3 ms·

I would not be that sure about that (although, admittedly I don't know the state of your hair, so maybe the timespan till all your hair is white is shorter than

by atoav 4y ago

I would not be that sure about that (although, admittedly I don't know the state of your hair, so maybe the timespan till all your hair is white is shorter than one might guess?) Very basic geometry renders with all bells and whistles (refraction, reflection, complex normals, sheen effect, global illumination with both refractive and reflective caustics) in sub 2 seconds in the latest blender builds on a somewhat decent laptop with a RTX2080. The same thing would have rendered for a good minute on a decent machine a few years back. And Blender is not even meant to do that realtime as it is not a game engine (anymore). So sure, going from 1.5 seconds to 1/60 seconds is a huge step, but similar steps have been made in a decade.

oblak 4y ago
I am just that annoying guy trying to remind everyone Q2 RTX is still the best we've got in terms of actual games. Take that at face value. It barely runs on ~6 year old gpu. I was about to pull a few numbers out of my ass as to how it must on a 3090 but then I thought someone on youtube must've done it already. And they have[0]. 52 fps is not great. I am no game maker of any kind but even my non-pro eyes can tell modern titles have way more geometry so the best we've got out of them is shiny surfaces and fake GI like in Metro. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVS2zwqeUaU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVS2zwqeUaU That said, I am eager to get my hands on that mythical ray traced RTCW someone at AMD has been working on.
- fl0wenol 4y ago
  Honest to goodness the results don't seem worth it for the power usage. Pre-baked lighting, environment maps, material shaders look _really good_ and are easy to get decent frame rates out of without sacrificing artistic freedom. Why are we making it more difficult for ourselves with global illumination which just introduces more problems. It's just very difficult to realistically light things while still maintaining high-visibilty of game assets in dynamic situations. It sells graphics cards but I just don't think it's very practical.

by atoav 4y ago

oblak 4y ago

I am just that annoying guy trying to remind everyone Q2 RTX is still the best we've got in terms of actual games. Take that at face value. It barely runs on ~6 year old gpu. I was about to pull a few numbers out of my ass as to how it must on a 3090 but then I thought someone on youtube must've done it already. And they have[0]. 52 fps is not great. I am no game maker of any kind but even my non-pro eyes can tell modern titles have way more geometry so the best we've got out of them is shiny surfaces and fake GI like in Metro. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVS2zwqeUaU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVS2zwqeUaU That said, I am eager to get my hands on that mythical ray traced RTCW someone at AMD has been working on.

fl0wenol 4y ago
Honest to goodness the results don't seem worth it for the power usage. Pre-baked lighting, environment maps, material shaders look _really good_ and are easy to get decent frame rates out of without sacrificing artistic freedom. Why are we making it more difficult for ourselves with global illumination which just introduces more problems. It's just very difficult to realistically light things while still maintaining high-visibilty of game assets in dynamic situations. It sells graphics cards but I just don't think it's very practical.