But it's only a time saver if you only produce a RT version of your game. And for now, and for coming years, that's not possible. So, almost all games will still need the old fashion prop lighting version. Then, RT version adds time to development, not saves time. It will save time when games will be full and only RT.Yes, it's more accurate but from a game Dev pov it takes a fraction of the time! Look at the example in the video, toggling RT GI took pretty much a 1 second click and a 2 second transfer on their tools, compared to manually adding and adjusting hundreds of point lights to fake the effect, which in the example took around 28 MINUTES. That's a massive time saver and the results are more accurate.
True. This can be redeemed if hdr is goodIt is one of these examples the new RT version feels off... there is no way, no matter how much sun you have, you can't see what is outside... plus the inside won't be that bright.
The previous RT looks better IMO.
They need to tone down the new RT lighting... they forced too much to make it different.
6800XT is doing 1440p 60fps with RT High + RT reflections, with all the other settings at ultra.We already knew this at launch. I think it was GT7 trailer in which the RT was running low res. Also WDL RT settings from the ini file. 1080P for PS5 SX and 720P on the SS. 4A devs said RTX 2070 and f 6800XT will be able to do 1080P 60fps? That seems pretty bad for 6800XT. So I do not think much should be expected from the consoles.
I swear it's like people are being obtuse on purpose. Yes, that's the whole point of the video, 4A are showing what can be done by switching to full ray tracing. Going FORWARD.But it's only a time saver if you only produce a RT version of your game. And for now, and for coming years, that's not possible. So, almost all games will still need the old fashion prop lighting version. Then, RT version adds time to development, not saves time. It will save time when games will be full and only RT.
"During the training process, the output image is compared to an offline rendered, ultra-high quality 16K reference image, and the difference is communicated back into the network so that it can continue to learn and improve its results. This process is repeated tens of thousands of times on the supercomputer until the network reliably outputs high quality, high resolution images."No, they don't train it on ideal (i.e. ground truth 16K-64K) images, that was DLSS 1.0. Again, more misinformation from people so hyped to praise it but such low interest to understand what it really is.
Right, I meant it's not like in DLSS 1.0 which had specific game training in that way. Obviously the network still has to be trained on something, but it's a generalised and agnostic model."During the training process, the output image is compared to an offline rendered, ultra-high quality 16K reference image, and the difference is communicated back into the network so that it can continue to learn and improve its results. This process is repeated tens of thousands of times on the supercomputer until the network reliably outputs high quality, high resolution images."
![]()
NVIDIA DLSS 2.0: A Big Leap In AI Rendering
Through the power of AI and GeForce RTX Tensor Cores, NVIDIA DLSS 2.0 enables a new level of performance and visuals for your games - available now in MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries and coming this week to Control.www.nvidia.com
It might not be specific to the game in question, but the training process still uses "ground truth" images as a reference point.
Gotta dream bigger than that, bro. Here's what I'd consider that advanced step and not just incremental:
What makes this possible is the inherent knowledge of the depth of each object in the scene- it would not be anywhere near as effective with flat images.
Nobody said or implied this though.. you appear to not know what "ground truth" means.Right, I meant it's not like in DLSS 1.0 which had specific game training in that way. Obviously the network still has to be trained on something, but it's a generalised and agnostic model.
yesDoes ray tracing turn a mediocre forgettable game into a masterpiece?
Analogies aren't mean to be taken literal, that's what they're analogies.Really cool tech that doesn't apply to non-VR.
I know what ground truth is, keep the projection to yourself, I have no interest. I should've explained further what I was thinking about specifically and that's my fault for not being clearer.Nobody said or implied this though.. you appear to not know what "ground truth" means.
6800XT is doing 1440p 60fps with RT High + RT reflections, with all the other settings at ultra.
The 6800XT is around 50% faster than the GPUs in either console, but then again the consoles will not be doing RT reflections, RT will be dropped back to normal, and other settings will likely not be at ultra either.
Devs already confirmed 4k, likely a dynamic 4k picture, but I doubt it would drop to 1080p. It's amazing how much performance is gained by dropping settings down to medium-high from ultra.1440P is respectful. So that would mean console would be running at 1080P.
4A Games has not evaluated the AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution feature for Metro Exodus at this time. In our FAQ, we were referring to the AMD FidelityFX open source image quality toolkit which targets traditional rendering techniques that our new RT only render does not use, and noting that we have our own Temporal Reconstruction tech implemented natively which provides great quality benefits for all hardware, so do not currently plan to utilize any other toolkits.
4A Games is always motivated to innovate, evaluate, and use the newest technologies that will benefit our fans across all platforms and hardware.
Made me laugh so hard, you better not have a picture of my mums fat ass. If you do I don't know who I'm more disappointed with, her or you.they don't have a picture of your Mom's fat ass, in order to upscale it when I take a picture of your Mom's fat ass.. they have pictures of other "Ground truth" fat asssses.
At points it really does look like offline rendering, so it would be nice to see a comparison with the same scene recreated in V-Ray or Arnold versus realtime 4A Engine.THIS is IT!!!
No other game compares. Now we are in the offline rendering realm.
Having seen your posts in this thread, ill say this based on this one: You confuse artstyle with artistry. You feel Ratchet is better looking, but that's solely artstyle. It isn't gunning for realism, and neither is Guilty Gear Strive.And so the revolution truly begins.
Raytracing isn't inherently better or better looking, but it's a perfect tool for what is sadly what many many game devs aim for these days.
I'd much rather have more Guilty Gear Strives and ratchet and Clanks, but if a game is aiming for full-on realism RT is key.
I really can feel your frustration through your words that you felt compelled enough to write this down in a thread that is about pushing new graphical standards.Too bad the game sucks.
So basically, its all about artstyle and your preference to that! Who knew!Nah, often inaccurate shaders and lighting look better than perfectly accurate things, even in realistic games. Sometimes the falloff of a light not being physically correct makes the scene more interesting, Sometimes a shader breaking conversation of energy and picking up global illumination from outside despite inside enhancing the look. Sometimes shadows not appearing on some objects gives the game a nice look.
That means it isnt poor, it means it used a single bounce raytrace to light the scene, accompanied by things like SSR. Even that looked a generation apart from how lighting usually was done (Software GI, approximations).It shows just how inaccurate and straight up POOR the RT lighting was in the original. Apparently it only had one bounce RT lighting so the sunlight didnt illuminate the rest of the room correctly.
Your way of proving Alex is wrong is by posting offscreen screengrabs of RT GI on and off and then pass it off as if you were actually serious with your argument.This is funny because Alex spent that entire year raving about how realistic that lighting was giving it his graphics GOTY, and droning about it on and on for two years, all the while completely missing the fact that it was entirely inaccurate all along.
Cinematic lighting is often dramatized for the scene, especially in back lighting. When an action hero waits for an explosion or makes an entrance, the back lighting is often completely over the top to accentuate that this hero is full of amaze.Movie use "fake lighting" all the time . Realistic lighting could look pretty bland sometime .
How i would ache for these kinds of posts get a proper burial. I get it, you were bored.This looks really cool. Can't wait to get ray-tracing on a Nintendo console by the year 2053 or so.
Yes. The Enhanced Edition on XSX/S/PS5 gets the majority of these improvements - sans the reflections. But the multi-bounce lighting is definitely in.Would this type of global illumination be possible on next gen consoles?
Having seen your posts in this thread, ill say this based on this one: You confuse artstyle with artistry. You feel Ratchet is better looking, but that's solely artstyle. It isn't gunning for realism, and neither is Guilty Gear Strive.
Both games look equally amazing:
Ratchet looks like a proper CGI movie.
Exodus Enhanced looks like Offline rendering when rendering realistic materials.
I'd say for the artstyles they are aiming for, they are quite even in total looks. As Ratchet does not aim for offline rendering equality, but rather, looking like something from Pixar, rendering conditions are also different. This is inherently apparent on the artstyle chosen. If Ratchet was aiming for life-like rendering, it wouldn't look like Ratchet. It would look like a CGI model of how a human looks, and our eyes can tell that difference due to uncanny valley.
So basically, its all about artstyle and your preference to that! Who knew!
Your very first post on it where you state that RTGI does not automatically make things better. By default, its a better way of rendering. But how it is implemented depends on how it goes.I never made any claims about which game is better, just that in general. I don't see why you're telling me all this.I have no idea what would give you the impressions I'm confused about that.
I am stating this in general.I never made any claims about which game is better, just that in general. I don't see why you're telling me all this.
Thanks for that.If you want to say it's subjective then fine, that's exactly what I was arguing.
Light still behaves like light on a movie set tho? They're still using real light. I am confusedI have no idea what would give you the impressions I'm confused about that. I literally said that for a game aiming for realism that Raytracing is key. and in the post you mentioned I said I "PREFER" more games like guilty gear rather than those realistic games, I never said that Raytracing can't also enhance stylized games either. I talk about both artstyle and artist and I talk about them separately. If anything it's the people in here that are confusing discussion about artstyle with a discussion about artistry.
I've never said anything Metro Exodus wasn't an amazing accomplishment. My first post is literally me saying that this game is the start of a revolution. All I was saying is that while Raytracing being an option is ALWAYS better, games will look nicer and more unique if you stick to the cheats we developed due to not being able to do RT until now and that RT isn't the solution to every art issue.
I never made any claims about which game is better, just that in general. I don't see why you're telling me all this.
I don't see the point you are trying to make here. Even on a movie set you sometimes choose to make things not look like reality. So no, it's not objectively true that using RT will make things better in every case which is what was stated. If you want to say it's subjective then fine, that's exactly what I was arguing.
I've never said anything Metro Exodus wasn't an amazing accomplishment. My first post is literally me saying that this game is the start of a revolution. All I was saying is that while Raytracing being an option is ALWAYS better, games will look nicer and more unique if you stick to the cheats we developed due to not being able to do RT until now and that RT isn't the solution to every art issue.
I think you're saying this wrong? Games will look nicer and more unique if the art designers have control of the tools they're given to get the crafted look they want. RT will require different tools. When you're on a movie set (even an outdoor scene,) the DP still must take control of the light in order to get the image in their head onto the film. (And that's much harder of course since the light is actually there and the sources must be hidden; game lights can exist and project light and have no physical "bulb".)
It's not that you can't control RT light because it's 'realistic', it's that you need to think differently of light sources when they have behaviors more authentic to real light on physical surfaces. Maybe sometimes the solutions could include some of the old "tricks" (same as film still uses some vaudeville techniques even in the digital era,) but the problem is once we finally get used to seeing things with RT lighting, those tricks may start to stand out as tricks and spoil the look unless they're very carefully and organically implemented.
You're right that RT isn't the solution to every art issue (I can't really say how RT would factor into something like Guilty Gear Strive, but that's essentially a hand-animated cartoon using polygons instead of drawings... I'm not really sure how the invention of The Volume will help Disney cartoonists either,) but replacing a full-of-tricks scene with a RT scene will alter the approach. So even if you need to cheat some elements (you always cheat,) you're starting your scene construction from a better sense of reality. (Interestingly, that 'reality' will include some of the frustrations of reality like bounces you didn't want or tones that don't look good on certain characters... luckily, digital vaseline or virtual blackwrap is a lot easier to control than the real thing.)
RT doesn't necessarily mean games will look more real. It means they will have more reality embedded in the look.
How the designers manipulate that to get all the different kinds of games they can imagine, from games that look like real life to games that look wholly imagined or otherworldly, that's the art in action.
Light still behaves like light on a movie set tho? They're still using real light. I am confused
I mean yeah - I come primarily from the film world I was just confused at the comparison - like most light in photo shoots and film is staged in a certain way/placed strategically - it's just the light they use does still behave like light is what I mean. Could be different in animationThey use real lights along with post-processing to give the appearance of physically implausible and unrealistic lighting. The point here simply being that the artists aren't always aiming for realism and it's about their artstyle and what they think will make the game look the best.
Is there a preload going up for this? Heard its a completely separate game around 70+GB. Can't find anything yet..
Just started downloading it in the UK so it's live here at least.
Quick DLSS 2.0 comparison:
Path-tracing is just one of Ray-tracing algorithms.
This is the original quote I replied.
It is still a rasterized game with RT.
They didn't changed to full ray-tracing.
It uses RT for GI.
Yes.... and the game is raterized like usual.None of the lighting is rasterized.
All the lighting is Raytraced.
Steam.Steam or EGS?
Tune in!Uhm, just announce the date for the console version already!
Apparently, steam users can already download it.So 30 minutes to go? Will it appear as a new game in our Steam libraries?
Apparently, steam users can already download it.
EGS people like me have to wait another 30 minutes.
I guess someone unleashed the hounds too early in the UK.Not appearing for me:
![]()
Not appearing for me:
![]()