wait till 3080ti or 4080ti will be out then it may be playable with 120fps but I guess a 5080ti will be needed

im going to buy the 3080 rtx. Do you reckon going ti is worth it? tis are expensive as fuck.

whenever you decide to fork it

RTX is the biggest trash scam of video cards of the last year, absolutely unnecessary, looks bad and is simple a trick to push more nerds to pay 1000$ to play 20 years old games at 50 fps.

Gaymers are getting more retarded by the day

Was it ever pushed as something neat for remaking and playing old games?

That's the way it has always been. New games drive hardware sales. And early adopters pay a premium. When Q3 was released, how many gaymers had computers capable of running it at 120fps? Not many. And folks went out to buy better computers and video cards as a result.

Also, a lot of time is spent lighting rooms realistically. With raytracing, that becomes a lot easier for devs.

John Carmack was talking about this 10+ years ago: about why real time raytracing was the inevitable future of graphics.

JC is a gen,ius

"a lot of time is spent lighting rooms realistically. With raytracing, that becomes a lot easier for devs."

The only part that deserve consideration, and it's wrong.

There are better techniques to get realistic lighting using much less resources. But those wouldn't push the sales 0f 2070tis, would they.

That's what i'm talking about, it's all a ruse. Up to some years ago, devs used to optimize the volume of datas a game required to be saved. Then they simply stopped giving a fuck, and now the same games weight over 100 gigabytes each. Graphics today are barely any better than 5 years ago, but significantly heavier.

Well, how would Nvidia keep introits high now that cripto ponzi schemes bubble has popped

The only part that deserve consideration, and it's wrong.

How is it wrong?

I watched some tech talk on this specific issue. Some guy did a presentation -- maybe it was at GDC (I can't remember exactly) -- showing how they lit an area in Metro Exodus and the difference between the two approaches (real-time raytracing vs. conventional lighting). The real-time raytracing version of the area was simplified because it was just the materials and the lights. The physics did the rest and it looked great. Whereas, with conventional methods, it required all these tricks to imitate/approximate a realistically lit room; all this extra consideration and effort to make it look good. Time that could have spent elsewhere was spent trying to replicate realistic lighting.

That's what i'm talking about, it's all a ruse. Up to some years ago, devs used to optimize the volume of datas a game required to be saved. Then they simply stopped giving a fuck, and now the same games weight over 100 gigabytes each. Graphics today are barely any better than 5 years ago, but significantly heavier.

I think the issue here is that there's been quite a bit of small incremental change but nothing leaps and bounds better over the past 5 years. But you can still see the change, if you look for it. And there's probably some uncanny valley stuff happening. The more detailed stuff gets, the less real it looks. But eventually, it'll cross the barrier into realistic again.

DigitalFoundry has a nice YouTube channel that talks about some of the tech in recent games, and how they're pushing forward.

"I think the issue here is that there's been quite a bit of small incremental change but nothing leaps and bounds better over the past 5 years. But you can still see the change, if you look for it. And there's probably some uncanny valley stuff happening. The more detailed stuff gets, the less real it looks. But eventually, it'll cross the barrier into realistic again. "

Absolutely nope, we aren't even remotely close to approach uncanny valley in videogames. That's not it at all, graphics look pretty much the very same shit as 5 years ago, but games are much heavier.

And why is it so? Because nobody has interest in pushing it, while there is literally a billions dollars worth of interests in keeping the games getting heavyer regardless of graphics so that dumb nerds dump their moneys into 2070tis.


Rtx is the apex of this whole concept- a terribly inefficient, moslty unnecessary, completely unrequested effect that magically makes games 10 times slower to run.

Win-win-win-win for nvidia shareholders, now that the crypto bubble has popped and it's getting difficult justifiying keeping prices up.

What? Where do you get your information from? There's plenty of studios, including indies!, pushing graphics along. There's an obvious reason why: profit. Just listen to how developers try to sell their games. "Better graphics, 10x the detail, 4x the size!" An obvious Fallout 76 reference, but the reason they market games like that is that consumers want bigger and better-looking games. They're willing to pay for it. This is how graphics have always progressed. The consumers are willing to pay for the best graphics.

Again, I'd recommend checking out DigitalFoundry's YouTube channel. They discuss some of the developments being made in premier titles.

And the uncanny valley is not an uncanny cliff. The effect is gradual, hence "valley", and I do think some games are getting more realistic in their facial models/animations. There have been recent games which do verge on the realistic, and it just doesn't quite work if they're not just a tad bit stylized (like Red Dead Redemption 2).

Also, not everyone is broke. Some people have an excess of money and willing to pay a premium to be on the cutting edge. If you're broke, then don't worry about premium video cards/graphics.

No, we aren't even close to uncanny valley. Uncanny valley is a steep effect that requires an amount of realism we aren't even close to in video games. With your lazy and wrong concept of it ("seems kinda creepy to me so it must be uncanny valley"), we reached the bottom of Mariana trench with 2004's Half Life 2 or something. Even Super Mario 64 is uncanny valley with that concept, he and his 12 polygons.

"Also, not everyone is broke. Some people have an excess of money and willing to pay a premium to be on the cutting edge."

Which is exactly what i already said, like, 10 times? And the whole point of the discussion. A sucker is born every minute, and he has a 95% of chance to be a gamer. There's no more guillable consumer group, even octuagenarians are a much less guillable category. Nvidia proves he knows that better than anyone else.

Good video here....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n68s9I28AvY

ultimately my views on RT have not changed since a long time ago.
https://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1497304

To me its a bit like replacing your andrex toilet paper with one that costs a dollar a sheet cos its softer, it might be better, but is it that much better and is it really worth it?

RT is still a long way off being a big thing. It was a long way off in that 2008 thread and its still a long way off.

Look at that video and how little it means in gaming terms.
He sums it up nicely here.
https://youtu.be/n68s9I28AvY?t=265

If you're asking me to play a game at 70 FPS over 120 FPS in exchange for a 2-3% boost in graphics which I have to squint to see then no chance :).

The hardware guys are ALWAYS going to want to slow your games down because it justifies their worth.

i remember you saying RT would never be a thing and that there would always be a better way to do it (normal cheating).
I guess you changed you view on it a little but I think RT will be a thing faster then ppl expect with deep leaning already removing noise with amazing result, not to speak of dp being able to upping res from shit to something looking like 4k.
lets see where it will go from here.

I don't recall saying it would never be a thing, My problem with it was its overly intensive for the gains it offers in per frame quality and I still feel that way 10+ years on and I think most gamers do too.

Ask any animator would they render out their animation in 20 FPS for a 20% gain in per frame quality over 24 FPS at existing quality and the answer will be no, because what you gain in per frame quality is lost in jerkiness. Ray tracing doesn't even offer gamers 10% boost.

12 years is a lifetime in the world of computer graphics, its from NES release to Playstation 1. Think of the orders of magnitude that a gamer experienced over that time.

Now look at what you as a gamer gained due to ray tracing from 2008 when that shit started on ESR to now. Its still next to nothing.

How many ray traced games have you played which are beyond compare to non ray tracing game today?

Even if we get there with ray tracing, the cheap and nasty hacks to emulate XYZ effect will keep a close enough gap so you can never fully appreciate the gains of ray tracing anyway which was my point all along.

That's why in 2020, there isn't a ray tracing game out there that blows a non ray tracing game out of the water.

As ray tracing gets better, so will the hack effects so the tangible difference will always be minor.

If you didn't see your parents for 30 years they would look radically different to how you rememebr them.

But if you see them as often as most people do, the y will never have that effect on you becaue you're being exposed to their changes on a gradual basis and RT cannot do that because its moving so slow.

maybe deep learning could accelerate it, or cloud based gaming could break moores law and give us a jump, but I would not hold my breath.

"Ask any animator would they render out their animation in 20 FPS for a 20% gain in per frame quality over 24 FPS at existing quality and the answer will be no"

If we could render out 20 frames a second instead of 1 frame 5-20min on the farm then yes we would absolutly take the 20% quality increase :)

Minecraft is a good example where RT looks amazing but yes its not there yet, its so heavy still that the result on even a old game as q2 looks like ass. but the trend is clear to me, with time technology come to a point where we have 120fps RT games. This is not a gimick, the quality increase is obvious so it will come sooner or later.

One thing that appeals to me about RT is just how coders and mappers will not have to spend time implementing and maintaining the numerous cheap and nasty hacks and can instead put their efforts into something else.

A generalized solution is usually simpler than handling a large collection of special cases. Simpler makes it quicker to modify and less bug prone.

Exactly. Everything in the CGI industry is just getting easier and easier with technology and less technical. The same thing will happen to games. Like why wouldn't it?

Minecraft looks shit by default, so any high end rendering feature you throw at it is going to look better. bad example, but that's what you need to do to justify your point on ray tracing.

The reality is, 12+ years from when this stuff started to be a thing, the end result is nearly no boost from a AAA game studio in the present day.

https://youtu.be/n68s9I28AvY?t=197

"But when you're not concentrating on tiny little details, if i'm honest, it really doesn't look a whole lot different"

Think of all the gains in 12 years the graphics market has undergone, why is ray tracing still not there and you need to pixel peep to see it?

Because it requires massive hardware gains which does not scale with what the industry likes to roll out and other rendering techniques ensure that the gains between ray tracing and normal rasterization are always going to be close.

So you're never going to get the hit you talk about and there are far bigger things to get excited about like scanned in 3D and fluids, or destructible environments, those are the things that could blow your mind.

The ray tracing stuff is like changing your game from medium to high, its not a game changer and I just don't see it ever being that way.

What's proven is in the last 12 years is a ray trace option in a high end game vs its non ray tracing counterpart offers nothing to get exited about and in 10 years time, the point I make today, will still hold true and the biggest gains will come from scanned in 3D which is the real future.

There is no need to talk about RT in the past or current implementation of RT in today's AAA games like BF5, i know its not good. I'm talking about the future, but let's talk about Minecraft though since you claim its bad example.
I know you have been playing around with 3D, i think you even have worked or is working with it on a professional level, so don’t tell me you can’t judge lighting in minecraft alone just because the models are bad. I’m sure you have seen a simple sphere become a perfectly realistic pool ball with just a shader and some lighting, you have probably done it yourself.
So let me give you some links to look at, and you tell me that the lighting and reflections aren't amazing.
https://youtu.be/qylgZQSDcIY?t=65
https://youtu.be/qtolFJHXURA
https://youtu.be/eQ65rJnR4gg?t=23
It's not perfect, the light and shadow are a little lowres and you can find other realtime examples that are also very impressive like this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3LtFrMAvQ4
But unless it also uses RT for the lighting, its just RT lighting baked in to the textures which is not of course cheating and has some obvious limits that RT doesn't have.

But sure there are things that might be more mind blowing as you mention but you can’t seriously think that in 10 years or 20 years they will still be using normal rasterization, that's just silly.

Minecraft with ray tracing is awesome because the simple geometry shows the effects better

Its not that I don't think its coming, its just a long way off and even when/if it does get here, the other forms of rendering techniques are going to be improving over time to the point where the gap between the two is so small while using a fraction of the footprint, it could well end up being the equiv of changing the aliasing mode in a game.

The demos you posted are crap because they don't resemble what a modern game world looks like in 2020.

The second you pump a more complex scene into that engine two things happen and will always happen.

1) The frame drops to a snail pace which = fail.
2) The scene becomes full of noise = fail.

You can eliminate both those problems with 1 thing. Horse power.

You can also fantasize about noise reduction and deep learning AI filling in the missing gaps, or some magic algorithm which is going to upscale a 120x120 scene size to get around the noise and frame rate problems and turn it into some 4k masterpiece, but I just don't see it.

If you look at how hardware has scaled since it began, the evidence shows that this jump is so far away.

If you look at how much more processing power a modern, 3D game world in 2020 would require to render at 60 FPS with all that's going on, its insane and without a revolution I don't see it happening for a long long time, so why get exited about shit you're going to be an old man when it comes and even when its here, the other stuff will have scaled so well with it you might not even notice and you've spent 30 years waiting for no tangible benefit.

Well lets see how old we are when it happens, like i said i think it can happen relatively fast with dp and its not magic those algorithms already exist.

Thing with ray tracing is its very scaleable, you can have it for shadows, reflection, illumination and then the sample rate is scale-able.

I don't think its ray tracing unless its all working together.

I will keep a closer eye on it though after your bumps!

I still think there are more exciting things than can be done like fluids, background damage, advanced weather systems.

You always get used to good graphics, but the above would have such a big impact on game worlds.

so what do we think about UE5?

Hello?

"and the biggest gains will come from scanned in 3D which is the real future"

PS5 Tech Demo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yukGwQyejDA

You seem to reference 2070ti a lot in this thread.. any reason for doing that for a non existing card ? :)

Don't know about others, but i didn't buy rtx 2070 Super for playing games on 70fps with ray tracing (i did test it tho).. i'm more in favour of playing games above 140fps minimum.. old card (gtx1060) just didn't cut it anymore.

>buys card because of how it looks
>calls other an idiot

seems legit

Minecraft with rtx looks awesome tho

Minecraft looks better with nay visual mod- it's so basic that literally anything makes it look "awesome". And the whole point is that games can look "awesome" without super heavy rtx shit- but nvidia 2070ti sales can't.

comon, you need to stop talking if you can see how good the lighting looks in minecraft with Raytrace, its the future.

No i'm being honest, both minecraft and quake 2 RTX say nothing to me. They're games so graphically primitive than any kind of dynamic lighting makes a big change, and yet, it's not all that, and mostly, not worthy making them even 30% heavyer, let alone ten times.

On a modern game the difference is much less impressive, in fact it's almost unnoticeable compared to modern tried and tested lighting systems.

Quake 2 looks like ass, agreed. Even a game as old Q2 can’t use RT to its fullest potential but look at these links on minecraft.

https://youtu.be/qylgZQSDcIY?t=65
https://youtu.be/qtolFJHXURA
https://youtu.be/eQ65rJnR4gg?t=23

Try to look at the light and reflections alone and don’t mind the “bad models”, the lighting is on another level and it's not cheating.

This will be standard in the future and it will make drastically more realistic.
,

wtf is nay mod

minecraft java + optifine + seus, working on previous nvidia/amd without problems

can confirm, love this setup, works even better when I top up on some eft rubles on this site https://www.eldorado.gg/escape-from-tarkov-roubles/g/19-0-1

The problem I have with those shader packs is that the retro colors look is lost. Is there any setup that ads all the shaders but respects the vanilla colourful look and doesnt wash the screen with weird "realistic" tones?

LOL

Q3 and Doom 3 please.

Ray tracing, provided there's performance, is amazing but Q2 is literally the only game utilising some of it and performance is horrible.

It'll be a while

Doom 3 isn't even a really good game.

Yes it is. Doom 3 Last Man Standing coop was amazing

Never played coop in Doom 3.
But everything can be fun in coop :D

LEGOs are coop game too.

Take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9txGxsJXDCw

Great effort for a single guy doing this in his spare time