4 ms·

If you have static lights in a static world with pre-computed raytraced lights, yes it doesn't change that much. But once you have a dynamic world and dynamic l

If you have static lights in a static world with pre-computed raytraced lights, yes it doesn't change that much. But once you have a dynamic world and dynamic lights, it's a game changer. Minecraft with raytracing is a great example. It's so much better with raytracing compared to simple shaders. I also heard that it will make game development a lot smoother and faster in the futur once most hardware will be powerful enough. No need to build lightmasses, no ambiant occlusion hacks and similar, no reflections with approximate results.

sprash 7y ago
This[1] demo does pretty convincing dynamic lighting without the need for RTX relying just on regular shaders. To me nvidias RTX looks like a gimmick with the sole purpose of enforcing vendor lock-in. 1.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtU2194C-D4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtU2194C-D4
- DavidVoid 7y ago
  RTX is hardware acceleration for many ray tracing operations, how is that a gimmick?
- dahart 7y ago
  That demo is a ray marching shader with hardly any geometry, and the geometry is procedural. You do understand this method can't be used to render video games or films? > RTX looks like a gimmick with the sole purpose of enforcing vendor lock-in. That's like saying a floating point unit, or a Google TPU, or even an Intel CPU is a gimmick to enforce vendor lock-in. If you want to do something faster in software, you can make hardware for it. Don't buy hardware if you don't need speed.
  - sprash 7y ago
    The most expensive step in ray marching is to find the distance which you will get for free after one rasterization pass via the z-buffer. With the z-buffer already present every effect used in this demo can be applied in the same way to purely rasterized graphics with even less cost. E.g. Doom Eternal has very elaborated dynamic lighting effects but uses 100% forward rendering. RTX is completely pointless.
    - dahart 7y ago
      > The most expensive step in ray marching is to find the distance which you will get for free after one rasterization pass via the z-buffer. Not true, you can't make that claim. The most expensive step depends entirely on what you render. The material can easily be more expensive than the SDF. > With the z-buffer already present every effect used in this demo can be applied in the same way to purely rasterized graphics with even less cost. You're completely forgetting that shadows are a thing. > RTX is completely pointless. I interpret that to mean that either 1- you're mad at Nvidia for various reasons not particularly related to RTX, or 2- you don't know what RTX actually does.
      - sprash 7y ago
        > The material can easily be more expensive than the SDF. But you still don't have to calculate the SDF in the first place. Which means one step less computation for your material. Also geometries with high object counts are not as slow as it is the case with SDF. > You're completely forgetting that shadows are a thing. Those are being done via stencil buffers since doom3. And for non-point-like sources you have a bag of tricks available via shaders to make them soft. No RTX needed! > you don't know what RTX actually does. I know what RTX does. As long as the results are so subtle to the point where on some screenshot comparisons you can't even tell which one is with or without, RTX is completely pointless especially when it comes with a performance penalty.
        dahart 7y ago
        Why are you arguing about SDFs? The demo you linked proves nothing about what either games do nor what RTX does, in the context of this thread it’s irrelevant whether z-buffers save you one iteration of ray marching. Not needing a special shadow map or stencil volume or a big bag of tricky tricks for area lights is one of the reasons to use ray tracing & RTX. The main point of RTX is faster ray tracing. You’re complaining about the screenshot marketing of specific games, not really demonstrating an understanding the tradeoffs of ray tracing. It’s fine if you don’t see any advantage to having ray tracing in Control or Battlefield, and/or don’t like the idea that some people see value in better visuals or easier development. That means you don’t like it. I see a point even if you don’t.
jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
Full RT will be amazing for some things like a DOOM game where shadows in corridors make you stay alert, but otherwise I don't think it is a game changer in terms of gameplay. What is a given is that there will be a flood of games overusing it, like it happened with Bloom and other effects.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  It's actually kind of funny, because that's exactly how the 2004 Doom 3 turned out - defining the game-play based upon lighting (and monster closets) to build tension.
  - jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
    The original DOOM game (1989) already used it for that, that is why I mention it! It even had flickering lights, pitch-black corridors, traps using light as bait, monster ambushes... The first FPS with all that!
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      Totally true - I forgot about the pitch black areas.

sprash 7y ago

This[1] demo does pretty convincing dynamic lighting without the need for RTX relying just on regular shaders. To me nvidias RTX looks like a gimmick with the sole purpose of enforcing vendor lock-in. 1.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtU2194C-D4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtU2194C-D4

DavidVoid 7y ago
RTX is hardware acceleration for many ray tracing operations, how is that a gimmick?
dahart 7y ago
That demo is a ray marching shader with hardly any geometry, and the geometry is procedural. You do understand this method can't be used to render video games or films? > RTX looks like a gimmick with the sole purpose of enforcing vendor lock-in. That's like saying a floating point unit, or a Google TPU, or even an Intel CPU is a gimmick to enforce vendor lock-in. If you want to do something faster in software, you can make hardware for it. Don't buy hardware if you don't need speed.
- sprash 7y ago
  The most expensive step in ray marching is to find the distance which you will get for free after one rasterization pass via the z-buffer. With the z-buffer already present every effect used in this demo can be applied in the same way to purely rasterized graphics with even less cost. E.g. Doom Eternal has very elaborated dynamic lighting effects but uses 100% forward rendering. RTX is completely pointless.
  - dahart 7y ago
    > The most expensive step in ray marching is to find the distance which you will get for free after one rasterization pass via the z-buffer. Not true, you can't make that claim. The most expensive step depends entirely on what you render. The material can easily be more expensive than the SDF. > With the z-buffer already present every effect used in this demo can be applied in the same way to purely rasterized graphics with even less cost. You're completely forgetting that shadows are a thing. > RTX is completely pointless. I interpret that to mean that either 1- you're mad at Nvidia for various reasons not particularly related to RTX, or 2- you don't know what RTX actually does.
    - sprash 7y ago
      > The material can easily be more expensive than the SDF. But you still don't have to calculate the SDF in the first place. Which means one step less computation for your material. Also geometries with high object counts are not as slow as it is the case with SDF. > You're completely forgetting that shadows are a thing. Those are being done via stencil buffers since doom3. And for non-point-like sources you have a bag of tricks available via shaders to make them soft. No RTX needed! > you don't know what RTX actually does. I know what RTX does. As long as the results are so subtle to the point where on some screenshot comparisons you can't even tell which one is with or without, RTX is completely pointless especially when it comes with a performance penalty.
      - dahart 7y ago
        Why are you arguing about SDFs? The demo you linked proves nothing about what either games do nor what RTX does, in the context of this thread it’s irrelevant whether z-buffers save you one iteration of ray marching. Not needing a special shadow map or stencil volume or a big bag of tricky tricks for area lights is one of the reasons to use ray tracing & RTX. The main point of RTX is faster ray tracing. You’re complaining about the screenshot marketing of specific games, not really demonstrating an understanding the tradeoffs of ray tracing. It’s fine if you don’t see any advantage to having ray tracing in Control or Battlefield, and/or don’t like the idea that some people see value in better visuals or easier development. That means you don’t like it. I see a point even if you don’t.

jfkebwjsbx 7y ago

Full RT will be amazing for some things like a DOOM game where shadows in corridors make you stay alert, but otherwise I don't think it is a game changer in terms of gameplay. What is a given is that there will be a flood of games overusing it, like it happened with Bloom and other effects.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
It's actually kind of funny, because that's exactly how the 2004 Doom 3 turned out - defining the game-play based upon lighting (and monster closets) to build tension.
- jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
  The original DOOM game (1989) already used it for that, that is why I mention it! It even had flickering lights, pitch-black corridors, traps using light as bait, monster ambushes... The first FPS with all that!
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Totally true - I forgot about the pitch black areas.