[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



FUCKING REAL TIME RAYTRACING

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/unreal-engine-4-supports-microsoft-s-directx-raytracing-and-nvidia-rtx
>>
File: 1468960294677.jpg (161 KB, 600x599)
161 KB
161 KB JPG
>mfw no more lightmap fuckery
>>
>>612917
>implying
>>
>>612917

Shit this changes everything

Materials will be hell of a lot more simple to make.

As much hate as nvidia gets this is the next step we all been waiting for.

This is fucking huge.
>>
>>612884
inb4 can only be used with NASA computers
Remember the Samaritan demo that ran on 3 top-of-the-line GPUs and they tried to convince people it was "realtime"?
>>
>>612931

Like all new bleeding edge tech.

What else is new.
>>
>>612932
They didn't even fully develop a good VXGI solution yet, and that tech has been around since Crysis 2.
>>
>>612933
lmao, is this satire
>>
AMD announced their own Vulkan based real time raytracer too
>>
>>612884
ÁAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>
>>612931
>Samaritan
Jesus that brings me back

To be fair, it only took about 3 years for cards to come out that can run it without SLI. My 2014 GTX 970 can run the demo with AA at a stable 60fps. If I am not mistaken, that tech demo came out in 2011. The next gen of gaming hardware is just on the horizon too.
>>
>directX only
It's shit. I think AMD has something similar built with Vulkan.
>>
This is probably meant for unreal studio first, not the game engine.
>>
>Unreal

Ran by a Tencent owned (which might as well mean PRC owned) company with a license that obliges you to destroy your project if they demand it... bleh. Whatever good UE does I hope other engines win out in the end. Judging by /3/ it has an edge on Unity etc. graphically, hope that ends as well.

>microshaft

the motherfucking devil himself
>>
>>612984
And Nvidia, which uses its position as lead GPU provider to fuck literally everyone in the ass.
>>
>>612984
>with a license that obliges you to destroy your project if they demand it
For real? Do you have any links to more info? This might shatter my dreams.
>>
>>612991

Eh, I won't waste time searching but its real. After the super problematic Hatred controversy (I can't even) le Ebin Gamez xD changed the license. If they say you included edgy content they forbade you associating with their engine they can freeze you out for whatever amounts of time or terminate it and you'll have to delete everything. Its in the license I think.
>>
>>612998
...you mean you have to *migrate* engines then, not delete all the content you've worked on so far because it's forever cursed by the UE4 brand.
>>
>>612998
I read the license a few months ago and nothing like that jumped at me, but maybe I wasn’t paying enough attention. I will have to check it again.
>>
>>613007
Easier said than done. You can move art assets, yeah, but code is a different matter altogether.
>>
>>612998
You're going to have to post some links to back up these claims.

I didn't see any content restrictions in the EULA (other than gambling, as defined by law), and the only part of the EULA that says they can terminate your project is if you're in violation of the license terms. Since (as far as I can see) there are no content restrictions in the license, I don't see how they can terminate your project over it legally. In fact, the termination clause seemed more concerned with unpaid royalties than anything.

Now it might be that Epic has other products and services related to game development that have different terms of use, for instance they might have a community portal that showcases various games developed with UE, and they won't allow content they deem offensive on those portals, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you can develop your game with their engine.
>>
>>612989
Freaking agreed. I'm a Linux boy, so I've seen the greatness that AMD has done and the evil of NVidia. Okay, that's probably far, but AMD has been a Good Samaritan and supports open source and helps Linux with drivers, last time I checked, they even contribute to Mesa.
>>
>>612989
Overreacting much? Nvidia might not be a saint with rebranding and with gameworks shit, but they're taking advantage of a market lead to sell paired-down graphics cards to idiots. It's not Nvidia's fault for taking advantage of the situation, it's the idiot's fault for not informing themselves and buying Nvidia's cards.

Maybe if AMD were more competitive in this front instead of releasing scathing hot, power hungry cards that nobody but the fanboys want, Nvidia would get their shit in gear and drop the anti-consumer business practices.
>>
>>613025
Wait, so... What are you suggesting AMD to do? Also proceed in anti competitive behavior?
>>
>>613026
The problem, as I see it, is that cards like VEGA 56 and 64 are meant to compete against the 1070 and 1080 respectively, but for 100 dollars less which is the selling factor.

AMD has always done this, and it's simply not feasible to cut corners from your graphics cards like this. When you compromise on price, you compromise on either power efficiency or cooling, sometimes on both with disastrous results: these VEGA cards can't compete with their peers on most titles that aren't DX12 optimized, all while drawing way more voltage and being way hotter.

AMD needs to stop underselling their products, and AMD has to drop the "consumer-friendly" bullshit. True consumer friendliness is making a decent product that can compete in the market, put the other company in a position where they have to respond, and charge an according and fair price for it. It's okay to charge 100 dollars more for VEGA, just make sure that it won't draw 300 watts from the wall and won't cook an egg under load, then with those improvements, make sure that it can actually keep up with the cards that they're competing against.

I mean, Nvidia is simply not playing on this field anymore. They're so far ahead it's not even funny, and that's not good. ATI is run by a bunch of idiots who do this over and over again. Remember the R9 290X? Beautiful card, garbage reference design. AMD isn't seen as the company that sells cheap cards, they're seen as the company that sells power-inefficient, hot cards.
>>
>>613063
AMD makes better cards and openCL actually works because its open software. NVidia is kind of fucked now because they fell in love with closed source CUDA and thought it would be free from meltdown and spectre... and they're horrible licensing

now they need some james bond shit to save them
>>
>>613071
Nvidia is making money hand over fist, mate. They are hardly "fucked", in fact AMD is in a bad position because their cards mostly appeal to miners and they're losing touch completely with their core base - which is people looking to buy graphics cards to play videogames.

For fucks sake, AMD isn't competing with Nvidia at this point, AMD is competing with Intel on the integrated graphics market with their new 2200G and 2400G processors. The market share numbers are similar enough to make this comparison.

Again, Nvidia ain't a saint, especially now with this new partnership program and pushing Gameworks on more and more games which curbs AMD performance more often than not. But they're smart, they're in the heads of most people who are looking for graphics cards, and so they can afford to release three titans in a row and charge exorbitant prices for them. AMD just isn't competitive.

I'm trying not to come across as sucking Nvidia's dick but the numbers don't lie, Nvidia is king, that's why they can put a GPU out on a new architecture (Volta) with a massive die size, with dies with very likely poor yields, price it at 3000 dollars and not even brand it as a gaming card. They brand it as an AI card but it was clear what this was, a shot across the bow, a signal that AMD is a lot of generations behind and Nvidia don't have to care about them, they can release whatever crap they want and people will buy it, because AMD just isn't competitive.
>>
>>613074
you think that's bad, at my workplace there isn't a single cluster using AMD products.
>>
>>613080
where do you work kid
>>
>>612884
>not using crye

Lmao
>>
>>612936
Did you see their UE4 build with VXGI? Never seen such a half-assed implementation, most of the UE lighting workflow isn't even picked up by VXGI, and if you don't want your performance to be shit you have to keep the voxel resolution at unbearable levels of ugliness. Now apparently they stopped working on it.
>>
>>613081
big blue
>>
>>612998
They ask you to not use the UE4 trademark, you can still use the engine. No UE4 logos anywhere for example.
>>
>>613081
It's not uncommon for studios to be wise enough not to buy AMD hardware.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.