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.
Ok, so your argument pretty much boils down for devs to not do their job (optimising game and using what works when it should be used) and just be lazy. What I don't understand is what do YOU as a gamer hope to get out of that? Because you won't get cheaper (and better) games and you won't get more FPS with better visuals. So what will you get, a "Nanite" sticker to feel better?
Absolutely not true, which you'd know if you actually watched their vids. They use UE5, they talk about various modern methods used to make games both look good and work properly on wide rage of hardware and not just top one. If you call that stuck in the past, I don't know what to tell you.TI isn't optimizing like that, he's getting firmly stuck in the past.
You said yourself, you use Supersampling with DLSS from 1080p - that's higher base resolution than it is when set to Quality in 1440p. Hence, no wonder you have less issues with noise and loss of details. The higher the resolution the less artefacts with RT/PT. That said, not installing whole game again to take a screenshot.
Current hardware is not designed for PT, never was - that came later, being pushed by NVIDIA. Don't confuse base RT with PT. For full, proper PT we need differently designed hardware. For crutches you might need soon 5000 series to run all the fancy new AI, just hope your wallet is thick enough too.
But why wait? You just said earlier, they should've just enabled it all and move on, there's no need for optimization, just turn it on!
Fair enough, but that explains why it might work badly - engine's been designed mostly for indoor environment, as that's what the main game based on it is.
It all sounds to me like "It kinda works, but it's more of a preview of what we could see in the future, just much better." - the questions I would have are: how far ahead is said future and how much for the xx80+ card to run it properly then.
Don't get me wrong, I have finished whole Q2 RTX and enjoyed it for what it was, but I was able to see all kinds of issues with that implementation. Similar thing to CP2077 with PT - it was really bad till RR came, with RR very playable but still many shortcuts and issues visible, as RR is far from perfect. More development needed, along with faster hardware. We're not there yet. And that is the best of the best with PT in games, I believe, everything else is just worse still.
imgur.com
Fair enough, but that explains why it might work badly - engine's been designed mostly for indoor environment, as that's what the main game based on it is.
It all sounds to me like "It kinda works, but it's more of a preview of what we could see in the future, just much better." - the questions I would have are: how far ahead is said future and how much for the xx80+ card to run it properly then.
This scene in CP2077 made me wonder what I was missing out on having RT turned off. I'm running optimised settings using Screen Space Reflections at Medium (rocking 117 fps below)
So I turned on all the RT + set RT lighting to Ultra (resulting in 47 FPS), and was rather 'surprised' by the result:
So then I thought, okay, maybe realistic lighting means you don't get the lit up plant reflections at this angle (didn't even register the lighting from the pillars). Lets check path tracing:
Errr... once again surprised seeing that Path Tracing resembles Screen Space Reflections Medium (but mostly worse quality) rather than RT Ultra. Getting 24 fps here
Full screen images (FPS counter should confirm I'm not BSing):
Cyberpunk SSR vs RT Ultra vs Pathtracing
Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users.
This has cured my RT FOMO for the foreseeable future lol
Ok, so your argument pretty much boils down for devs to not do their job (optimising game and using what works when it should be used) and just be lazy. What I don't understand is what do YOU as a gamer hope to get out of that? Because you won't get cheaper (and better) games and you won't get more FPS with better visuals. So what will you get, a "Nanite" sticker to feel better?
Absolutely not true, which you'd know if you actually watched their vids. They use UE5, they talk about various modern methods used to make games both look good and work properly on wide rage of hardware and not just top one. If you call that stuck in the past, I don't know what to tell you.
You said yourself, you use Supersampling with DLSS from 1080p - that's higher base resolution than it is when set to Quality in 1440p. Hence, no wonder you have less issues with noise and loss of details. The higher the resolution the less artefacts with RT/PT. That said, not installing whole game again to take a screenshot.
Current hardware is not designed for PT, never was - that came later, being pushed by NVIDIA. Don't confuse base RT with PT. For full, proper PT we need differently designed hardware. For crutches you might need soon 5000 series to run all the fancy new AI, just hope your wallet is thick enough too.
But why wait? You just said earlier, they should've just enabled it all and move on, there's no need for optimization, just turn it on!
I see last patch released with fixes and improvements is from April 2023. It's more like it started as a preview but got polished over time with multiple fixes, some of them include better denoising, better CPU performance, better AA, upscaling, new Vulkan extensions etc. Just out of curiosity I've run it now on my 4090 and performance and noise are considerably better than I've seen whilst playing it soon after 4090 release (about 120FPS with all details to the max, no upscaling, QWHD res). Quite a bit of improvement for just a preview. It doesn't change the fact that it's an ancient game, putting very little strain on the modern CPUs. Unlike modern games. PT/RT or not, GPU still needs to calculate whole geometry etc. - there's not even a comparison of performance required for Q2 vs CP2077, for example. Keeping on mind that CP2077 is a flagship PR game of NVIDIA, with plenty of monies and expertise poured into it, I'd say this is the best they can do on 4000 series, top of the line. Hence, all the shortcuts they had to do is telling about the performance they were able to squeeze out of the current best GPUs.
Or, use it selectively when it matters and makes a difference. Like you know, standard practice in programming since the dawn of computers? You seem to assume somehow modern technology excuses ignoring basic ideas about programming, it really doesn't. One always use what makes sense when it makes sense - be it programming, or manufacturing. That's how you achieve the goal, like for example proper level of protection without increasing a weight too much in a car or an airplane, etc. It's not different from producing a game, same rules apply. The difference is that in case of cars and airplanes we have legal requirements and plenty of organisations overseeing things. In gaming we have just end customer deciding if they want to spend monies on whatever or demand more.
And then you get I.J. game which has PT yet you can actually pick and choose what you want from that. So, how is that actually a PT if you can turn off bits and bobs of it? How is that different? In traditional PT you can in theory just regulate number of bounces and samples per pixel, not turn on/off whole effects at will. And yet devs did that - so it can be done and it's not going to the past. Even PT is tweakable, so is Nanite and other bits of UE - as a dev, their job is to massage it into proper shape, not just flip a switch and forget about it. Your argument simply makes no sense to me at all.
Simply lights artefacts between moving leaves - doesn't exist without DLSS, exists with DLSS. If you look online at articles, you'll find quite a few where reviewers noticed the same in multiple places and advise to just use TAA in that game, as it produces often better results than DLSS.
In this case it's the fault of DLSS - it works well with raster, it fails with RT/PT because it only upscales a final image after rendering and the less input pixels you get to use in RT/PT the more artefacts you get. So it can only upscale all these artefacts and introduce more. It needs a different AI algo beforehand to improve the image before it gets upscaled, it feels.
I've not seen this particular issue in CP2077.
IJ is a bit much to be called PT anyway since it misses reflections. It just one more game with ray tracing effects to various degrees. In general, GI makes the most difference.
Out of curiosity, if you have any experience with that, how do you compare it to PT used in Portal RTX, which was another Nvidia playground?The path tracing system used in Quake 2 RTX doesn't massively benefit from it being an ancient game - much of the performance is eaten into by overheads which are the same almost regardless of scene complexity until you are dealing with things like advanced caustics, etc. which no games are doing currently.
This is just stuff I'm experimenting with in the engine so lots of issues and things you can pick holes with - I'm very limited by my artistic ability and knowledge, and the renderer has a lot of limits in its material system, etc. due to not being required by the original game and still has quite a lot of engine limits due to the underlying game engine still being 25 years old but it is far more capable than the original game levels demonstrate:
And this is basically a first viable preview of the technology from several years back now - things have moved on quite a bit since in terms of what is viable now.
EDIT: In the right conditions the glasses will actually have crude caustics rendered but I don't have a setup (lighting angles and nearby surfaces, etc.) in my test map to show it properly and don't have time at the moment to set something up.
The screen shot was a simple way to show that there are difference, more or less obvious, which makes the lighting look realistic compared to a "game-looking" one with raster.
I agree, yet they call that patch PT, not my invention.
Current gen includes 4060 class cards and xx60 class are the majority. Ignoring that fact, we see more and more high refresh rate monitors out there, with even over 400Hz now - high FPS in games is more desired now than in the past apparently, since there's a market for such expensive monitors. Ergo, optimization is for all GPUs, not just top 1% for 60fps only.
That's not Nanite itself, that's also geometry instancing - the real calculation happens for only one statue. 3D Mark had a benchmark for that for a while now. Now, put 500 different meshes, so instancing doesn't work anymore, and you will see how FPS drops on its face. Then check how many triangles are really needed for good enough details of this statue, where it still makes real difference, cut down the mesh to that. And suddenly you can run a lot of different meshes that don't kill FPS so much anymore, with proper quality, that use less memory and space on the drive too. It's basic optimisation really, to not waste space and performance for nothing. You don't have to turn off Nanite, you just have to use it with head and not flip the switch on and forget about it.
That aside, highly optimised demo showing one scene is really nothing like actual games are. Might as well say 3D Mark tech demos are a good indicative of how games behave, which was never true.
What Devs need to do is to follow basic guidelines of UE and ML Devs - so far, as witnessed in many games and demos on ue5 engine, they often do not do even that. Your arguments make really little sense when even said ML Devs ask developers in their post to finally please follow performance optimisation guidelines and not just be lazy about it. That also, by the way, increases image quality and not just performance - bad practices introduce noise and attracts where it didn't have to be.
)Plus, using DLSS it will get you good enough performance + the saving grace over TAA
I just tested it again - intially. I played it on my older 3080 12GB. It was laggy, slow, noisy and just not very impressive. Now on 4090 it works better, kiiinda ok. They added RR, improved denoising, etc. Without RR it's still a total mess with noise in reflections (plenty of glass they use in levels there). Without DLSS it's unplayable of course in 1440p. With just DLSS Quality it still isn't (I'd have to get down to Balanced to cross 60FPS in many places). FG works ok at least.
With RR quality way better, but still noise and lag in GI and reflections is visible, just much smaller than without it - huge difference, yet not perfect. All in all, I would say in my res 4090 still feels like a bare min. for such games, to me.
)
