Ray Tracing... Can't see a difference.

[Gelfan_Dothea]

I typically don't use Ray Tracing, because it's a gimmick that's not worth the FPS drop, but out of curiosity I decided to try the Overdrive setting to see if all the pretty lights made the game pop.

Nope. Couldn't even tell Ray Tracing was on, except for the fact my FPS dropped from 97 to 10. Anyone else? Where are these cinematic visuals Ray Tracing was supposed to bring?

[azogthedefiler25]

It's just for looks. From what I read, most people only use it when they take screenshots. The performance hit just isn't worth it at the moment. Maybe in a few years it won't be so taxing.

[Porkhammer]

The reflections makes a massive difference, you should look again. Look at the windows of cars and buildings, and in the paint of glossy cars especially. Makes the regular reflections look like they're from 2002.

Not sure about overdrive though. Try raytracing without it for more fps.

[MAXTAC]

Time to book an optometrist appointment buddy.

[Gelfan_Dothea]

Originally posted by SuperNecessary:

Time to book an optometrist appointment buddy.

Well I've been watching a lot of Overdrive on vs off videos since testing it and I guess I can kind of see a difference. Ray Tracing makes thing look darker, more blurry and less detailed in places. I do see where reflections are sharper in windows and water puddles (if you're standing there staring at them), but who does that? Aside from you apparently. And this is supposed to be worth giving up 50+ fps for?

If this game is the definitive example of Ray Tracing, then I would say the technology is a bust.

[The GhØst]

The only difference I see is a significant drop in FPS lolololol

[scjay]

Me either. Like you said, It's not worth the trade off. I've tried it on games that are a lot less demanding than CP., They didn't look anything like the trailers. ( Although That applies to most games).

[Gelfan_Dothea]

So I remember playing BF 3 and experiencing the night car chase through New York at night and it looked sooo much better than Cyberpunk (at least where reflections are concerned) and that game didn't have Ray Tracing.

Here's a video of it. YouTube doesn't do the game justice, but you can see my point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp7P2bJPXtg&t=44s

[Thricycle]

Honestly, RT without overdrive I don't think is particularly worth it, its not such a massive improvement that its worth it to me. Overdrive however I find to be very very compelling and a noticeable difference most of the time, especially in dark areas. Obviously its up to an individual to determine if the performance difference is worth what they see on screen, and considering the FPS hit, most people don't think its worth it.

EDIT: new ray reconstruction should make the effects of RT much more realistic and believable, particularly in terms of the current quite blurry and not super clear reflections

[egg fu]

i didn't think so at first too but it really clicked in certain areas, now i can't unsee it. the lighting is just much more intense in certain areas which looks better imo, that's the best way i can describe it. its very noticeable in areas where light from the sun pokes through in alleys or areas with tall buildings surrounding. it looks really nice. overdrive amplifies it even more. you won't see much of a difference if you're out in the open with the sun blaring everything like the badlands for example.

i think the trade off is worth the fps drop but im not one to really care for strictly 60 or more fps in a single player game.

[umadzbro]

Overdrive is a huge difference, very atmospheric in alleyways and small areas with reflecting lights. I don't mind the 60fps instead of the 120 for the trade off.

[Thricycle]

Originally posted by umadzbro:

Overdrive is a huge difference, very atmospheric in alleyways and small areas with reflecting lights. I don't mind the 60fps instead of the 120 for the trade off.

agreed, although its a personal opinion, lots of people can't play / dont want to play at 60fps and want higher fps, in which case wait a few generations for RT to be much less of a hit

[Gelfan_Dothea]

Originally posted by Thricycle:

... lots of people can't play / dont want to play at 60fps and want higher fps...

And that's another thing that makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm on a 120 mhz monitor and I've played plenty of games at 120+ fps and there's absolutely no difference from this and my old 60 mhz monitor. A game running at 60 fps moves just as fast and fluid as a game running at 400+ fps. For example, I now run Doom 2016 at 200+ fps. The game is no faster or smoother than when I played it at 55-60 fps on my 12 year old 8350 FX / 390X PC when it first game out.

I think people are just becoming delusional. Tell them what they see and feel and eventually they'll believe they actually see and feel it. Reminds me of that scene in Jurassic Park when John Hammon is talking about his motorized flea circus and said, "people could swear they saw the fleas. Oh look at the fleas mommy." I wish people would stop enabling worthless gimmicks and tell developers start focusing on realism. Crysis looked photostatic nearly 20 years ago on ancient hardware (and no Ray Tracing), so why haven't we had games that look 10x better now that hardware is 90x more powerful?

[Thricycle]

Originally posted by Gelfan_Dothea:

Originally posted by Thricycle:

... lots of people can't play / dont want to play at 60fps and want higher fps...

And that's another thing that makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm on a 120 mhz monitor and I've played plenty of games at 120+ fps and there's absolutely no difference from this and my old 60 mhz monitor. A game running at 60 fps moves just as fast and fluid as a game running at 400+ fps. For example, I now run Doom 2016 at 200+ fps. The game is no faster or smoother than when I played it at 55-60 fps on my 12 year old 8350 FX / 390X PC when it first game out.

I think people are just becoming delusional. Tell them what they say and feel and eventually they'll believe they actually see and feel it. Reminds me of that scene in Jurassic Park when John Hammon is talking about his motorized flea circus and said, "people could swear they saw the fleas. Oh look at the fleas mommy."

Personally, I can definitely feel the difference between 60 and 120, I've done blind tests and chose the 120 fps every time. In saying that, I would 100% of the time, take the 60FPS for a much nicer and more accurate lighting system because while i can feel the difference, its not that large of a difference, and especially in a singleplayer game, I think 60FPS is perfectly fine and fluid

[xnamxoutlawx]

I played it when the recent RTx update came out for some reason it looked worse to me especially during rain scenes it made the rain look very fake, don't know if maybe they fixed it yet or but I'm gonna wait for PL before playing again.

[Gelfan_Dothea]

It does look worse with RT on. I find this is the case for most RT games I've seen. Makes everything looked washed out and less detailed. But hey, at least reflections in the mud puddles look good :)