So what's really the point of rtx?

So what's really the point of rtx?
Older games like Fear still have fantastic lighting so it just kind of seems pointless

Attached: eb17e717-0b86-490e-b7e9-1a1026e9d2e_mid.jpg (700x393, 30K)

buy a new graphics card goy

>that faggot flooring

what's wrong with rainbows?

>games like fear
Finely tuned lighting, beautiful and atmospheric, hand-tailored to work with the level design and atmosphere.
>raytracing
lmao we’ll just let the hardware tank it so the player can get 20fps and we don’t have to work on lighting at all :^)

>So what's really the point of rtx?
Less work for lazy devs, more cash from the goys.

Not all games have great lightning, Deus Ex's light was greatly improved with the fan patch that added DX10 light for example.

In your case the game looks good, Minecraft always looked bad, Notch said the graphics were temporary, then MS said they would make the "super duper graphic pack" which has been cancelled recently.

Perhaps in the future someone will develope a way to easily implement Raytracing in a way that you can easily improve any old game (probably provided you have the source code)

This. Nvidia is all about marketing gimmicks. Every year a two they invent another "innovative research that will change the future of gaming".

I wana play minecraftya now

Raytracing is the future.
AMD will have it, the new MS and Sony console will have it, Raytracing is what movie's CGI has been using for a while.

Its for faggots duh

Raytracing will ensure From Software's PS5 exclusive will have a shit framerate again.

Thanks Njewia for memeing this garbage into existence

Are you a kindergartener?

>Raytracing will ensure From Software's PS5 exclusive will have a shit framerate again.
I was wondering what kind of excuse would they have this time.
Welp, better luck next gen.

Memeing what into existence you dumb fuck?
Raytracing is the default and good way to render stuff, real time shit like games have been coping for eons and are only now finally catching up.

>Raytracing is what movie's CGI has been using for a while.

you know how long it takes to render the CGI in a movie?

raycasting is horribly impractical for real time bideo games. it's like trying to simulate physics by calculating the physics for each individual atom. it's just not practical for the hardware we have available, and it will remain that way for a VERY long time. and often, the kind of people who care enough about graphics cards to buy a 2080 TI will likely choose having 144 fps and normal visuals instead of 30 fps and raycasting.

It is simulated light and allows you to use real reflective light on everything to create actual realistic ambience. It also has real shadows and real transparency, transparancy and glass basically doesn't work with rasterization unless you bullshit it and even that has limitation.
It is usable in everything and every CGI ever uses it, both stylized and realistic.
Nvidia RTX is shit, wait for 5 years or so for it to be fully implemented, it is objectively superior to old rendering methods in every way and has always been used in pre-rendered stuff basically.

RTX ON

Attached: 6305bd4a46b2c4aa82a33a2ef9cb74e3.jpg (1913x1002, 1.13M)

What the fuck do you mean by very long time?
In 10 years it will be standard.

RTX OFF

Attached: 2e896a1ddeaba360b04f96590fed67c0.jpg (1916x1003, 960K)

FEAR's lighting is awful. Fuck volume shadows and the horse they rode in on.

okay, so why not buy a card that can do raytracing in 10 years then? why bother supporting nvidia's raytracing when it's so obviously such a poorly conceived implementation of the tech?

even then it will probably be relatively niche because we will likely have other shit to spend GPU power on. even in 2030, i'm still going to want to have 144 fps.

I can actually explain the differences that would be in fully implemented raytracing set-up.
In case of raytracing every single light source, weather effect, even weird shit like meteorite falling down would affect the color and reflections of all of the world, light would bounce off of everything and create beautiful dynamic changes in color and shadows.
In case of current rasterization rendering builds we literally can not have that, the dynamic changes are either greatly limited or often times baked into the textures which means that they are actually pre-rendered and uchangable, hence why so many reflections in games seem to be unaffected by player.
RTX is shit and Nvidia is a jew, but raytracing is infinitely superior to current methodology in every way for every purpose, it is a straight upgrade no matter what you are doing.

rainbows are cool shut the fuck up

By 2030 raytracing will not be an option dude, you will probably have your 144 fps and raytracing at the same time since GPU hardware will be optimized for raytracing.
And there is absolutely no reason to support Nvidia, it's just that most of Yea Forums is retarded and does not understand the tech, so I am trying to educate fags here.

>By 2030 raytracing will not be an option dude, you will probably have your 144 fps and raytracing at the same time since GPU hardware will be optimized for raytracing.

i really doubt it, especially since nvidia and AMD are engaging in price fixing already. i doubt i'll be able to pick a graphics card for 400 dollars and have it actually do raytracing at 144 fps, that seems more like something they'd reserve for the high-end enthusiast whale market cards that cost more than a grand

2030 is ten years in the future, look at the engine and technology changes that happened in 10 years.
Whatever user, you don't have to believe me, we can just wait and see.