3 ms·

'640kB ought to be enough for anyone' This step towards real time raytracing is going to happen sooner or later. This kind of progression is why we aren't stuck

'640kB ought to be enough for anyone' This step towards real time raytracing is going to happen sooner or later. This kind of progression is why we aren't stuck with Wolfenstein 3D

dragontamer 8y ago
I disagree. Raytracing has always been possible. There are GPU demos of real-time raytracing back in 2010. But gamers typically care more about higher-FPS / higher-resolutions rather than more realistic shadows and reflections. I think a "killer app" needs to be done. Ex: a game designed around raytracing: a stealth game using shadows to gain information around a corner (and worrying about the placement of your own shadow). That sort of thing... For now, game developers have this cool visual technology, but no real way to integrate it into a gameplay mechanic that players really care about.
- tntn 8y ago
  > gamers typically care more about higher-FPS / higher-resolutions rather than more realistic shadows and reflections. It's a balance though, right? Programmable shading took off because lots of people wanted the better shading that it enabled (at the cost of lower framerates/resolution). So it seems plausible that people might again choose quality improvements through raytracing over framerates/resolution (especially as 4k 120fps becomes more achievable).
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    The majority of the demo was probably traditional rasterized graphics. Raytracing isn't "replacing" anything outside of reflections and global illumination in these realtime demos. Will video gamers be willing to pay $600+ for GPUs like the 2070, 2080, or 2080 Ti, for a few improved shadows and reflections / refractions? I think yes, but ONLY if you get a game to actually make shadows and reflections important. RTX benefits are a very subtle shift that costs a LOT of money right now.
    - blihp 8y ago
      Thief: The Ray-Traced Age?
- thfuran 8y ago
  A fully path traced engine basically is its own killer app as far as the game design process goes.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    No one is selling fully path traced engines. We're talking about adding RTX features on top of existing engines for a subset of calculations (reflections and global illumination). It would be absolutely a killer app to have a fully path-traced engine. But that's 10 years away at the minimum. A $1200 GPU can only do ~1-sample-per-pixel at video game speeds (~60fps). The heavy denoising and post-processing means that the majority of your video game graphics will remain rasterized. "RTX" is added on top for specific surfaces (ie: reflections on the water), or specific lights. There's simply not enough GPU power to get anything more than that right now.

'640kB ought to be enough for anyone' This step towards real time raytracing is going to happen sooner or later. This kind of progression is why we aren't stuck with Wolfenstein 3D

dragontamer 8y ago

I disagree. Raytracing has always been possible. There are GPU demos of real-time raytracing back in 2010. But gamers typically care more about higher-FPS / higher-resolutions rather than more realistic shadows and reflections. I think a "killer app" needs to be done. Ex: a game designed around raytracing: a stealth game using shadows to gain information around a corner (and worrying about the placement of your own shadow). That sort of thing... For now, game developers have this cool visual technology, but no real way to integrate it into a gameplay mechanic that players really care about.

tntn 8y ago
> gamers typically care more about higher-FPS / higher-resolutions rather than more realistic shadows and reflections. It's a balance though, right? Programmable shading took off because lots of people wanted the better shading that it enabled (at the cost of lower framerates/resolution). So it seems plausible that people might again choose quality improvements through raytracing over framerates/resolution (especially as 4k 120fps becomes more achievable).
- dragontamer 8y ago
  The majority of the demo was probably traditional rasterized graphics. Raytracing isn't "replacing" anything outside of reflections and global illumination in these realtime demos. Will video gamers be willing to pay $600+ for GPUs like the 2070, 2080, or 2080 Ti, for a few improved shadows and reflections / refractions? I think yes, but ONLY if you get a game to actually make shadows and reflections important. RTX benefits are a very subtle shift that costs a LOT of money right now.
  - blihp 8y ago
    Thief: The Ray-Traced Age?
thfuran 8y ago
A fully path traced engine basically is its own killer app as far as the game design process goes.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  No one is selling fully path traced engines. We're talking about adding RTX features on top of existing engines for a subset of calculations (reflections and global illumination). It would be absolutely a killer app to have a fully path-traced engine. But that's 10 years away at the minimum. A $1200 GPU can only do ~1-sample-per-pixel at video game speeds (~60fps). The heavy denoising and post-processing means that the majority of your video game graphics will remain rasterized. "RTX" is added on top for specific surfaces (ie: reflections on the water), or specific lights. There's simply not enough GPU power to get anything more than that right now.