Quake 2 RTX FPS A joke??????

[ANGRY LOBSTER NL]

Cmon man RTX 2080 TI 11 GB I9-9900KF blah blah and still bad FPS for so bad grapichs.
Testing this game for RTX is useles. (No, people on youtube with same spec got low FPS too)

[Torx]

This ain't an actual product, but just a tech demo to get a point across.

No DLSS, no variable shaders (to my knowledge), no texture space GI. No optional hard shadows.

DLSS alone could almost double the FPS. GI is expensive, doing it via texture space rendering should do a lot, too. It also would include shadows. Variable shaders should have the least FPS gain, but I'm only guessing. An optional hard shadow option could press some more frames out for those who need it.

Not using any of those methods is a HUGE loss in FPS. Personally I can't wait for the Ray Tracing Gems 2 book that will come out at the GTC 2021 event next year. Ray Tracing Gems 1 is quite basic if you ask me.

[MASTAN]

İlk olarak Monk tarafından gönderildi:

This ain't an actual product, but just a tech demo to get a point across.

No DLSS, no variable shaders (to my knowledge), no texture space GI. No optional hard shadows.

DLSS alone could almost double the FPS. GI is expensive, doing it via texture space rendering should do a lot, too. It also would include shadows. Variable shaders should have the least FPS gain, but I'm only guessing. An optional hard shadow option could press some more frames out for those who need it.

Not using any of those methods is a HUGE loss in FPS. Personally I can't wait for the Ray Tracing Gems 2 book that will come out at the GTC 2021 event next year. Ray Tracing Gems 1 is quite basic if you ask me.

In fact, Q2RTX uses Global Illumination like no other game. Switch time of day in different locations("/" key) and you'll see. On the first map get into silencer secret, there's no light that shines there directly. Set pt_indirect_polygon_lights to 0, then switch GI between high and medium(pt_num_bounce_rays 2 and 1) and see the difference - with GI high you'll get residual light from bright surfaces around, otherwise it'll be pitch black.

Variable shaders? I think you've meant Variable Rate Shading. The wording is important, shaders may not be involved at all, just cast less amount of rays in certain areas.

Hard shadows, I doubt it will make things easier for raytracing at all, just due to the nature of ray tracing. There are better faster algorithms for that like stencil shadows used in Doom 3.

If you think you can do better than current state of Q2RTX, then please do. Sources are open.

[Torx]

İlk olarak MASTAN tarafından gönderildi:

Hard shadows, I doubt it will make things easier for raytracing at all, just due to the nature of ray tracing.

I know it makes it much faster. The real question is whether one could use the depth buffer to smooth out the edges like shadow map methods. Obvious problem is that unlike with shadow maps that are texture space, hard shadows are screen space. There is a shadow map ray tracing hybrid for perfect contact shadows. But that's again rendered into a shadow map and not the screen space.

Anyways, Ray Tracing Gems demonstrates hard shadow performance on page 176. It's always at least double compared to even low quality RT soft shadows. And in general much higher than that. RT Hard shadows can be faster than even Cascade Shadow Maps in outdoors, too. That's how fast it can be.

İlk olarak MASTAN tarafından gönderildi:

In fact, Q2RTX uses Global Illumination like no other game. Switch time of day in different locations("/" key) and you'll see. On the first map get into silencer secret, there's no light that shines there directly. Set pt_indirect_polygon_lights to 0, then switch GI between high and medium(pt_num_bounce_rays 2 and 1) and see the difference - with GI high you'll get residual light from bright surfaces around, otherwise it'll be pitch black.

Like no other? You mean like you have no clue because you don't read Nvidia articles and whitepapers?

What's your point really even? For starters, your "like no other" in this game doesn't use probes or light maps. That's the difference here. It's fully ray traced with few shortcuts, hence being so demanding. Quake 1 looks amazing because it uses light maps. So, offline ray tracing. Quake 1 proves how many static objects there are in a scene that actually don't even need changing judged how well the static data remains consistent within a real time application. That's the goal of texture space based shading, to make use of this again. Seems it can even fix fully the light leak problem.

According to Nvidia, GI can be done on a texture space rendering basis. It's like doing static ray tracing into light maps. But it can be done in real time when needed, so per frame or slower, so not at all when there is no change. The entire shader renders as a texture really. That also means that if you had two cameras, they only would sample the results from the texture, and wouldn't have to run the whole shader again for each of them like normally they would by default.

İlk olarak MASTAN tarafından gönderildi:

Variable shaders? I think you've meant Variable Rate Shading. The wording is important, shaders may not be involved at all, just cast less amount of rays in certain areas.

The wording is only important when you are an idiot who doesn't understand the English language, and a simple point. I never said that it is its name. I didn't use upper case letters. Anybody with a brain knows what I'm talking about.

Quit trying to be smarter than me. Because you are trying too hard and not succeeding. -.-

İlk olarak MASTAN tarafından gönderildi:

If you think you can do better than current state of Q2RTX, then please do. Sources are open.

Sure, I do spend time here instead of making my own engine... It sounds like your feelings got hurt that I said something bad about this game's engine.

Well, in that case, learn to read. I clearly outlined the goal of Nvidia's intentions which translates to that there is nothing really wrong with current state of this game:

İlk olarak Monk tarafından gönderildi:

This ain't an actual product, but just a tech demo to get a point across.

And the point is that even an ancient game like Quake 2 can look fantastic just by using the ray tracing method and modern asset creation pipelines. Hence the lack of optimization. It's not needed to run this game and deliver that point. And before you open your mouth again, no, not even Nvidia can just write better code. One does not simply write better code. -.-

[MASTAN]

İlk olarak Monk tarafından gönderildi:

Anybody with a brain knows what I'm talking about.

Quit trying to be smarter than me. Because you are trying too hard and not succeeding. -.-

İlk olarak Monk tarafından gönderildi:

It sounds like your feelings got hurt that I said something bad about this game's engine.

İlk olarak Monk tarafından gönderildi:

And before you open your mouth again

There's no point in arguing with angry offensive kid, so goodbye.

[Torx]

İlk olarak MASTAN tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Monk tarafından gönderildi:

Anybody with a brain knows what I'm talking about.

Quit trying to be smarter than me. Because you are trying too hard and not succeeding. -.-

İlk olarak Monk tarafından gönderildi:

It sounds like your feelings got hurt that I said something bad about this game's engine.

İlk olarak Monk tarafından gönderildi:

And before you open your mouth again

There's no point in arguing with angry offensive kid, so goodbye.

Says the one who continues to be aggressive and also is the one who started this in the first place. I'm not done with you yet. Let's see what you know really.

So, I'm sure that you know that Doom 3 stencil shadows are vertex based, right? Your suggestion of using stencil shadows instead of RT hard shadows may not be the answer. Because for starters, you don't know how fast RT hard shadows are when also done in texture space, too. Hint, Quake 1. Stencil shadows can't be done in real time in the texture space, because they are vertex based.

That means they can't use alpha maps so can't do real time transparency for foliage, etc. I don't even think that anybody every used pre-computed stencil shadows with transparency, either. There is a reason why this method never was used much in games but instead shadow maps took over. The issue with stencil shadows is with its vertex nature. It requires the generation of an object outlining. It needs to go through alll the vertices to generate a vertices based shadow cast pressing the vertex shader too hard. Especially with modern AAA titles that got a ton of vertices in their models.

Only a modern low poly indie game should do this, I think. Its vertex nature would again display other short comings like not being able to do self casting without exposing hard triangle edges in a character's face for instance if I recall. Quake 4 and Doom 3 just disabled self casting, making the scenes less realistic last time I played ages ago.

Also, stencil shadows go through the resterization pipeline which obviously must be handled in addition to the ray tracing pipeline already in place. Stencil shadows wouldn't be my first choice in a modern game engine. Especially since real time ray tracing is a thing. According to Nvidia, in 5 years RT will be mandatory for all AAA games. And before you open your mouth about "ngreedia" like an AMD-fantard who thinks RTX is a scam to enrich Nvidia. Do proper research first about how much Nvidia contributed to the industry.

But of course you knew all that. Except that it had to be me for the SECOND time to do actual tech talk, "kid". -.-

[Pocahawtness]

İlk olarak Butane tarafından gönderildi:

Do you even know what Raytracing is?

It's a waste of money.
I am sure one day it will be nice but not today.

[Tiranasta]

İlk olarak Monk tarafından gönderildi:

Anyways, Ray Tracing Gems demonstrates hard shadow performance on page 176. It's always at least double compared to even low quality RT soft shadows. And in general much higher than that. RT Hard shadows can be faster than even Cascade Shadow Maps in outdoors, too. That's how fast it can be.

That result is not applicable to Q2RTX. In the test you refer to, hard shadows were faster because only one ray needed to be cast per light, rather than several for soft shadows. Q2RTX however does not cast multiple rays per light (in fact, for direct light sampling it only samples one analytic light per pixel, leaving most lights receiving no samples at all for that pixel for that frame), but rather relies on the denoiser to clean up the noise that results from insufficient samples. Swapping to hard shadows would reduce the amount of noise in the raw path traced image, but would not noticeably improve performance.

As for variable rate shading, I'm sure it COULD be done, but to me at least it seems like it would be a nightmare to get it to integrate cleanly with the denoiser.

[Torx]

İlk olarak Tiranasta tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Monk tarafından gönderildi:

Anyways, Ray Tracing Gems demonstrates hard shadow performance on page 176. It's always at least double compared to even low quality RT soft shadows. And in general much higher than that. RT Hard shadows can be faster than even Cascade Shadow Maps in outdoors, too. That's how fast it can be.

That result is not applicable to Q2RTX. In the test you refer to, hard shadows were faster because only one ray needed to be cast per light, rather than several for soft shadows. Q2RTX however does not cast multiple rays per light (in fact, for direct light sampling it only samples one analytic light per pixel, leaving most lights receiving no samples at all for that pixel for that frame), but rather relies on the denoiser to clean up the noise that results from insufficient samples. Swapping to hard shadows would reduce the amount of noise in the raw path traced image, but would not noticeably improve performance.

Are you sure that there is such a thing as "a light" as in an actual entity? Because when I asked whether all lights are emissive I got a yes as an answer: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1089130/discussions/0/2263565850584883481/

Maybe there is a miss understanding, I haven't used the term "brush" in ages so since the days of the Quake 3 Radiant level editor ages ago. 'brush' is as in 'entity', as in 'light entity', or 'light component' in modern engines like Unity/Unreal. But 'emissive light' would be light that comes from the emissive texture on a mesh, and not from an actual light entity. It's the mesh entity/component itself that acts as a light source already.

I'm sure emissive lights can be hard, too. But that's pointless. If you have one light source, so one light entity with one vector for its position, than you can check for the line of sight with just one ray. But you can't do just one ray with emissive lights because texture don't only have just one pixel in them. Every pixel is its own 'light' really. Well, I figure you could skip many of them, but there still will be many more than one.

[Torx]

By the way, that said, this also means that if a game wants to use hard shadows it will require light entities. A game without light entities placed by hand in the world can't do fast/real hard shadows and must resort to 'focused' soft shadows. Or, should I say 'projected'? Because it would be like a projector reading from one emissive pixel and casting it with one single ray into the scene straight from its triangle.

Well, at least I think that's how it works. I'm still not even done yet getting DirectX to work with the Rust language. Also I said that stencil shadows are on the rasterizing pipe line which is not true. A primary ray obviously can pick up triangles and they are made of them. Still, stencil shadows suck. They only work in old games like Doom3. :D

[Caricia De Trava]

ahahsahsha this game ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ sucks. AMD>Nvidia

[Yakub]

i get 70 fps 1080p 2070 super ryzen 9 3900x

[Big Fella]

İlk olarak █IT S█TÖKÖ█LÎËM█!!!█ tarafından gönderildi:

Cmon man RTX 2080 TI 11 GB I9-9900KF blah blah and still bad FPS for so bad grapichs.
Testing this game for RTX is useles. (No, people on youtube with same spec got low FPS too)

its better now when i have an rtx 2070 and an overclocked cpu, a pretty low i7 so yeah, i easily get 60+fps

[MASTAN]

İlk olarak dog tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak █IT S█TÖKÖ█LÎËM█!!!█ tarafından gönderildi:

Cmon man RTX 2080 TI 11 GB I9-9900KF blah blah and still bad FPS for so bad grapichs.
Testing this game for RTX is useles. (No, people on youtube with same spec got low FPS too)

its better now when i have an rtx 2070 and an overclocked cpu, a pretty low i7 so yeah, i easily get 60+fps

Overclocked CPU won't help at all. Check GPU and CPU loads, they'll be around 100% and 0% correspondingly.

[WhiteDevil]

turn off multi-gpu support, it opened my frames per second right up and I'm using SLI

[Snufflegrunt]

İlk olarak XXshadowassXX tarafından gönderildi:

turn off multi-gpu support, it opened my frames per second right up and I'm using SLI

Why would it be on in the first place for 99% of users?