4 ms·

My impression from the analyses I've seen so far is that it barely improves the visual quality, since the game designers learned to fake it so well over the las

My impression from the analyses I've seen so far is that it barely improves the visual quality, since the game designers learned to fake it so well over the last two decades, and it comes at a significant cost to frame rate. In particular, good ray-tracing with acceptable noise levels comes at around 500 rays a point. RTX cards are capable of 2 rays a point. Here is a comparison of the regular global illumination vs RTX real-time raytracing, particularly take look at noise levels generated by RTX in the background. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuoER1DwYLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuoER1DwYLY

dragontamer 8y ago
>In particular, good ray-tracing with acceptable noise levels comes at around 500 rays a point. RTX cards are capable of 2 rays a point. NVidia has that temporal denoising algorithm though. So noise is smoothed between space and time. When you have 60-frames per second, you can "recycle" old frame's raytracing data for the current frame. As long as the raytracing lights rarely change, it'd work out pretty well. The fast-moving lights would probably have to still use rasterization techniques, but the demos of the temporal-denoising algorithm from NVidia are very impressive. FYI: Blender Cycle's denoising is still kinda bad even at 1000 or even 5000 samples (at least, when you look at low-light areas close to walls). You gotta zoom in and look, but artistic CGI requires many, many samples before raytracing looks smooth. Its a major advancement for NVidia to come up with a raytracing denoising algorithm that works well for video games on only 1-ish samples per pixel.