RTX is not a gimmick

[Iggy Wolf]

Honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing some people say this. RTX has been around for a while. It's just that we didn't have capable GPUs that could run it without greatly sacrificing performance.

However, I can definitely see it as the future of rendering lighting and shadows, and future GPUs and the consoles placing greater emphasis on it. Comparing it to "Physx" is disingenuous. It's not about whether you can see an obvious difference in the quality of the lighting or shadows.

It's the rendering process. Ray-traced lighting is easier for devs to accomplish than the current "prebaked lights and shadows" that require painstakingly placing lighting in different parts of a scene. It's also probably why not many games have day and night cycles (even when they do, the shortcomings are obvious when the transitions happen).

As an example, daylight/nighttime transition in Metro Exodus is more seamless with RTX because the light source (the Sun) naturally casts and removes light as it moves. I'm sure my post is not the first of this type but I just wanted to give my opinion on it.

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by Brockenstein:

Well, we still don't have those GPU's, not really. That may change and the initial RTX implementation is a first step and I thought Quake II RTX was pretty amazing. But the reality is most people aren't running RTX capable GPU's and won't be for years. In the meantime developers are going to end up supporting both traditional technologies and ray tracing. It'll be quite a few years before Ray Tracing capabilities are a hard requirement for games.

I understand people's skepticism though. No one is onboard with giving up a significant chunk of performance for a new lighting scheme, even a really good one. After all plenty of non-RTX games still look pretty good without RTX. Although a good side by side demo will make a believer out of a lot of people. Then it's just a matter of the performance being good enough.

So it'll all come together it's just going to take half a decade at the minimum.

I don't argue against that. I guess my issue is people think that because it would take some time, that therefore it's a gimmick. It's not "3D". People thought VR was a gimmick and now some games are practically based around it. But while VR is a niche thing, RTX looks to be promising and actually change the way games are developed as well as how graphics are delivered. And I'm not saying games don't look good without it.

I just feel like brushing it off as a "new lighting scheme" is what makes people think and say it's a gimmick. It's a new technology (as far as gaming and GPUs are concerned) in the early stages. I say, give it some time and a chance, and I think people will come around. I certainly wouldn't go by the current 2000X RTX series GPUs though as a marker of how well it performs and how good it can look. No one denies that Nvidia jumped the gun just to try to sell the 2000X series over their 1000X series, which is probably what put people off of RTX.

[Start_Running]

The question is, will it come together before they try to shove 'the next big thing' down the consumer's throats.

[Xautos]

I'm still waiting on AMD to come out with a graphics card as good if not slightly better than Nvidia at half the price with the same capabilities or better. I know AMD are trying to make that jump and I'm not prepared to leap at an RTX card at the prices they are going for these days, especially with this technology only being discovered and still being explored in potential.

[Sazzouu]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

Honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing some people say this. RTX has been around for a while. It's just that we didn't have capable GPUs that could run it without greatly sacrificing performance.

However, I can definitely see it as the future of rendering lighting and shadows, and future GPUs and the consoles placing greater emphasis on it. Comparing it to "Physx" is disingenuous. It's not about whether you can see an obvious difference in the quality of the lighting or shadows.

And what qualifies you to declare it as the future? I mean even the graphics department at my university says (in terms of gaming - important to mention) RayTracing is nothing but a nice little candy where you take a few bites and eventually your stomach will hurt. Even one of my professors says that - side note: he (or his research group) is directly partnered with Nvidia.

So do YOU see something even scientists and developers don't see then? If yes then enlight us please because from what I see about your post is basically the blurred view of an impressed person that got overwhelmed by the fresh graphics and nothing more.. no offense really.

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

It's the rendering process. Ray-traced lighting is easier for devs to accomplish than the current "prebaked lights and shadows" that require painstakingly placing lighting in different parts of a scene. It's also probably why not many games have day and night cycles (even when they do, the shortcomings are obvious when the transitions happen).

As an example, daylight/nighttime transition in Metro Exodus is more seamless with RTX because the light source (the Sun) naturally casts and removes light as it moves. I'm sure my post is not the first of this type but I just wanted to give my opinion on it.

That is partially true. Of course lighting is mathematically speaking way easier to realize than with pre-rendered stuff or anything but in order to achieve this you balance on a small degree where one mistake in your optimizations causes the differences between cinematic experience, playable and flip-book art. Sure you could use pre-built APIs and renderers but that way you will sacrifice multi-plattform support. And therefore ditch a huge amount of playerbase

You mentioned Metro Exodus... yes it looks very impressive yet still there is no support for either Linux or MacOS and the reason obviously is not because they changed anything severely since it is the very same engine they used.

RTX is no where near to be anything of a "future" for gaming

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by BeatZ #GrandPrix2.0Please:

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

Honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing some people say this. RTX has been around for a while. It's just that we didn't have capable GPUs that could run it without greatly sacrificing performance.

However, I can definitely see it as the future of rendering lighting and shadows, and future GPUs and the consoles placing greater emphasis on it. Comparing it to "Physx" is disingenuous. It's not about whether you can see an obvious difference in the quality of the lighting or shadows.

And what qualifies you to declare it as the future? I mean even the graphics department at my university says (in terms of gaming - important to mention) RayTracing is nothing but a nice little candy where you take a few bites and eventually your stomach will hurt. Even one of my professors says that - side note: he (or his research group) is directly partnered with Nvidia.

So do YOU see something even scientists and developers don't see then? If yes then enlight us please because from what I see about your post is basically the blurred view of an impressed person that got overwhelmed by the fresh graphics and nothing more.. no offense really.

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

It's the rendering process. Ray-traced lighting is easier for devs to accomplish than the current "prebaked lights and shadows" that require painstakingly placing lighting in different parts of a scene. It's also probably why not many games have day and night cycles (even when they do, the shortcomings are obvious when the transitions happen).

As an example, daylight/nighttime transition in Metro Exodus is more seamless with RTX because the light source (the Sun) naturally casts and removes light as it moves. I'm sure my post is not the first of this type but I just wanted to give my opinion on it.

That is partially true. Of course lighting is mathematically speaking way easier to realize than with pre-rendered stuff or anything but in order to achieve this you balance on a small degree where one mistake in your optimizations causes the differences between cinematic experience, playable and flip-book art. Sure you could use pre-built APIs and renderers but that way you will sacrifice multi-plattform support.

You mentioned Metro Exodus... yes it looks very impressive yet still there is no support either Linux or MacOS and the reason obviously is not because they changed anything severely since it is the very same engine they used.

RTX is no where near to be anything of a "future" for gaming

No need for the snark. I wasn't being insulting or somehow saying that it must be the future. You assume I'm somehow so amazed and mesmerized by RTX that I can't see it's shortcomings or that I think it's perfect. I don't. And your claim about your professor is one anyone can make. It doesn't exactly have any more merit than my argument. The point is, current support for it is only low because the industry standard is always based on what consoles can accomplish.

Now, if the next generation consoles adopt it, and it becomes more mainstream, then we shouldn't be surprised to see more mainstream support for it and it being available on more games. Even Physx software is now included with every Nvidia driver update, whether games even use Physx or not (and some probably do, just not active "advanced physx" like Metro but as part of the engine.

[kitt]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

Originally posted by BeatZ #GrandPrix2.0Please:

And what qualifies you to declare it as the future? I mean even the graphics department at my university says (in terms of gaming - important to mention) RayTracing is nothing but a nice little candy where you take a few bites and eventually your stomach will hurt. Even one of my professors says that - side note: he (or his research group) is directly partnered with Nvidia.

So do YOU see something even scientists and developers don't see then? If yes then enlight us please because from what I see about your post is basically the blurred view of an impressed person that got overwhelmed by the fresh graphics and nothing more.. no offense really.




That is partially true. Of course lighting is mathematically speaking way easier to realize than with pre-rendered stuff or anything but in order to achieve this you balance on a small degree where one mistake in your optimizations causes the differences between cinematic experience, playable and flip-book art. Sure you could use pre-built APIs and renderers but that way you will sacrifice multi-plattform support.

You mentioned Metro Exodus... yes it looks very impressive yet still there is no support either Linux or MacOS and the reason obviously is not because they changed anything severely since it is the very same engine they used.

RTX is no where near to be anything of a "future" for gaming

No need for the snark. I wasn't being insulting or somehow saying that it must be the future. You assume I'm somehow so amazed and mesmerized by RTX that I can't see it's shortcomings or that I think it's perfect. I don't. And your claim about your professor is one anyone can make. It doesn't exactly have any more merit than my argument. The point is, current support for it is only low because the industry standard is always based on what consoles can accomplish.

Now, if the next generation consoles adopt it, and it becomes more mainstream, then we shouldn't be surprised to see more mainstream support for it and it being available on more games. Even Physx software is now included with every Nvidia driver update, whether games even use Physx or not (and some probably do, just not active "advanced physx" like Metro but as part of the engine.

i quote your first Post, ok?

"RTX is not a gimmick
Honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing some people say this. RTX has been around for a while. It's just that we didn't have capable GPUs that could run it without greatly sacrificing performance.

However, I can definitely see it as the future of rendering lighting and shadows, "



do you need more Hint were you say stuff?

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

No need for the snark. I wasn't being insulting or somehow saying that it must be the future. You assume I'm somehow so amazed and mesmerized by RTX that I can't see it's shortcomings or that I think it's perfect. I don't. And your claim about your professor is one anyone can make. It doesn't exactly have any more merit than my argument. The point is, current support for it is only low because the industry standard is always based on what consoles can accomplish.

Uh...no. It's generally based on tha median capabilities of the audience. I.e the industry standard is based around what most of the market already has.

Now, if the next generation consoles adopt it, and it becomes more mainstream, then we shouldn't be surprised to see more mainstream support for it and it being available on more games. Even Physx software is now included with every Nvidia driver update, whether games even use Physx or not (and some probably do, just not active "advanced physx" like Metro but as part of the engine.

Physx is a perfect example. And lets be real. RTX looks great but thats all. Iooks great, has a massive performance hit and is expensive. Until two of those things change its going to be about as mainstream as VR.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

As an example, daylight/nighttime transition in Metro Exodus is more seamless with RTX because the light source (the Sun) naturally casts and removes light as it moves. I'm sure my post is not the first of this type but I just wanted to give my opinion on it.

Keep in mind that people who aren't that interested in graphics will most certainly see it as a gimmick. As are people who can't get it now anyway.

Originally posted by Start_Running:

And lets be real. RTX looks great but thats all. Iooks great, has a massive performance hit and is expensive. Until two of those things change its going to be about as mainstream as VR.

And this also screams gimmick, btw.

But honest question, OP. Why does it matter how other people see it?

[Iggy Wolf]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

And lets be real. RTX looks great but thats all. Iooks great, has a massive performance hit and is expensive. Until two of those things change its going to be about as mainstream as VR.

And this also screams gimmick, btw.

But honest question, OP. Why does it matter how other people see it? [/quote]

I guess it doesn't, but everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? I was just wondering what other people thought and whether RTX can be adopted on a more mainstream level. After all, one of the selling points that the new generation consoles wants to use is their ability to have RTX, especially since they're using AMD hardware, despite no AMD cards yet supporting it.

[4K-A7]

expensive cards

[yer]

uhm

[iceman1980]

It is a gimmick and still currently computationally infeasible. It belongs in the same basket as many other gimmicky technologies. However the other technologies outside of RTX in games is not, improved render times for raytraced scenes offer genuine improvements as well as "AI denoising" then again this isn't "AI" it is "machine intelligence" two very different things.

But most of the "great advances with RTX" have nothing to do with RTX