[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] [Search] [Home]
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

Let's talk about this. I hope some of you industry veterans will drop some knowledge bombs in here, because I want to get a better understanding of some things.

Here's the version with RTX:

Here's an old trailer just for the comparison:

They say that AO and indirect lighting are being raytraced. The lighting is different and directional light is pointing in the other direction so it's a bit harder to compare, though.

Isn't AO only a thing in games, that is, it doesn't actually exist in a real world? What is the point of raytracing it, then? If Raytracing is all about getting correct, lifelike lighting and shadows, what is the point of using a fakery together with it?

Anyway, what do you think about this presentation in general? Honestly, it looks a bit underwhelming, I don't think Metro was the best example to showcase this technology. Obviously, things such as textures, flat planes for foliage and shitty grass movements destroy the realism completely. Getting the perfect lighting is far from enough to achieve photorealism in games.
File: 4644.jpg (70 KB, 248x252)
70 KB
slap a meme word (right now top trending meme word is "raytracing") on something half-assed and shove it into every game possible so no one ever use it because it eats up to 50% of your resources with little visual impact and it's done. another successful marketing campaign by nvdia.

fuck these jews really
Ambient occlusion is cancer, zombies and derelict cities are overplayed mind control
>what is the point of using a fakery together with it?

The point is still to use a rasterizer but sprinkle in raytracing wherever you can because the latter will invariably look better than the approximation the former can give you.

>Anyway, what do you think about this presentation in general?

Maybe it's just my lack of artistic acumen but I think it looks pretty good. I don't know if it's the best I've seen, it looks a little drab, but it's a METRO game so this kind of lighting and texture work is about what you'd expect they're aiming for in the environments.

Does it look better with some things being raytraced? No, in fact if you hadn't told me this is a "Ray Tracing" demo, I wouldn't really have noticed anything. Does it justify Nvidia encouraging devs to sell their souls for more proprietary GPU technology? No, it really doesn't.
For those textures, VXGI would probably achieve the same effect. The only difference being that RTX helps sell future generations of GPUs, whereas VXGI is close to being playable on the mid-low end hardware.
The only real benefit in that demo is lighting the room interior using a single dynamic light source, although they didnt even demonstrate moving the sun position. Perhaps its just cached lighting in that example?
>actual game content

Is that supposed to be impressive? Looks like Fallout4.
Is there even a single game using VXGI?
>Isn't AO only a thing in games, that is, it doesn't actually exist in a real world?
Its the closest thing to cheap global illumination ral time can get.
The ultimate goal is to have real time multi bounce GI, but for now we have to fake it somehwo and use less accurate methods.
>What is the point of raytracing it, then?
Since most AO is screen space based. its pretty inaccurate., but ray tracing isnt the only way to get better AO, now we have HBAO and more recently even VXAO which is voxel based.
But main problem is that normal screen space AO looks like shit, and VXAO is expensive as all fucks, a frame rate killer.
So i assume raytraced AO is a happy medium they found, better than normal AO but wont melt you gpu like some other nvidia solutions.

Anyway loved the nvidia demo, real time non blurry non noise raytraced graphics was the dream for decades now, great to see it finally realized, we are 10 years away from a real breakthrough in real time rendering.
As for Metro, it fucking looks like ass.
Great texture work but the post is shit, foliage looks like ass, and the shaders are fucking awful, PBR is the norm now, so seeing old shaders in modern aaa games really makes my eyes hurt.
Back in my days, everything was baked and no game looked flat
Is it really? Maybe they just put the phrase in this particular way just to make it easier to understand. Because there is no AO when you're in the realm of ray tracing. Shadows and darkened corners aren't things, rather they are lack of things, lack of light. There is literally no need of implementing a separate AO technique when you're already tracing light rays, which, by their own nature, tend to not get into corners and cavities much.
It enables more accurate realtime GI, reflections and dynamic shadows (baking shadows becomes obsolete). You also wouldn't need to place lightprobes and reflections cubes into the map anymore. AO or not, having raytracing in videogames will finally bring it towards movie industry graphic levels while making the job easier for artists and level designers.

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.