RTX is a overra-

Attached: 1DABBB8C-0AB0-4059-80A9-A63F072B12EB.jpg (1920x1080, 231.96K)

it's nice lighting but it makes the game look like serious sam

>So are there any actually good video games that have RTX support?
short answer:
No.

Long answer:
No lol

Have the guys managed to solve that problem of just things that are in the player's field of vision being reflected on the surfaces? As far as I can see, every game that uses ray tracing has this problem. The game's engine is not rendering things out of player's view, so the rays of light are not reflected by these things and they don't appear in mirrors, water, etc ...

user... x-ray engine is the S.T.A.L.K.E.R one, not the one for the Metro series

4a stole the engine and used it for metro.

It's going to take another 3-4 years for mainstream adoption of the technology and probably longer because people are going to need reasonably priced solutions. You keep hearing the argument that it's easier and speeds up production time but who knows if that's even a good thing in the low effort over-saturated environment were in.

I know this story very well.
Matrox, S3, ATI, all rushing into the newfangled rendering technology, but delivering cards that only offered picture improvements with a performance penalty.

Then 3Dfx came.

Raytracing is a stupid simple thing.
Just a hardware that finds the triangle that intersects the ray very, VERY fast, and the rest is just done by traditional shaders.
I don't give 2 months to AMD to get to the same "level" because it's not that much code to begin with.

RTX is incredible, but the card cost is too expensive atm.

>You keep hearing the argument that it's easier and speeds up production time
Is this statement in the sense that the lights are more realistic and the guys need to spend less time placing adjusting by hand?
If so, it is an illusory thought. Cinema and photography work with real lighting and guess what ... a lot of time is spent to light things up correctly.
If a game wants to generate a decent image with realistic lighting, developers will have to take the same care that professional photographers do, and this is much more difficult than simply making artificial lighting.

>Stroggos is now in north california

>physx
>hey lets make a chip dedicated to doign complicated physx stuff for games and put it on a graphics card
>routines get dumped on hardware anyways
rtx is going to be the same thing

That's the point of RTX. Things looking nice is largely a bonus. The main point being they just slap some lighting into games and there's no pre baking at all it just works and represents a rough approximation of realism. Be it sunlight or interior lighting.

the one thing that this helps fix is fucking aim models, csgo especially will benefit from the player's gun not being somehow in shade despite being in a lit room

A better example of great prebaked lighting I guess would be something like Silent Hill 2 and 3, those games look great to this very day. Also I dont know if RTX is a meme, Metro Exodus looks quite nice with it, but it's still too demanding for weaker cards like the 2060.

But it's only game that uses the tech so it makes worthwhile difference.
So see you in 3 years when it becomes mainstream.

You can toy with skybox, day/night cycle etc.

20 year old games YEAH

Physics are a lot more complicated than raytracing.
Even regular rastering is more complicated than raytracing, as you have to do all the triangle setup, perspective correction and all that bullshit, while on raytrace you just do intersect tests until the picture is done.

Why Quake 2 of all id games, I wonder.

soooooooo what am I supposed to be seeing?

A poorly optimized ENB and FX mod that eats up your framerate but that is part of the industry's focus on "dude graphics" over actually making games fun and interesting.

Nobody cares about screen space reflections. Global illumination is the real shit.
But it's too expensive for modern games so we have to stick to GI in low poly games only.

youtube.com/watch?v=Wc_QC25RM44

youtube.com/watch?v=NehSihoHCpc

Ray-tracing is the next leap in graphical fidelity. It's not a new technology, far from it. Up until now though, it has been out of grasp due to how demanding it is to process in real-time.

>retards still focus on muh grafix
>not focusing on advancing physics and AI capabilities

>buying first gen tech
>when you know the updated revision will be out in 6 months and a gtx1060 still plays every modern game at 60fps
Are spec threads just retards pretending they are smart or simply pathetic marketing? Who knows.
All I know is for playing video game an old 6700k + rx480 runs everything and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future

twitter.com/tuxedolabs/status/1233768647392419841
>global illumination ray tracing
>dynamic sounds from physics collision
>fire
>smoke
>completely destructible env

all made by one guy

Control does some genuinely amazing things with RTX and lighting.

>quakes quick movement actually comes from every surface being smeared in vaseline
woah...now I get it...

True, however, now the "Ultra" settings in game will mean full raytracing, which means old "ultra" becomes high, old high becomes medium and so on. Isn't progress grand!

Yes, but to represent realistic lighting the guys basically simulate a camera, and that’s the problem. The image is immediately more realistic, but that does not mean that it will be aesthetically better, or even that it will be appropriate for the game.
In a hypothetical scenario where the game's image is 100% rendered by ray tracing (and not the current mixed case), developers will have a much bigger challenge than currently to make the images look decent. They will have the same challenges that a professional photographer has, but with the difference that the player will be operating the camera, and yet every place he looks at has to look correct, without problems of overexposure, too much contrast between light and shadows, etc.

Now this is actually impressive.

They aren't simulating a camera friend. They are just simulating point sources of light and thousands of interactions of those point sources with the surrounding geometry and textures. I get what you're trying to say about looking through the lens but I wouldn't argue they are going for the realism of photography. They are just trying to make simulating basic light sources dependent on the card instead of hacks. I don't see them moving away from a mixed medium for a long time to come.

Making games that use ray traced graphics natively, while making them look better also lets
devs do other stuff because it's all physics based.
AI advances stopped at late 90s.
Physics aren't selling games for retards muh 4k graphics do.
In general games are super limited in ways player can interact with game world.

I'm not impressed, never cared about graphics

That's fine. It isn't made for you anyways.

just wait for zoom eternal to implement rt. Bethesda got this. Gimmick but pretty.

based nvidiots are truly pathetic

I really hope RTX gets used in a horror game if it hasn't already. Metro is certainly atmospheric but not that spooky, and I haven't played Control so I cant comment on that. It just seems like the realistic lighting would be a match made in heaven.

Hoping someone does DOOM3.

Attached: 1290013430851.jpg (449x319, 41.4K)

NANTENDO

>They will have the same challenges that a professional photographer has, but with the difference that the player will be operating the camera, and yet every place he looks at has to look correct, without problems of overexposure, too much contrast between light and shadows, etc.

That problem already exists, people expect a game to look great 100% of the times, Uncharted for example tries really hard making sure that you are always looking at something great, Horizon did it too, but the problem I think is the viewer is too spoiled or entitled, a photograph a movie, they are a controlled environment and you only ever see what they want you to see, a frame that is studied, enhanced, cherry picked.

Videogames with a 3D free camera can't make everything look at its best and the great thing about photography is finding the right time-angle to make something even ordinary look great, is giving you a new perspective, in videogames you need to find beauty yourself most of the times.
Take Shadow Warrior remake, 2013, indie, might not look like anything special (see screenshot), but from the right angle it changes I think.
flickr.com/photos/duncanjharris/albums/72157636086123383

Attached: ss_72edec343fcd02beba521c3854cae896f660e5bb.1920x1080.jpg (1680x1028, 788.83K)

Cope

they already did, here's a screen : ^ ) ) ) ) )

Attached: 1561154023951.png (1920x1080, 6.01K)

Quake 2 sucks

I feel old now

Attached: 10044774855_45bc0952c1_k.jpg (1536x2048, 1.03M)

>RTX IS GONNA IMPROVE ON ALL THE LIGHTNING
>still no game released that uses lightning and particle effects like FEAR
So, this is the power of Nvidia?

Congrats. You just found the true meaning of RTX; To save devs time and effort. What was previously manually made is now brute forced through hardware.

I honestly don’t get why every ray traced surface has to look greased. Sometimes stone is reflective holy shit it’s everywhere.

I guess i will have to red pill you on the current shadow technology.
Those shadows are generated by redrawing everything the "light sees" on a depth texture (a texture where the brightness of the pixel indicates how far that pixel is), and then using this texture later on to determine if the picture being drawn is visible or not for that light.
But this have several annoyances, one is that this that you have to fit the objects into this depth texture at a decent resolution or you get really blurry shit or something that hammers down the GPU hard, which in the case of many games is by using several "levels of detail", the so called cascade shadows.
There's no "semi on", it's either behind or forward, so the natural output of this technique is a blocky atari mess, and then you have to waste GPU time smoothing out the blocks either with poisson disc blur or reimplementing bilinear filtering manually.

And then there is the problem of the picture. As the depth texture is a bitmap, it don't match EXACTLY the geometry, so you get a bunch of "false positives", causing the shadow acne defect, but then you add an offset, and this offset solve the shadow acne, but if you add too much offset, you get peter panning, and you have to adjust this shit for every light to get to a "good enough" level.

Also don't even get me started with point lights.

Attached: peter vs acne.jpg (637x686, 91.6K)

Fear use a technique that is patented by Creative inc and they will shot you down for using it.
It's the reason why the doom III source code don't include the shadow casting.

Also it's fucking annoying to use in open spaces, which is why doom III is a bunch of corridors.