3 ms·

Based on the pixel sparkling in the video I've seen if Battlefield, it looks like Nvidia's raytracing is being used for each pixel. I'm not sure if it has to b

Based on the pixel sparkling in the video I've seen if Battlefield, it looks like Nvidia's raytracing is being used for each pixel. I'm not sure if it has to be that way or if it's just underoptomozed at the moment. I think you could get something 95% as good with far better performance by only tracing vertices and then raster rendering the resultant transform. Would be a good approach for accurate shadows too where you don't really care about texture fragments.

dragontamer 8y ago
> Based on the pixel sparkling in the video I've seen if Battlefield, it looks like Nvidia's raytracing is being used for each pixel. I'm not sure if it has to be that way or if it's just underoptomozed at the moment. 1-sample per pixel is already incredibly low for raytracing. A raw 1 spp raytraced image looks HORRIBLE. The reason why it looks anywhere close to usable is because NVidia post-processes all of that noise through their tensor-cores FP16. It is some kind of spacial / temporal-filter effect (averaging pixels across time, and space... where "space" is mapped to geometry framebuffers to keep object boundaries correct).
- CoolGuySteve 8y ago
  Ya that's kind of what I'm getting at. If your physically accurate rendering is pushing the hardware limits so far that you need extensive post processing to maintain the framerate then it stops being so physically accurate. At that point, it seems like there are more interesting things you can do with the hardware than a naive raytrace that would look and perform better while, admittedly, not being 100% physically accurate.
  - lostmyoldone 8y ago
    I'd be very surprised if most common usage of RTX would turn out to be anything even remotely physically accurate. A more likely use in the immediate future is to simplify some parts of the rendering pipeline, and improve quality on a few others. Without looking too much into to it, improving and simplifying soft shadows and are lighting seems like a no-brainer. Both are really hard to implement efficiently using rasterization, and/but both needs a good denoiser. Will be interesting to see thought. I believe it's a bit later than I predicted that we get to see real time ray tracing on commodity hardware, but what is a couple of years over a few decades?
- posterboy 8y ago
  If I understand you correctly, they mix rays coming from one spot over many frames instead of shooting more rays in a single frame? That sounds great and a bit inspired by natural vision. Optical flow sensors are cheap enough for computer mouses and the like. But who says it's really just one ray? The number of frames to integrate would be too high Of course that'd work for fps as slow as battle of duty \s

dragontamer 8y ago

> Based on the pixel sparkling in the video I've seen if Battlefield, it looks like Nvidia's raytracing is being used for each pixel. I'm not sure if it has to be that way or if it's just underoptomozed at the moment. 1-sample per pixel is already incredibly low for raytracing. A raw 1 spp raytraced image looks HORRIBLE. The reason why it looks anywhere close to usable is because NVidia post-processes all of that noise through their tensor-cores FP16. It is some kind of spacial / temporal-filter effect (averaging pixels across time, and space... where "space" is mapped to geometry framebuffers to keep object boundaries correct).

CoolGuySteve 8y ago
Ya that's kind of what I'm getting at. If your physically accurate rendering is pushing the hardware limits so far that you need extensive post processing to maintain the framerate then it stops being so physically accurate. At that point, it seems like there are more interesting things you can do with the hardware than a naive raytrace that would look and perform better while, admittedly, not being 100% physically accurate.
- lostmyoldone 8y ago
  I'd be very surprised if most common usage of RTX would turn out to be anything even remotely physically accurate. A more likely use in the immediate future is to simplify some parts of the rendering pipeline, and improve quality on a few others. Without looking too much into to it, improving and simplifying soft shadows and are lighting seems like a no-brainer. Both are really hard to implement efficiently using rasterization, and/but both needs a good denoiser. Will be interesting to see thought. I believe it's a bit later than I predicted that we get to see real time ray tracing on commodity hardware, but what is a couple of years over a few decades?
posterboy 8y ago
If I understand you correctly, they mix rays coming from one spot over many frames instead of shooting more rays in a single frame? That sounds great and a bit inspired by natural vision. Optical flow sensors are cheap enough for computer mouses and the like. But who says it's really just one ray? The number of frames to integrate would be too high Of course that'd work for fps as slow as battle of duty \s