RT kinda sucks in Alan Wake 2

[SgtHorton]

I did some on/off pictures, almost no difference. Like i actually like picture better sometimes with RT off.

[patrick68794]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Meshify:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von NetshadeX:

RT lighting is hit and miss. Actual light is almost impossible to replicate. That's why even path tracing gets it wrong. For instance there's a scene in the diner where the light coming from the windows illuminates the surface of the table which looks great, however because the "light" is blocked , it's pitch black under the table making it near impossible to see under there. In reality light bounce is obviously far more complex and you'd have no problem seeing well under the table.

Cyberpunk has these moments too, where path tracing actually hurts the image and the baked lighting solution actually looks superior.

The only RT feature worth the cost imo is RT reflections. Because those are better than SSR 100% of the time.

Its different, in Cyberpunk PT on vs off is like night and day, completely different game.

In Alan Wake 2 everything looks pretty much the same just a tad sharper, but you get 20fps instead 150fps

Imo it shows that you can make RT looking game without full hardware RT performance cost.

Lol you're lying.

[SgtHorton]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von patrick68794:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Meshify:

Its different, in Cyberpunk PT on vs off is like night and day, completely different game.

In Alan Wake 2 everything looks pretty much the same just a tad sharper, but you get 20fps instead 150fps

Imo it shows that you can make RT looking game without full hardware RT performance cost.

Lol you're lying.

Lol you are blind? I gave a link with two screenshots, one is RT on, one is RT off. No difference in look and fps is 117 vs 177

[KingOneDa]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Meshify:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von NetshadeX:

RT lighting is hit and miss. Actual light is almost impossible to replicate. That's why even path tracing gets it wrong. For instance there's a scene in the diner where the light coming from the windows illuminates the surface of the table which looks great, however because the "light" is blocked , it's pitch black under the table making it near impossible to see under there. In reality light bounce is obviously far more complex and you'd have no problem seeing well under the table.

Cyberpunk has these moments too, where path tracing actually hurts the image and the baked lighting solution actually looks superior.

The only RT feature worth the cost imo is RT reflections. Because those are better than SSR 100% of the time.

Its different, in Cyberpunk PT on vs off is like night and day, completely different game.

In Alan Wake 2 everything looks pretty much the same just a tad sharper, but you get 20fps instead 150fps

Imo it shows that you can make RT looking game without full hardware RT performance cost.

Night and Day in Cyberpunk ? hahaha sry thats the biggest bull....
Its looks different, but in some cases not better.
Night and day hahaahahaha

[patrick68794]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Meshify:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von patrick68794:

Lol you're lying.

Lol you are blind? I gave a link with two screenshots, one is RT on, one is RT off. No difference in look and fps is 117 vs 177

You clearly are lol the game looks vastly different with path tracing compared to just rasterization.

Also funny that you're ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about performance while mentioning Cyberpunk when this game runs and looks better

[Affronter]

Ray Tracing is overrated for games. Good for CGI stills such as architectural rendering. I don't bother with it for gaming.

[Iggy Wolf]

I feel like RT is more of a game changer for devs than it is for consumers. Namely because it makes it easier to simply place light bounces and sources instead of having to manually place lighting and shadows in a scene. But the process being different doesn't mean the RT version is more "realistic". Only that it's doing it more "naturally".

The end result can always be questionable depending on what the devs wanted to achieve in that scene. In fact, I personally think that RT can unfortunately take away from the art style and atmosphere that the devs might wanna achieve, because it simply reacts to the lighting and surfaces in a scene, whether that makes the scene afterwards look realistic or not.

This was most noticeable for example in Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition. The raytraced moon at night would sometimes cause nighttime in the Volga region to appear bright because the moon was acting as a light source meant to simply light the scene, whether the end result was a properly "lit" but dark night time or not. Although in that particular case, I think it was a gamma issue but either way, raytracing/pathtracing is only about making light and shadows look more realistic, NOT stylistic.

I can see how a publisher/studio might also push raytracing/pathtracing into a game because it'll make development easier and cheaper, but that also means the game will be more demanding than necessary just because RT/PT is easier to develop. Will gamers flock to buy a game knowing their PCs can't run it? How much are they willing to sacrifice in sales at that point just to save on development costs?

[patrick68794]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Iggy Wolf:

I feel like RT is more of a game changer for devs than it is for consumers. Namely because it makes it easier to simply place light bounces and sources instead of having to manually place lighting and shadows in a scene. But the process being different doesn't mean the RT version is more "realistic". Only that it's doing it more "naturally".

The end result can always be questionable depending on what the devs wanted to achieve in that scene. In fact, I personally think that RT can unfortunately take away from the art style and atmosphere that the devs might wanna achieve, because it simply reacts to the lighting and surfaces in a scene, whether that makes the scene afterwards look realistic or not.

This was most noticeable for example in Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition. The raytraced moon at night would sometimes cause nighttime in the Volga region to appear bright because the moon was acting as a light source meant to simply light the scene, whether the end result was a properly "lit" but dark night time or not. Although in that particular case, I think it was a gamma issue but either way, raytracing/pathtracing is only about making light and shadows look more realistic, NOT stylistic.

I can see how a publisher/studio might also push raytracing/pathtracing into a game because it'll make development easier and cheaper, but that also means the game will be more demanding than necessary just because RT/PT is easier to develop. Will gamers flock to buy a game knowing their PCs can't run it? How much are they willing to sacrifice in sales at that point just to save on development costs?

None of this is really true, aside from making development easier.

Ray tracing can drastically improve image quality, removing artifacts that are caused by traditional raster techniques, like the horrible screen space reflection and ambient occlusion artifacts present in all Unreal 4 games.

It can also absolutely be used to make games look "stylistic" by manipulating the properties of the materials in a scene and manipulating how the light actually bounces. It isn't some static simulation that can't be changed to produce stylized results.

Also, when it comes to Metro Exodus. Have you never been outside at night with snow pm the ground, and a full moon and clear sky? It's damn near bright enough to read a book outside sometimes.

[Iggy Wolf]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von patrick68794:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Iggy Wolf:

I feel like RT is more of a game changer for devs than it is for consumers. Namely because it makes it easier to simply place light bounces and sources instead of having to manually place lighting and shadows in a scene. But the process being different doesn't mean the RT version is more "realistic". Only that it's doing it more "naturally".

The end result can always be questionable depending on what the devs wanted to achieve in that scene. In fact, I personally think that RT can unfortunately take away from the art style and atmosphere that the devs might wanna achieve, because it simply reacts to the lighting and surfaces in a scene, whether that makes the scene afterwards look realistic or not.

This was most noticeable for example in Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition. The raytraced moon at night would sometimes cause nighttime in the Volga region to appear bright because the moon was acting as a light source meant to simply light the scene, whether the end result was a properly "lit" but dark night time or not. Although in that particular case, I think it was a gamma issue but either way, raytracing/pathtracing is only about making light and shadows look more realistic, NOT stylistic.

I can see how a publisher/studio might also push raytracing/pathtracing into a game because it'll make development easier and cheaper, but that also means the game will be more demanding than necessary just because RT/PT is easier to develop. Will gamers flock to buy a game knowing their PCs can't run it? How much are they willing to sacrifice in sales at that point just to save on development costs?

None of this is really true, aside from making development easier.

Ray tracing can drastically improve image quality, removing artifacts that are caused by traditional raster techniques, like the horrible screen space reflection and ambient occlusion artifacts present in all Unreal 4 games.

It can also absolutely be used to make games look "stylistic" by manipulating the properties of the materials in a scene and manipulating how the light actually bounces. It isn't some static simulation that can't be changed to produce stylized results.

Also, when it comes to Metro Exodus. Have you never been outside at night with snow pm the ground, and a full moon and clear sky? It's damn near bright enough to read a book outside sometimes.

Oh believe me, I'll concede that raytracing is definitely better for ambient occlusion and SSR, as those too often have horrible artifacting, blurriness, and in general tend to be based on camera view. But I can honestly say I've seen some amazing lighting and shadowing work though even in rasterized games. That said, I can see why raytracing would be the future and more popular, but it also needs to take into account that the hardware isn't fully maintstream yet and there. After all, if things are based on console hardware, then the consoles' AMD GPU chips, much like their PC counterpart brethen, just DON'T have the juice and necessary power to push hardware raytracing. Consoles currently do it at the "software" level exactly because they don't have the power that an Intel and Nvidia chip would give.

And as such, I feel like RT/PT should be added more as a "bonus" than have the game's style and graphics based solely around that. Much like some games in the past had those "future proof" settings that you COULD activate, but gave you warning that they WILL be heavy on performance and should only be used on high end hardware (Physx in its hayday and then better versions of AO like VXAO/HBAO, global illumination with 32 light bounces, advanced physics, etc.) Hell, Nvidia's "hairworks" was an option for a while in a lot of their sponsored games to give more realistic fur and/or hair to characters (everyone remember's Tomb Raider's "TressFX"). And how each of these settings had their own performance hit, but even if you didn't use them, it didn't mean you couldn't play or enjoy the game as well.

[lackesis]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Meshify:

RT off vs RT on
https://imgsli.com/MjE2ODc2

You should do the comparison during the day for better results.
At night or interior, dev have more control over how lighting is illuminated.

in Cyberpunk 2077 it can look like this.
PT ON
https://imgur.com/PltBKdm.jpg
PT OFF
https://imgur.com/ZPI9FjI.jpg

[SgtHorton]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von lackesis:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Meshify:

RT off vs RT on
https://imgsli.com/MjE2ODc2

You should do the comparison during the day for better results.
At night or interior, dev have more control over how lighting is illuminated.

in Cyberpunk 2077 it can look like this.
PT ON
https://imgur.com/PltBKdm.jpg
PT OFF
https://imgur.com/ZPI9FjI.jpg

You are all either trolling me or cant read. This is exactly what i said. Difference between PT on and PT off in Cyberpunk is like night and day, which is exactly what your screenshots show, PT On looks much much much better.

Now try PT On and PT Off in Alan Wake 2, no difference for 2x less FPS

[Exterium]

RT is not worth the performance hit in any game, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise.

Pathtracing is a different story, I tested both on CP2077 extensively, and pathtracing does make a big difference in lighting, but RT? In most scenes, you wouldn't ever be able to tell when it's on or off if I don't tell you, but it's still eating half your FPS.

[bRice153]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Exterium:

RT is not worth the performance hit in any game, and no one will be able to convince me otherwise.

Pathtracing is a different story, I tested both on CP2077 extensively, and pathtracing does make a big difference in lighting, but RT? In most scenes, you wouldn't ever be able to tell when it's on or off if I don't tell you, but it's still eating half your FPS.

Hey smart guy, Path tracing is just a superior version of RT, when enabled it overrides RT. PT is RT.