Why no ray tracing or even better path tracing?

[_onyx_]

Since I am playing several games that do have ray tracing, games without it look wrong to me. I guess I am now used to ray traced look and feel.

Sadly no updates mentioning ray tracing will be added. Gladly DLSS is added. With DLSS on quality not dropping below 100FPS most of the time160 FPS, So I would not have any issue with the performance cost ray tracing would give. I would prefer a better looking game, better eye candy.

[Mkhuseli5k]

If it was going to have Raytracing Bethesda would've advertised that everywhere. Elder Scrolls 6 will probably have Raytracing.

[NerdyMusician]

I'm guessing even attempting would bring the Creation Engine to its knees, well, further to its knees.

[_onyx_]

Originally posted by NerdyMusician:

I'm guessing even attempting would bring the Creation Engine to its knees, well, further to its knees.

In my opinion, the latest graphic cards are capable of running the game even if it is path-traced.

With my 4080 I run everything maxed out 130-160 fps everywhere (DLSS on).

Currently, the shadows and lighting effects appear odd in various places.

If they would do path tracing, they would have to position the lights on the good spots probably a lot of work because that is the reason it now looks odd because light and shadows etc. do not connect naturally.

[Moriendor]

The answer is very simple and only three letters long: AMD.

[Ladioz]

Originally posted by Moriendor:

The answer is very simple and only three letters long: AMD.

The game runs worst on AMD than it does on Nvidia i believe.
Until FSR3 or Fluid Frames is out, AMD gamers will have to accept 70-100 fps in Starfield

[pike]

amd beta driver 23.30.13.05 has fluid frames , works good
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3132953966

[Athenas]

Originally posted by Moriendor:

The answer is very simple and only three letters long: AMD.

This ^

[Ladioz]

Originally posted by pike:

amd beta driver 23.30.13.05 has fluid frames , works good
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3132953966

Very interesting
How much fps does that setting offer you?

[Wrinkly]

The game has exclusive AMD sponsorship. AMD offer very poor raytracing perfromance while FSR is garbage hence the 2015 graphics.

Originally posted by Wrinkly:

Original thread locked due to trolls - https://steamcommunity.com/app/1716740/discussions/0/3815160338745558812/

Originally posted by Wrinkly:

More confirmation on why DLSS is far superior to FSR - Digital Foundry - Starfield PC - Digital Foundry Tech Review - Best Settings, Xbox Series X Comparisons + More - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciOFwUBTs5s

Modded DLSS, which native support could improve further, is already looking better than FSR as expected - FSR vs DLSS in Starfield! | The Thing AMD Doesn’t Want You to See - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5rfGG9-U9E

Poor PC optimisation while having AMD as the exclusive partner wanting to sell you a new CPU is very telling - https://www.dsogaming.com/news/bethesdas-todd-howard-on-starfield-pc-optimization-you-may-need-to-upgrade-your-pc/

What should a 2023 next gen title should look like, what Starfield could have looked like -

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reABCMNGM3w
  
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K8Br6jHkcs

Why AMD holds back graphics on PC, 1440p CP2077 Overdrive using performance upscaling achieves -

4090 - 100 FPS
4080 - 70
4070Ti - 62
3090Ti - 60
4070 - 51
3080 - 50
3070 - 35
2080Ti - 28
7900XTX - 27
7900XT - 23
3060 - 23
2070S - 20
6950XT - 17
2060 - 15
6800XT - 14
A770 - 11
2060 6GB - 11
6800 - 10
A750 - 10
6700XT - 8
6700 - 7
6650XT - 1

That's right, a 5yo Nvidia GPU is beating AMD's latest and greatest.

[pike]

Originally posted by Ladioz:

Originally posted by pike:

amd beta driver 23.30.13.05 has fluid frames , works good
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3132953966

Very interesting
How much fps does that setting offer you?

@2556x1440 it's over a 100, usually around 119, there's a few spots that dip into the 70's .
with the frames injected it's just butter smooth , as shown in the screenshot amd reports well over 230fps average, thats kinda misleading because about half are the injected frames.
but it does feel and look like 230+ and thats maxed setting with motion blur off , 100% resolution , fsr , dynamic shadows off , it's pretty bionic

[pike]

cp2077 i get 600fps everything turned on and maxed , yes raytracing too

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3132982842

[Ladioz]

Originally posted by pike:

Originally posted by Ladioz:

Very interesting
How much fps does that setting offer you?

@2556x1440 it's over a 100, usually around 119, there's a few spots that dip into the 70's .
with the frames injected it's just butter smooth , as shown in the screenshot amd reports well over 230fps average, thats kinda misleading because about half are the injected frames.
but it does feel and look like 230+ and thats maxed setting with motion blur off , 100% resolution , fsr , dynamic shadows off , it's pretty bionic

Isnt it sad that the game dips alot from 100 to 70 or to 50? its really a way to ruin your day.
I love this game alot but a game that looks like it came out in 2011 shouldn't have this drops on a high end rig. I cant imagine how people with budget builds are happy to sit there with their 40s and not complain

[Ladioz]

Originally posted by pike:

cp2077 i get 600fps everything turned on and maxed , yes raytracing too

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3132982842

Haha in the main menu of Cyberpunk :D

[pike]

Originally posted by Ladioz:

Originally posted by pike:

cp2077 i get 600fps everything turned on and maxed , yes raytracing too

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3132982842

Haha in the main menu of Cyberpunk :D

no, that was in game , it looked terrible , but it is a beta still and i think i was at 1920x1080 (fsr on) i dont like cp2077 i only fired it up to see what it would do

[pike]

Originally posted by Ladioz:

Originally posted by pike:

@2556x1440 it's over a 100, usually around 119, there's a few spots that dip into the 70's .
with the frames injected it's just butter smooth , as shown in the screenshot amd reports well over 230fps average, thats kinda misleading because about half are the injected frames.
but it does feel and look like 230+ and thats maxed setting with motion blur off , 100% resolution , fsr , dynamic shadows off , it's pretty bionic

Isnt it sad that the game dips alot from 100 to 70 or to 50? its really a way to ruin your day.
I love this game alot but a game that looks like it came out in 2011 shouldn't have this drops on a high end rig. I cant imagine how people with budget builds are happy to sit there with their 40s and not complain

just by the tree area below the lodge where funny tree guys at , and in front of the ranger headquarters on akila it drops to the 70's, it's hard to explain , the injected frames are duplicates so it will report a high frame count but it's really about half , but it doesnt matter because its so smooth and i have no input lag