Don't understand the hype with the raytracing

[EternalLoop]

Finally i got a rtx 3070, tested this one, control and metro exodus.

I don't feel any different.

[MASTAN]

Postat inițial de cotss2012:

One difference I've noticed is that raytracing makes the edges of shadows much blurrier. This is, in my opinion, a huge step backward; one of the big draws of Doom 3 was the ermagherd real-time dynamic shadows with sharp edges instead of everything casting blurry blob shadows on the ground.

Sharp shadows are unrealistic, Doom 3 had them because hardware level of that time was barely able to produce only sharp-edged real-time shadows. Raytracing simulates same shadows that we see in real life - sharper for point sources(AFAIK there are no such sources in Q2RTX, but sun is the closest one) and shadows with penumbra for lengthy sources(most lights in Q2RTX).
Change sun size with "sun_angle" variable and see how shadow edge changes.

Another difference is that when you look through a window, instead of seeing only what's on the other side of that window, you'll see that but also a reflection. If you've ever tried to drive at night with the lights in your car on, you'll know how much of a "defect in reality" this is and how much you'd rather just be able to see through the windows without the reflections.

Yes, Q2RTX simulates reality-like lighting much better than other games. As if it's a bad thing.

[Blue]

Another screenshot for the RTX version looks better argument.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2355026276

[WarnerCK]

Postat inițial de cotss2012:

Quake II RTX looks a million times better than the old-school Quake II because it uses a high-resolution texture pack. That's where the visual improvement is coming from. It has nothing to do with ray-tracing.

You're so right! They're 256×256!!! Some are even 512×512!!!11 What a time to be alive.

Feel free to just play Quake 2 XP if you think it's just as good as realtime ray tracing.

[Blue]

This video gives an excellent in-depth review of the big difference the RTX version makes to Quake 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9vXz9-C-AY&ab_channel=DigitalFoundry

[cotss2012]

Postat inițial de :):

the lightning changes its face

lolwhut

Postat inițial de :):

it's not simply "a texture pack"

I never said it was. I said that the new textures are where most of the visual improvement is coming from. The addition of RTX merely makes it look *different*, not better.

Postat inițial de MASTAN:

Sharp shadows are unrealistic... Yes, Q2RTX simulates reality-like

You're still not getting it, are you? Realistic does not equal better. shadows with sharp edges look better regardless of whether they're more realistic or not. Being able to see what I'm looking at is better regardless of whether it's more realistic or not.

[Master]

dude you don't even own the game, please, spare me.

[cotss2012]

You have no idea what I own or don't own. You only know what's associated with my Steam account.

[JellyPuff]

It's more of a tech demo, like the version of Crysis, that runs without dedicated graphics on a Threadripper CPU.

Every single pixel you see in Quake RTX is ray-traced. Not just reflections and lighting. We're far from replacing traditional, rasterized graphic rendering and we might never fully replace it, but it's still cool to see what's technically possible already.

[MASTAN]

Postat inițial de cotss2012:

Postat inițial de MASTAN:

Sharp shadows are unrealistic... Yes, Q2RTX simulates reality-like

You're still not getting it, are you? Realistic does not equal better. shadows with sharp edges look better regardless of whether they're more realistic or not. Being able to see what I'm looking at is better regardless of whether it's more realistic or not.

You're the only one who thinks that sharp shadows are better.
Why are you even here then? Play Quake 2 XP, it has sharp dynamic shadows.

[Doctor Go-Go]

It's like every other software feature, it only really matters if and when the developers take full advantage of it and implement it to fully support it for the full effects. It's not just some magic plug-in that does all the work for them.

You'll see this a lot, games include software features that aren't fully supported.

Just like high resolutions AAF and FSAA 25 years ago. The options where there but very few games supported them AND if they did the support was so vague or limited what was the point? It still looked better if only slightly.

How many went with Direct 3D because OpenGL could look much better when it came to supported features but ... most didn't care to put that much more effort into a little more polish and detail. Glide had some really cool features but was quickly abandoned.

As for resolutions ... Sure you could set the monitor to 1600x1200+ but I think actual resolutions were between 640x480 - 1024x768. Most of it wasn't fully supported just stretch and distorted. I assume they just went by common projector POV volume rather than supporting 20 resolutions when roughly 4 would be used. It wasn't necessary THEN.

So that's how it's going to be with everything, it only matters when they fully utilize it, if ever.

[TROFY-KSA]

Go for minecraft ray tracing

[SiEgE]

Postat inițial de DoomiesDoom:

Finally i got a rtx 3070, tested this one, control and metro exodus.

I don't feel any different.

kek. Another one got baited into tech. Tech is a thing where you're looking for differences. If you don't know what to look for - you'll see no difference, because nowadays game development spoiled you with other similar-looking features :D

Also, control and exodus are kinda bad to test rtx. They weren't made with RTX in mind. You need to have devs show off the thing, so you can actually notice it. Even Quake is more like a tech demo, rather than a proper feature show-off.

The best part about RTX is:
- Real-time reflections of things you cannot see directly. That is the hardware limit of other videocards - they cannot properly "reflect" things your camera doesn't see.
- Proper refractions
- Complex reflections(light reflected multiple times)

If you want a PROPER tech show-off, look at minecraft texture pack authors:
https://youtu.be/eA-aJz7xIQw

[SiEgE]

Postat inițial de Heinous Anus:

https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/comparisons/quake-ii-rtx-nvidia-rtx-ray-tracing/quake-ii-rtx-nvidia-rtx-ray-tracing-interactive-comparison-002-on-vs-off.html

It's not going to increase the number of polygons that were designed at least 20 years ago. Not sure what you were expecting, but the link above shows a very favorable outcome. Drag the vertical slider side to side and see for yourself.

I think screenshot-by-screenshot comparison is not the best, same as video comparisons.
RTX is a thing best felt through moving the camera with your own hand, and WASDing on your own.
Or at least timelapses with the sunlight on a reflective, almost-dark room is kinda fitting.

[peeplj]

The thing about ray tracing is that it is amazing that we can do this --at all-- on personal computing equipment. Until just a few years ago, that seemed pretty unlikely to ever happen.

[Torx]

Postat inițial de DoomiesDoom:

i think it's overhyped, but if you people are happy with it then i'm ok

It's not over hyped, it's what graphics enthusiasts expected and got delivered. It's like saying Tesla is over hyped just because you don't like cars. Duh?

I don't know your background, but there is also more to the story under the hood of ray tracing when actually making the game. So, if you are not a dev, then you only see half of the whole picture of ray tracing, because you may only be a consumer.