What do gamers actually think about Ray-Tracing?

[Tinek]

Here's from 4A Games and how it helps speeding up the process, explained by DF:

Also: "Christmas for artists" + 5:36 onwards "way easier to make games visually", "shorten time span for delivering games".

Mostly I care because they should be able to make games faster and look better.

And as time shown, both videos are just peddling Nvidia marketing taking points (for obvious reason - both games were heavily Nvidia sponsored) and none of that is actually relevant for the consumer (gamer in this case). These are things only relevant to developers. None of those actually sped up game development or lowered the cost or lowered pricing for us - instead games got more expensive. Ergo, it has absolutely 0 bearing on consumers.

Nvidia's brilliant marketing somehow managed to push things that are just curiosities to consumers at most, as something relevant to us. We only should care about final product for specific price - how they make it, none of us should really care (aside pure curiousity). It's as if car manufacturer started talking about different machines that they use to assemble cars and how it speeds up their production etc. - nobody would care, they just want good car for proper price and that's where it ends for consumers.

LE: previously only10 shadow casting lights (obviously you can have more, but only a limited amount can cast shadows).

That's showing only one specific implementation in one engine, it has nothing to do with any other engine. Plus, again, it's Nvidia marketing that talks about things mostly relevant to game developers, not consumers.

 

[humbug]

And as time shown, both videos are just peddling Nvidia marketing taking points (for obvious reason - both games were heavily Nvidia sponsored) and none of that is actually relevant for the consumer (gamer in this case). These are things only relevant to developers. None of those actually sped up game development or lowered the cost or lowered pricing for us - instead games got more expensive. Ergo, it has absolutely 0 bearing on consumers.

Nvidia's brilliant marketing somehow managed to push things that are just curiosities to consumers at most, as something relevant to us. We only should care about final product for specific price - how they make it, none of us should really care (aside pure curiousity). It's as if car manufacturer started talking about different machines that they use to assemble cars and how it speeds up their production etc. - nobody would care, they just want good car for proper price and that's where it ends for consumers.



That's showing only one specific implementation in one engine, it has nothing to do with any other engine. Plus, again, it's Nvidia marketing that talks about things mostly relevant to game developers, not consumers.

LE: previously only10 shadow casting lights (obviously you can have more, but only a limited amount can cast shadows).

That's showing only one specific implementation in one engine, it has nothing to do with any other engine. Plus, again, it's Nvidia marketing that talks about things mostly relevant to game developers, not consumers.

You're right, this is utter nonsense and what i find really annoying about this is these people have no clue what they are talking about, they pretend to be experts by parroting anything Nvidia say, Nvidia know this and just feed them a whole lot of crap, this has always been the problem, not only are these people clueless masquerading as experts but they are also incapable of critical thinking, they are like NPC's waiting for their next programming input from Nvidia.

 

[Tinek]

You're right, this is utter nonsense and what i find really annoying about this is these people have no clue what they are talking about, they pretend to be experts by parroting anything Nvidia say, Nvidia know this and just feed them a whole lot of crap, this has always been the problem, not only are these people clueless masquerading as experts but they are also incapable Inof critical thinking, they are like NPC's waiting for their next programming input from Nvidia.

Well, I would not go that far. They can be experts and still just parrot talking points of someone who paid them loads of monies - happens all the time. And they don't even have to be lying - but they describe and focus on how the one small bit of the dish is made in their specific case, disregarding everything else. In the end, as is my point, consumer in a "restaurant" doesn't care how the dish is cooked exactly, only how good it is and how much it cost to consume. And if the restaurant focuses so much on how it's made instead of what it is, then maybe it's not as good as advertised?

 

[Calin Banc]

And as time shown, both videos are just peddling Nvidia marketing taking points (for obvious reason - both games were heavily Nvidia sponsored) and none of that is actually relevant for the consumer (gamer in this case). These are things only relevant to developers. None of those actually sped up game development or lowered the cost or lowered pricing for us - instead games got more expensive. Ergo, it has absolutely 0 bearing on consumers.

Nvidia's brilliant marketing somehow managed to push things that are just curiosities to consumers at most, as something relevant to us. We only should care about final product for specific price - how they make it, none of us should really care (aside pure curiousity). It's as if car manufacturer started talking about different machines that they use to assemble cars and how it speeds up their production etc. - nobody would care, they just want good car for proper price and that's where it ends for consumers.



That's showing only one specific implementation in one engine, it has nothing to do with any other engine. Plus, again, it's Nvidia marketing that talks about things mostly relevant to game developers, not consumers.

I'm happy to look at other developers if you have the info, plus how many shadow casting lights are they doing in their game (so more than 10).

I care due to its superior quality and if a car manufacturer will use (let's say) 3D printing to make cars safer and better, definitely I'll take that over regular ones.

 

[Calin Banc]

You're right, this is utter nonsense and what i find really annoying about this is these people have no clue what they are talking about, they pretend to be experts by parroting anything Nvidia say, Nvidia know this and just feed them a whole lot of crap, this has always been the problem, not only are these people clueless masquerading as experts but they are also incapable of critical thinking, they are like NPC's waiting for their next programming input from Nvidia.

That's uncalled for, but hey... let that steam out. Better come with some counterexamples than simply insulting.

 

[Tinek]

I'm happy to look at other developers if you have the info, plus how many shadow casting lights are they doing in their game (so more than 10).

Old by current standards UE 4 in 2017 had already near unlimited lights in the scene casting shadows. The only requirement in their case was (at least in 2017, as per their docs) to not have more than 4 overlapping at the same time. Which apparently wasn't a very big limitation, as per few different devs talking about it, that I found - you hardly need more than 4 lights per object to cast shadows. Sure, PT gives more freedom but again, that's for devs to worry about how they cook the meal, not for consumer.

Also, indie devs of the game Riftbreaker have a bunch of very detailed articles, with descriptions of their engine and how they made things faster, better, prettier in said engine over time - really worth reading, no marketing talk at all there. They even show why and how they used bits and bobs of raycasting and raytracing for various elements, as performance loss was negligible, it works great with the rest being rasterised and looks really good. This is what one can do without marketing machine dictating how things should be done - pick and choose various tech and apply them where they make an actual difference, instead of just "Full PT and done, who needs good performance, let's count NVIDIA monies!".

I care due to its superior quality and if a car manufacturer will use (let's say) 3D printing to make cars safer and better, definitely I'll take that over regular ones.

CGI in films has potential to have superior quality, PT in games is pathetic in comparison (considering miniscule number of rays, loads of noise and other limitations). And even CGI in films rarely looks really good and real, whilst being designed offline by great artists and computed for months on whole server farms. We're not there yet with computational power, or technology in general, and won't be for a long while. This is also consistent with NVIDIA's CEO pushing hard for AI generation, as he claim himself silicon tech speedups are over - you can't make graphics much faster without pumping it with more and more power, so perhaps AI can generate it better/faster than current PT tech can, but could you call AI "dreams" an actual realism? Time will tell.

3D printing wouldn't make cars safer, neither RT/PT makes games more fun - in such comparison. It's just different ways of producing product, which consumer (again) should care 0 about, because it doesn't matter for the end result. What matters is actual effort by devs/car manufacturer/chef (etc.) put in to make it good - and that's where it end. How it's made is really irrelevant for most consumers. Do you also care that SOC in the phone has been manufactured on a specific process or they used this or that antennae etc., or you care instead for good performance, battery life etc. for a good price, instead? The former being worry of manufacturer, the latter being actually important things to the consumer.

 

[steve5424]

Finally started Metro Exodus enhanced edition last night. Fired it into extreme mode and boy it looks stunning, the RT and effects looks so good. Averaged about 138fps at 1080p.

 

[Calin Banc]

Old by current standards UE 4 in 2017 had already near unlimited lights in the scene casting shadows. The only requirement in their case was (at least in 2017, as per their docs) to not have more than 4 overlapping at the same time. Which apparently wasn't a very big limitation, as per few different devs talking about it, that I found - you hardly need more than 4 lights per object to cast shadows. Sure, PT gives more freedom but again, that's for devs to worry about how they cook the meal, not for consumer.

Also, indie devs of the game Riftbreaker have a bunch of very detailed articles, with descriptions of their engine and how they made things faster, better, prettier in said engine over time - really worth reading, no marketing talk at all there. They even show why and how they used bits and bobs of raycasting and raytracing for various elements, as performance loss was negligible, it works great with the rest being rasterised and looks really good. This is what one can do without marketing machine dictating how things should be done - pick and choose various tech and apply them where they make an actual difference, instead of just "Full PT and done, who needs good performance, let's count NVIDIA monies!".


CGI in films has potential to have superior quality, PT in games is pathetic in comparison (considering miniscule number of rays, loads of noise and other limitations). And even CGI in films rarely looks really good and real, whilst being designed offline by great artists and computed for months on whole server farms. We're not there yet with computational power, or technology in general, and won't be for a long while. This is also consistent with NVIDIA's CEO pushing hard for AI generation, as he claim himself silicon tech speedups are over - you can't make graphics much faster without pumping it with more and more power, so perhaps AI can generate it better/faster than current PT tech can, but could you call AI "dreams" an actual realism? Time will tell.

3D printing wouldn't make cars safer, neither RT/PT makes games more fun - in such comparison. It's just different ways of producing product, which consumer (again) should care 0 about, because it doesn't matter for the end result. What matters is actual effort by devs/car manufacturer/chef (etc.) put in to make it good - and that's where it end. How it's made is really irrelevant for most consumers. Do you also care that SOC in the phone has been manufactured on a specific process or they used this or that antennae etc., or you care instead for good performance, battery life etc. for a good price, instead? The former being worry of manufacturer, the latter being actually important things to the consumer.

Riftbreaker seems a good example... but, Metro Exodus EE runs "full RT" (well, kinda) at around 60fps on consoles, ergo performance isn't really an issue, depending on your approach. I think they've said that's the way they'll go forward, no more regular rasterization and it seems the correct path.

4 shadow casting lights, with their shadows not overlapping is ridiculously low as basically that happens when all vehicles can cast shadows (especially if you have more than one light/vehicle), magic of difference shapes and forms, shadow of the Sun/Moon adding easily, from lighting in storms, lights from you and your NPC palls meeting another group, miscellaneous objects, etc. And that's the big problem, the devs are limited in what they can produce, ergo why the same ol' crap is being pushed out. Megalights seems to be the feature that tries to address this - it seems to me akin to what Lumen does/represents.

And RT/PT (as in graphics) definitely do make the game more enjoyable. I haven't yet played a game that isn't (A LOT) more fun on max details running (at least) decently.

So yeah, I care when their tools limits their creativity. I wouldn't be fine paying a truckload of money for a photoshoot and some hippy photographer would do it on it's old iPhone, limiting its options and the quality of the final product.

 

[Tinek]

Riftbreaker seems a good example... but, Metro Exodus EE runs "full RT" (well, kinda) at around 60fps on consoles, ergo performance isn't really an issue, depending on your approach. I think they've said that's the way they'll go forward, no more regular rasterization and it seems the correct path.

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.

4 shadow casting lights, with their shadows not overlapping

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.
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.

And RT/PT (as in graphics) definitely do make the game more enjoyable.

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.

I haven't yet played a game that isn't (A LOT) more fun on max details running (at least) decently.

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.

So yeah, I care when their tools limits their creativity.

They don't. You confuse graphics tech with creativity. I would say it's the opposite in reality.

I wouldn't be fine paying a truckload of money for a photoshoot and some hippy photographer would do it on it's old iPhone, limiting its options and the quality of the final product.

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).

 

[tommybhoy]

Lol, explains who's really holding back the advancement of RT'ing.

 

[Grim5]

Lol, explains who's really holding back the advancement of RT'ing.

Spot the problem:

4090 VS 2080 Ti = 156% faster

4060 VS 2060 = 38% faster

 

[TNA]

Spot the problem:

4090 VS 2080 Ti = 156% faster

4060 VS 2060 = 38% faster

People that are broke?

Yeah, it's nvidia is any of this really a surprise?

 

[Phixsator]

Spot the problem:

4090 VS 2080 Ti = 156% faster

4060 VS 2060 = 38% faster

Well the first "problem" with that comparison is that the 4060 isn't really the 4060 but should have been the 4050, another one of the recent stunts that nvidia has done(AMD as well to be honest).