No, but if they find new and innovative ways to enhance the experience, why not? RT can be used for so much more than just lighting and reflections. Glad to see different approaches.
Depends on definition of not very good. My 7900xt in heavy RT is between a 3080 and 3090. Not exactly weak.Not very good Ray tracing and you know this
Need? No. But if its more realistic and adds to the gameplay, then why not? Tech progresses onwards.
Wait until you experience it before knocking it. Besides, RT has been available for 7 years now. Unsure how this will even affect performance. It could be relatively light but simply murderous for non-RT capable cards, at which point I'd ask, why should we worry about 7-year-old hardware.
Exactly.
It depends on how its implemented in the game and what hardware your playing on. It looks amazing in some games and really adds to the experience.
I was thinking on it some days ago, they could just use Raycasting as they've always done, but RC only allows very simple per object detection (more specifically, per physical collider detection), if you want to more detailed per object detection then it would be hell of expensive in terms of hardware and he'll of a headache in terms of production pipeline due to now requiring to have an impossible to calculate amount of colliders per object, it would add too much complexity and games are complex enough already.
Ftfy.
Thats not true at all. It all depends how much RT is being performed.
In 99% of games RT does not make any memorable visual difference, but always tanks the frame rate. I always turn it off.
Why is accurate location specific damage pointless? Hitboxes have limitations, being able to shoot through a chink in someone's armor naturally, shoot them in the eye through a helmet etc sounds cool and a solid progression if they pull it off.
RT is not the standard they should be pushing.
Not really.
Ftfy.
Bullshit reasons probably.
Indiana jones has required accelerated RT and runs locked 60fps on a 7800xt.Not very good Ray tracing and you know this
This is medieval armor though.
But even in regular armor there are gaps.
It doesn't because consoles can run RT just fine?
The path traced and series version look vastly different.
That's not true, ray casting is not the same as ray tracing, ray tracing is more involved. With the former you are calculating what the ray might hit (generally a hitbox) and when it does the calculation stops, and you can tie it to physics updates or frame updates making it even less taxing on the cpu.
Right - that is not the shape of a human torso.That is not bullet proof armour. That is just padding.
This is what armour that can block bullets look like.
I’d agree with everything in this post. It looks very nice if used right but the performance hit is staggering. I guess it needs to start somewhere though and will be better and better.
Doom'16 had a min spec of a GTX670 a GPU that was 4 years old at the time (I dunno if a 1.2GB GTX570 was enough)
Doom Eternal had a min spec of a GTX1050Ti/1060 a GPU that was 4 years old at the time (much older was not advisable due to VRAM)
Doom Dark Ages has a min spec of an RTX2060S a GPU that will be 6 years old at the time(8GB VRAM likely the actual reason its not a base 60)
So looking back this is the oldest GPU Doom has supported as a min-spec in the new generation.
If I would be so bold as to hazard a guess if you have anything 3060Ti class you are gonna be running the game in the 90fps range at "Supreme" settings.
If you are at minspec then 60 should be no problem.
VRAM is gonna be our biggest enemy i would guess.
P.S What GPU are you using to run Doom Eternal at 4K120 and at what settings?
For 1080p. There is nothing stopping you to play at 800x600. Maybe lower.
