I really hope Crysis 4 is Pathtraced.
from https://twitter.com/Berduu
Thanks CDPR for being one of the last devs truly pushing the envelope.
This is currently the technically most impressive game of all times.
Considering the hardware power this needs and what we have in the consoles.....yeah, we`re in for a loooooooooot more of those old looking games.At this point any game that doesn't use raytraced lighting looks old.
Path tracing is the future, but IMHO the UE5 isnt looking much worse and it runs on current gen consoles.Considering the hardware power this needs and what we have in the consoles.....yeah, we`re in for a loooooooooot more of those old looking games.
Can you imagine how a game like D4 would look if every single lightsource was realistically calculated, including all the magic effects.....one can dream.
UE5 has built in support for path tracing btwPath tracing is the future, but IMHO the UE5 isnt looking much worse and it runs on current gen consoles.
Lumen's backbone is RT, and even paired with full Nanite Environments you can forget anything close to the accuracy of what we're seeing here with CP2077 with acceptable framerates on console. Lumen in the matrix demo was nowhere close to this despite steep cutoffs and exceptions and special treatment for a lot of lights and still could literally be "outrun" by moving too fast.Path tracing is the future, but IMHO the UE5 isnt looking much worse and it runs on current gen consoles.
Infact with higher rez assets ittle look better.Path tracing is the future, but IMHO the UE5 isnt looking much worse and it runs on current gen consoles.
Wow, this looks so darn good.
from https://twitter.com/Berduu
Thanks CDPR for being one of the last devs truly pushing the envelope.
This is currently the technically most impressive game of all times.
Those look great, and were taken by a professional screenshot maker who works for EA DICE.
Here's what he made for Sleeping Dogs, a game from 2012 that was developed for the PS3 and X360:
And here's what he did on the Matrix demo, which BTW runs on a $400 console:
You definitely can because that's precisely what a bunch of people have been doing throughout this whole thread.
Sleeping dog looked that good? I played it on the 360 back in the day and it didn't stand out to me graphically at all. Are the screenshots from a mod?
Lumen's backbone is RT, and even paired with full Nanite Environments you can forget anything close to the accuracy of what we're seeing here with CP2077 with acceptable framerates on console. Lumen in the matrix demo was nowhere close to this despite steep cutoffs and exceptions and special treatment for a lot of lights and still could literally be "outrun" by moving too fast.
No way in hell a console will be able to do anything comparable to this on mid level RDNA2 hardware.
I would bet on some reshade settings and or a bit of photoshopping to get the colors right. People often underestimate how important good colors are for photorealistic look .Sleeping dog looked that good? I played it on the 360 back in the day and it didn't stand out to me graphically at all. Are the screenshots from a mod?
Considering the hardware power this needs and what we have in the consoles.....yeah, we`re in for a loooooooooot more of those old looking games.
Can you imagine how a game like D4 would look if every single lightsource was realistically calculated, including all the magic effects.....one can dream.
Brother, we are admiring the technical prowess visually. We aren't here to talk about anything but these highly advanced graphics.I remember using this on Hitman 3, looks amazing but yeah zero performance.
I will stick with my AMD GPU without RT, thanks.
yup. i've moved on to 1440p/dlss balanced on my 3070. ranges from 25 to 40 fps depending on the region. can't complain. enough to move around and see stuff. i expected 5 10 fps slideshow lolInstalled it and tried it out on 12700k 3070ti setup and looks really good, next level stuff for sure.
So does the classic RT mode CP2077 also has on "psycho".Patch tracing (PT) in the cyberpunk looks EXTREMELY impressive, but I feel like GI in this game wasnt very good, so now the difference between the raster vs patch tracing is exaggerated. I've seen many UE5 tech demos, and the GI in these demos looked more comparable to the image on the right. .
Yetthey are both images from cutscenes both are realtime cyberpunk is still technically inferior... whether its cutscene or not it is still realtime none of the images here are cgi... last of us 1 simply beats cyberpunk in every technical area oher than bounce lighting... the characters in last of us 1 are more detailed, the texture work is well detailed, the assets quality is well beyond cyberpunk, the animation work and animation physics are well beyond cyberpunk the only thing advanced in cyberpunk is the realtime raytraced lighting.... you cant just excuse a game and call it nextgen because it bounces rays on a scene.
from https://twitter.com/Berduu
Thanks CDPR for being one of the last devs truly pushing the envelope.
This is currently the technically most impressive game of all times.
While lumen looks really good and should be used almost always, path tracing is just on another level. People don't understand how impressive it is that a game like CP2077 can even run with path tracing. Here you can see the latest build of UE5 with the latest lumen vs path tracing, same scene same assets both in UE5Patch tracing (PT) in the cyberpunk looks EXTREMELY impressive, but I feel like GI in this game wasnt very good, so now the difference between the raster vs patch tracing is exaggerated. I've seen many UE5 tech demos, and the GI in these demos looked more comparable to the image on the right. It's almost like there's no GI at all on the left image, so no wonder why people think PT in the cyberpunk looks so impressive.
I would like to see a proper comparison between lumen and patch tracing in UE5 (the same location and assets), because only then it's possible to see how much difference PT really makes. Lumen on it's own look impressive too.
It's entirely possible that the left image is missing GI and that's to be expected of an open-world. You'll often run into areas where the lighting looks flat because the GI is simply missing. It happens in every big sprawling open-world. That's what makes path tracing so good there, it won't miss those parts.Patch tracing (PT) in the cyberpunk looks EXTREMELY impressive, but I feel like GI in this game wasnt very good, so now the difference between the raster vs patch tracing is exaggerated. I've seen many UE5 tech demos, and the GI in these demos looked more comparable to the image on the right. It's almost like there's no GI at all on the left image, so no wonder why people think PT in the cyberpunk looks so impressive.
I would like to see a proper comparison between lumen and patch tracing in UE5 (the same location and assets), because only then it's possible to see how much difference PT really makes. Lumen on it's own look impressive too.
Why are you comparing the most linear game every to an open world game that is incredibly large and dense?they are both images from cutscenes both are realtime cyberpunk is still technically inferior... whether its cutscene or not it is still realtime none of the images here are cgi... last of us simply beats cyberpunk in every technical area oher than bounce lighting... the characters in last of us 1 are more detailed, the texture work is well detailed, the assets quality is well beyond cyberpunk, the animation work and animation physics are well beyond cyberpunk the only thing advanced in cyberpunk is the realtime raytraced lighting.... you cant just excuse a game and call it nextgen because it bounces rays on a scene.
I would like to see a proper comparison between lumen and patch tracing in UE5 (the same location and assets), because only then it's possible to see how much difference PT really makes. Lumen on it's own look impressive too.
You definitely can because that's precisely what a bunch of people have been doing throughout this whole thread.
I have a VRR display and 3070.
I'm guessing based on previous posts that my best option here is for 1440p and DLSS performance (or quality?).
Performance for sure with a 3070. Might even consider Ultra Performance.I have a VRR display and 3070.
I'm guessing based on previous posts that my best option here is for 1440p and DLSS performance (or quality?).
I have a VRR display and 3070.
I'm guessing based on previous posts that my best option here is for 1440p and DLSS performance (or quality?).
That's a very good comparison. The difference is still there (especially in the 2nd image), but don't you think a talented developer could mask these imperfections to some extent?While lumen looks really good and should be used almost always, path tracing is just on another level. People don't understand how impressive it is that a game like CP2077 can even run with path tracing. Here you can see the latest build of UE5 with the latest lumen vs path tracing, same scene same assets both in UE5
I would say performance for a stable 30 FPSI have a VRR display and 3070.
I'm guessing based on previous posts that my best option here is for 1440p and DLSS performance (or quality?).
These assets were made with high end PCs in mind. That's why CDPR had such problems porting this game to the PS4, because I/O wasnt fast enough to stream the data and not to mention GPU and CPU speed just wasnt there as well. Even current generation consoles don't run this game very well because in 30fps mode there's only one RT effect enabled (RT Reflections if I'm not mistaken). It's naive to think this game was made with the PS4 hardware (limitations) im mind. Yes, the game was ported to the PS4 console, but it was extremely downgraded and looked nothing like PC version at maxed out settings.ps4 assets guys pack it up
freaking path tracing...
Ofcourse thats why i said that they should always use it. Also it performs better than path tracing while still looking much much better than the basic lighting techniques used before.That's a very good comparison. The difference is still there (especially in the 2nd image), but don't you think a talented developer could mask these imperfections to some extent?
IMO console gamers should be still happy considering how good "lumen" lighting looks like compared to the extremely flat UE4 lighting without any RT.
Edit: But of course not even this is accurate science. Everything depends on raynumber/accuracy/lightsources/denoising/particular scene.
Those comparisons are kind of worthless to us though as Lumen could never run in real time with those settings (yet) and the real time pathtracing we see in CP2077 can`t hold a candle to the 10 hour offline renders we have hereThat's a very good comparison. The difference is still there (especially in the 2nd image), but don't you think a talented developer could mask these imperfections to some extent?
IMO console gamers should be still happy considering how good "lumen" lighting looks like compared to the extremely flat UE4 lighting without any RT.
People don't understand how impressive it is that a game like CP2077 can even run with path tracing.
Hey, more cutscene bullshots.IMHO apparently some people don't understand what "impressive" means.
"Impressive" is this screenshot I took on my PS5 ($400 to $500 of hardware cost) using the 60FPS Performance mode.
Getting great looking lighting running at slideshow speeds using a >2500€ PC simply means you're brute forcing the ordeal and it's of little use to anyone right now. It's simply not an efficient use of compute resources no matter how you look at it. It's lack of optimization taken to the extreme.
Its only practical use is to serve as an advertisement for Nvidia's 1800€ gigantic graphics cards, and for corporation / monopoly lovers to circlejerk.
And boy, do those circlejerkers like to circlejerk. It's a friggin' circlejerking party out here.
It's impressive but is it worth the performance cost? I dont think so.
IMHO apparently some people don't understand what "impressive" means.
"Impressive" is this screenshot I took on my PS5 ($400 to $500 of hardware cost) using the 60FPS Performance mode.
Getting great looking lighting running at slideshow speeds using a >2500€ PC simply means you're brute forcing the ordeal and it's of little use to anyone right now. It's simply not an efficient use of compute resources no matter how you look at it. It's lack of optimization taken to the extreme.
Its only practical use is to serve as an advertisement for Nvidia's 1800€ gigantic graphics cards, and for corporation / monopoly lovers to circlejerk.
And boy, do those circlejerkers like to circlejerk. It's a friggin' circlejerking party out here.
There are tons of pics which look shit tons better than this picture even without the path tracing. Come on now, Currently the Cyberpunk is the pinnacle of Real time graphics while being an open world game.IMHO apparently some people don't understand what "impressive" means.
"Impressive" is this screenshot I took on my PS5 ($400 to $500 of hardware cost) using the 60FPS Performance mode.
Getting great looking lighting running at slideshow speeds using a >2500€ PC simply means you're brute forcing the ordeal and it's of little use to anyone right now. It's simply not an efficient use of compute resources no matter how you look at it. It's lack of optimization taken to the extreme.
Its only practical use is to serve as an advertisement for Nvidia's 1800€ gigantic graphics cards, and for corporation / monopoly lovers to circlejerk.
And boy, do those circlejerkers like to circlejerk. It's a friggin' circlejerking party out here.
its good for exploration / driving around , 30 fps + reflex is very playable (avoiding combat and stuff). at least it is enough for exploration so I'm gratefulIt's impressive but is it worth the performance cost? I dont think so.
It's insane. You can't have a PC game thread without the Playstation fanboy crowd coming to shit on it. The funniest part is when it completely veers off the technical aspect and becomes purely about feelings and art direction. Art is awesome and even more important than technology but doesn't determine how demanding a game is therefore you should never use a game that is artistically more accomplished to downplay a game that is more technically advanced.
IMHO apparently some people don't understand what "impressive" means.
"Impressive" is this screenshot I took on my PS5 ($400 to $500 of hardware cost) using the 60FPS Performance mode.
Getting great looking lighting running at slideshow speeds using a >2500€ PC simply means you're brute forcing the ordeal and it's of little use to anyone right now. It's simply not an efficient use of compute resources no matter how you look at it. It's lack of optimization taken to the extreme.
Its only practical use is to serve as an advertisement for Nvidia's 1800€ gigantic graphics cards, and for corporation / monopoly lovers to circlejerk.
And boy, do those circlejerkers like to circlejerk. It's a friggin' circlejerking party out here.
Depends on where you're looking, some scenes are not much different, but there are some which changes totally and even looking like in-engine CGI cut scenes.It's impressive but is it worth the performance cost? I dont think so.
Edit: But of course not even this is accurate science. Everything depends on raynumber/accuracy/lightsources/denoising/particular scene.