Played a game with ray tracing

FPBP
It is not only about the money.
Ray tracing requires a shitton of power, so newer GPU have dedicated circuits to make it works.
These new circuits cost not only $$$ but also in heat and power consumtion.
But at this point would it be better if you remove the new stuff just to have more space to put stuff that makes your GPU overall better?
Thus ray tracing is meme, also because console fags need a new buzzword to masturbate to (remember 4k? and before cloud computing?).

Poorfag

Attached: E394D805-34B3-4BA8-904D-1B407319671D.jpg (984x734, 143K)

>But at this point would it be better if you remove the new stuff just to have more space to put stuff that makes your GPU overall better?
This would gain you the same negligible marginal increases we've had for the last ten+ years, like 4K, ray tracing is the great leap forward, it's almost on the level of going from 2D to 3D. I'm fairly old enough to have seen my share of gimmicky buzzword technologies, but ray tracing is the future, as long as the hardware can keep up.

>can never go back to cheap tricks
but raytracing is also just a cheap trick right now

RTX is, actual ray tracing is the real deal

name 3 games with "actual" raytracing then

here's what it looks like indoors

Attached: Far-Cry-4-2.jpg (1200x675, 309K)

peak graphics, who needs proper lighting? just go fullbright and slap some ambient occlusion

Attached: far-cry-5-vinyl-crate-7b.jpg (2560x1440, 878K)

this looks very good to me.

Extremely based and redpilled.

well then you're retarded

hahaha, no, just not a graphicslet ;)

Who thought it would be a good idea to have such a bold bright overlay of your allies?
The diamond and a silhouette would be enough; this looks ridiculous.
I rate this lighting in particular as just okay though.
Not sure what's behind you to see what lighting sources are outside, but the lamp doesn't cast any extra light on the desk which means they probably didn't include object lighting from things like fires or muzzle flashes.
There are shadows outside on the porch to the right, but very few strong shadows indoors despite only one apparent lighting source behind you, which one would also imagine would cast a shadow of your character on the wall/floor in front of you.
The lighting levels themselves are decent, with the bloom outside and the relative shade inside, but I think your gamma's a bit high because everything is fullbright like you said.

I do agree in general that the returns on graphics for graphical power have stagnated, but I am do not think this is a particularly good showcase of that.

>graphical quality combined with a fairly steep rise in performance requirements. Ugly and unoptimised games flood the market.

you gobbled too many black pills. 100% correct. i too noticed that gfx went backwards. I taught maybe i was going insane but u proved me wrong. for example fc4 looks better than Rage 2

Well done Mossad. good Job Nvidia.

Attached: images (1).png (225x225, 7K)

so you don't care about graphics and have no standards and just came to a graphics thread to shitpost lol

yes, thank you for my (you) ;)

based and bakedlightningpilled

>for example fc4 looks better than Rage 2
yeah this is proof that graphics are going backwards due to jew conspiracies, not that different devs with different engines and different budgets result in different outcomes or anything

np, have another (you) on the house

Attached: 1565519509437.png (700x700, 615K)

>980Ti
>Modern games run at 45-55 FPS
>Turn off AA and vsync
>Able to run every game at 60+ FPS
I swear to god devs these days have no fucking clue how to do graphics efficiently

thanks friend!

you don't need RTX to make a fucking room darker
just make the room darker

This is what I want Minecraft 2 to look like.
Maybe not the raytracing, but the ability to render longer distances and a larger variety of terrian generation, including more realistic terrain generation.

It'll never happen despite Minecraft being one of the most profitable franchises in the world, much like Pokemon, but i'll dream about it.

rooms exposed to daylight via windows/doors shouldn't be darker

That's why you should get into Daggerfall Unity. 161,000 km2 to explore.

Attached: Daggerfall_screens7.png (1920x1080, 1.74M)

Go outside and have sex, faggots.

2D graphics and/or stylized 3D is all I ever need for vidya games.

Attached: various style.png (514x474, 31K)

what's the point of exploring when it's all empty?

Already into it user. I got distant terrain and tedious travel mods and it certainly makes for a fun experience, but Minecraft's core gameplay makes the idea of expansive wilderness with the sense of scale Daggerfall Unity has even more appealing.

all of those styles are trash

You have no idea what you're talking about
Everything done in computer graphics are literal cheap tricks trying to mimic some aspect of real life lighting without doing actual light particle simulations
modern day ray tracing means we don't need dozens of disjointed rendering techniques to simulate a fuggin light bulb or the sun, we just simulate photons.

It looks like that because the indirect lighting (aka Global Illumination/GI) is static, and made to make outdoors look bright.

Ray tracing and RTX are computationally more expensive than those 'cheap tricks' that produce a similar effect given the devs actually put effort into their game.
Those disjointed rendering techniques allowed devs to be creative and resourceful with the tools they had.
Now, they have informed us that they no longer care about the quality and will just use a blanket lighting method even if it makes their game worse because it will save them money even if it costs us money.

>those 'cheap tricks' that produce a similar effect given the devs actually put effort into their game
there are no "cheap tricks" that produce anything close to raytraced lighting unless you mean pre-baking which obviously isn't feasible if you want environments that aren't completely static

>which obviously isn't feasible because the devs will make less money
ftfy. For publishers, it isn't worth the risk and investment even though players would enjoy it more - same reason they make games in the same genre every year instead of branching out with new IPs and game ideas.

Ray tracing looks like shit and is only an approximation of lighting. Things look unnatural and approach the uncanny valley. Then again you bunch of fanboys never go outside so the fuck would you know about lighting. It's hardware intensive to the point it's going to need 5 years minimum to do the shit you think it can do in tech demos. The final reality is software lags 4-6 years behind hardware. Adoption is going to be painful and slow and that's if it's even pursued for that long before the next gravy train gets jumped on.

It's the paradox of content over creativity. Games are getting larger and larger and going up in size exponentially and as a result the work put into the minutiae in games is going down. The bigger the game the more shallow it ends up being.

>players would enjoy static environments more because they'd look better
>literally wants graphics over gameplay
are you high?

8 and 11 are alright
the rest is garbage

I don't know if you realize this, but the biggest maps are in very old games

Attached: 1366065-xju7q.jpg (2334x1924, 764K)

>he thinks taa reduces performance
too bad that your IQ is still barely 2 digits high, cause I could agree with your post otherwise.
the best implementations of taa barely costs 2 fps on any mid range gpu but remove all fucking jaggies from the image (ue4 & Id Tech 6 have the best taa)

TAA doesn't reduce performance you mong it severely reduces image quality

a 1920x1080 image with 4x MSAA looks leagues better than some dogshit 4k image that gets blurred over with TAA and still you end up with a shittier image than a clean 1080p, but you also have to deal with the performance cost of rendering at fucking 4k

retard

Thats how most modern games look indoors now. Global illumination is fullbright=1, but at 100000000% performance cost

So what shaderpack is this?

>paying $1000 to have pretty looking puddles

>a 1920x1080 image with 4x MSAA
yeah. if it has a proper msaa implementation. which no dx11 has.
and taa has a performance penalty you fucking retard. the 2 engines that make perfect use of this have no blurring going on because it also sharpening in the shader built in

youtu.be/ea1nTyZrrio?t=174
tell me, you fucking nigger, where is the blur in this video? even through youtubes disgusting compression it looks crisp af

oh shut up, nvidia shill. No one's buying it.

Reminder that this game came out in 2007, has no ray tracing and still looks better than anything that has it.

Shitty, worthless gimmick.

Attached: Crysis_0133.jpg (1172x359, 156K)

Crysis looks like shit my dude.
>Those obviousl 2D backgrounds
Please cope harder next time.

>a 1920x1080 image with 4x MSAA looks leagues better than some dogshit 4k image

Attached: 1538808724856.png (413x549, 95K)

But MSAA is incompatible with many modern effects, thats why its not longer used. 4K is actually the best AA method available now.

>crisp as fuck

Attached: file.png (1920x1080, 1.83M)

>obvious 2D backgrounds
>obvious

Weird how it's "obvious" even though they're actual 3D mountains.

>MSAA
Is this 2004?

Crysis also still struggles to maintain 60 fps on a 9900k. It desperately needs multi core support.

>Screencaps a horribly compressed youtube video
Off yourself. You have nothing to add.

thats motion blur you mongo. you can turn it off. it is very much personal preference. most games, just like taa, have a disgusting trash motion blur shader. this one is high quality. you were talking about jaggies yet you intentionally that wasn't a still frame. life with an IQ of 80 must truly be a struggle

perfect lighting pre-calculated in the map > shitty GPU destroying ray tracing

Games can use look and run good by using good old 2D photos lad!
Truly a marvel of our time.

this. you can bake the lightmaps/shadow maps with real ray tracing, and than add some nice touch ups with few real time ray traced light sources in the world, to no destroy your performance. but this solution is already enough for the modern day s󠀀oyboy dev

too bad those environments weren't even in the game, actual game never looked even close to photorealistic

Attached: rvc.jpg (959x1168, 350K)

>modern effects
oh no how will i ever do without my shiny clay shaders
Fuck off. DX9 was capable of producing nice crisp aesthetically pleasing graphics at a way lighter performance cost than modern shit that's covered in shitty clay shaders and blurry postprocessing

ETS2 and CS:GO look a million times better than """modern games""" at a fraction of the performance cost.

Attached: file.png (740x416, 855K)

Thanks for proving the point so emphatically. The graphics are so good, you literally cannot tell it's a 100% in-engine, real time render.

And it came out in 2007. It doesn't even use all the same bells and whistles graphics APIs use these days.

Attached: 14022435-8800-b__668330914.jpg (900x675, 424K)

Nice 2D images lad.
Come back when you can achieve the same with 3D trees, bushes etc.

Till then fuck off.

>And it came out in 2007
except it didn't, those environments were never released publicly and the game looked nothing like it, who even knows if they were really real-time renders and how much of it was faked

>i-it can't be! It must be a 2D photo! it MUST be!
There it is again. Fucking owned. You can sit down now, little one.

Attached: fov.gif (1280x720, 2M)

>DX9 was capable of producing nice crisp aesthetically
>CS:GO look a million times better than (modern games)
I agree. No one in this thread argues against the fact that modern devs are incompetent lazy fucking retards.

They produce a much better effect, and the more time we have using it the more efficient the developers will be able to make it

Further, it allows for completely real time lighting, shadowing, and reflections, because ray tracing is the ENTIRE lighting pipeline.

Before that, not even all shadows are real time, many are baked along with GI, meaning the light can't change color or change position/angle, meaning you can't have fully dynamic lighting in traditional models that actually looks good.

Current ray tracing is a paradigm shift. We've been using fundamentally the same techniques for 2 decades, and are basically at the limit of what we're able to achieve - further investment yields basically no new advancement without extreme complexity and constraints.

graphics fags are cancerous tumors