static Meshes, Instanced Static Meshes, Hierarchical Instanced Static Meshes, and Landscape terrain are represented in the Lumen Scene.
  • Foliage must be enabled with the setting Affect Distance Field Lighting found in the Foliage Tool settings.
Material Limitations:
  • World Position Offset (WPO) is not supported.
  • Translucent materials are added as a lumen card so they can receive diffuse global illumination when using Hit Lighting for Reflections with Lumen.
  • Distance fields are built off of properties of the material assigned to the Static Mesh Asset rather than the override component.
    • Overriding with a material that has a different Blend Mode or that has Two-Sided property enabled will cause a mismatch between the triangle representation and the mesh's distance field representation.
Workflow Limitations:
  • Software Ray Tracing requires that levels be composed of modular geometry. Things like walls, floors, and ceilings should be separate meshes. Large single meshes, such as a mountain or multi-story building, will have a poor distance field representation that can cause self-occlusion artifacts to appear.
  • Walls should be no thinner than 10 centimeters (cm) to avoid light leaking.
  • Distance Fields cannot represent extremely thin features, or one-sided meshes seen from behind. Avoid these types of artifacts by ensuring the viewer doesn't see the triangle back faces of one-sided meshes or only use closed geometry.
  • Mesh Distance Field resolution is assigned based on the imported scale of the Static Mesh.
    • A mesh that is imported very small and then scaled up on the component will not have sufficient distance field resolution. Instead, set the distance field resolution from the Static Mesh Editor's Build Settings if you use scaling on placed instances in a Level.

Large Worlds​

Lumen Scene operates on the world around the camera, enabling large worlds and streaming. Lumen relies on Nanite's Level of Detail (LOD) and Multi-View rasterization for fast scene captures to maintain the Surface Cache, with all operations throttled to prevent hitches from occurring. Lumen does not require Nanite to operate, but Lumen's scene capturing becomes very slow in scenes with lots of high polygon meshes that have not enabled Nanite. This is especially true in scenes if the assets do not have good LODs set up for them.

Fast camera movement will cause Lumen Scene updating to fall behind where the camera is looking, causing indirect lighting to pop in as it catches up.

When Lumen is using Software Ray Tracing, Lumen Scene only covers 200 meters (m) from the camera position, but can be increased up to 800 m with the Lumen Scene View Distance setting in the Post Process Volume. Past the highest Lumen Scene distance, only Screen Traces are active for global illumination
Click to expand...
 
arknor said:
Epics own website says otherwise

Loading…

dev.epicgames.com
Click to expand...
"Lumen uses Software Ray Tracing through Signed Distance Fields by default, but can achieve higher quality on supporting video cards when Hardware Ray Tracing is enabled." - from your own link, directly supporting what I just wrote. Most GPUs are of the xx60 class, as per Steam (and many other) stats. They either do not support hardware Lumen at all, or it's way too slow on them. Ergo, they can't use it, ergo it's not better for them. This whole RT vs no-RT discussion really goes down to - can majority of people use it? Answer is - no. They can't, their GPUs can't handle it or handle it poorly. And with ever-growing prices of GPUs, chances are they won't be able to use it for a while longer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom