cinnamonandgravy
Member
a) crap-tier RT is still better than prebaked lighting
b) prebaked lighting also uses compromised RT
Is Raytracing a necessity?
- Thread starter yogaflame
- Start date
b) prebaked lighting also uses compromised RT
Heimdall_Xtreme
Hermen Hulst Fanclub's #1 Member
Schmendrick
Member
So in reality nothing ever moves and is always directly lit?
I swear the display of plain ignorance in this thread is baffling.....
Last edited:
proandrad
Member
Ray tracing in games isn’t being used to simulate reality for science, it’s just used to make a game look better with less effort. How are you so thick? it doesn’t matter if the area being lit is realistic, it only matters that it looks good.
Aenima
Member
No, but i guess it makes things easier for devs. You can use baked lighting that looks as good as Ray Traced, but you need talented artists and i supose alot more time to make it look good. The Last of Us on a PS3 was already using bouncing lighting.
When RT is well implemented and with all its feautures combined it sure makes the games look amazing, but is that a necessity? No. But if i get the option to use it without hurting too much the performance im gonna use it.
When RT is well implemented and with all its feautures combined it sure makes the games look amazing, but is that a necessity? No. But if i get the option to use it without hurting too much the performance im gonna use it.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
You also need mainly fixed, linear games.
Schmendrick
Member
And I thought your first posting was stupid.... Also first it was about being realistic and suddenly it's the contrary. Can't decide how to look maximally ignorant there, dude?
Only in completely static conditions and with enormous time investment, so basically... No.
Last edited:
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
proandrad
Member
Like I said, looking good is the objective. It’s like watching a planet earth video that saturates the colors so it looks better. Are the colors realistic, no, but it does look better.Games trying to approach photorealistic → being lit realistically → doesn't matter?
Last edited:
Schmendrick
Member
Never thought I´d see people dumb enough to forget how internet boards work within a ~1 hour timespan....
Last edited:
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
But you don't need the latest graphics cards to appreciate (or run) raytracing.
Yoboman
Member
Yes it did
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
this is one of better posts I've seen recently.My first graphics card (3D accelerator) TNT2 was already running pretty much every game at 1024x768 but in 16bit color. When I bought the Geforce 3 in 2002, my fps in Quake 3 at 1600x1200x32 went from 7fps to 80fps, so I was absolutely blown away. This was just 3 years of progress in GPU technology, can you imagine something like that today? But very soon newer games started pushing my Geforce 3 harder and harder (PS2 ports), so I started playing at 1024x768x32 again. I build my next PC in 2007 (Q6600, 8800Ultra) and I started playing at 1680x1050x32. The vast majority of games run at well over 60fps, some games even at 1440p.
Raytracing reminds me of shaders. Back then shaders was as demanding as RT today, but people wanted to play games with better graphics. Now PC gamers have changed a lot and if games arent running at 4K native and real 120fps they arent willing to use features that elevate graphics fidelity to a next level, like ray tracing.
I bought fairly good PC in June 2025 to play RT games and I'm very happy with the experience even though some neogafers try to tell me 120fps at 4K DLSSQuality + FGx2 (in the most demadning RT games) is not good enough. I wonder what they will tell console gamers who play at 30-60fps at even lower resolutions? Sometimes I think console gamers are more happy than PCMR, because the typical console gamer can just focus on enjoying the game (even at 30fps), while PC gamers are just looking for things to complain about. For example yourofif played Black Myth Wukong on the PS5Pro at 40fps (if I remember correctly). Try to tell PCMR guys that was indeed playable and they will not believe you, in fact they may even laugh at you, just to feel better.
You actually captured and well explained some of my thoughts I have in recent years.
Also - I will add that some people (like me) have a bit of an OCD when it comes to settings and minmaxing. When I play on pc, I like to know what settings do and how do I get the best out of my system. With limited console, I am able to focus more on gaming. Although that "ocd" is something I kinda defeated in recent years. It was the worst when I was a teen pc gamer but I still remember that time fondly. I 100% spent more time in ini files and configs of doom3 compared to playing it
DaGreatBeRich
Neo Member
no, the perfomance hit is too much for a 1% difference. why play a game at 60 fps when you could play at 120fps.
ResetEraVetVIP
Member
Path tracing is the future of gaming…
Matsuchezz
Member
Yes. It’s not needed in Nontendo games, it’s needed in everything else that is aiming for a realistic look.
proandrad
Member
Your being real dishonest here, the term "realistic" was applied in two different ways across our post. In my initial quote, I used "realistic" to describe the visual quality, how impressive or appealing something appeared. In your response, you directly responded to me but redefined the term to focus on the physics of a lit room, shifting its context entirely. I then followed your lead, adapting my reply to match your context.Never thought I´d see people dumb enough to forget how internet boards work within a ~1 hour timespan....
Last edited:
Schmendrick
Member
Bull-shit
proandrad
Member
ZehDon
Gold Member
I'd say it's not yet - but it will be for the next generation of games. This generation has largely been a dud, pretty much just dressed up last-gen games, most of which are poorly made. Developers need to work faster to keep costs down, and real-time is the fastest you can get. Real-time ray traced lighting - which isn't path tracing, just to be clear - is feasible as standard for next-gen consoles, which should let developers work faster. So, I imagine that'll be the direction many devs go with their pipelines simply because publishers can't double their budgets and add 35% to their dev cycles again and ever hope to turn a profit. Pre-built BVH structures are a wrinkle on that, but not prohibitively so in this context. Curious to see the RAM for the next-gen consoles. 16GB shared was already pushing it for this gen given the jump in asset density. 32GB might not be enough if virtually every game needs to now also house complex data structures to speed up their ray tracing work. Might end up seeing the big games retain current-gen asset quality while pushing next-gen lighting and materials to provide the "next gen" look.
Schmendrick
Member
maybe try the gaslighting before identifying yourself as a bona fide idiot next time. No need for further confirmation here...You mad? Clown.
Always the same with internet people having opinions about topics they have no clue about....
Last edited:
mrMUR_96
Member
Base PS5/XSX have rtgi in the quality and balanced modes. It doesn't have the RT reflections like the pro though.
mrMUR_96
Member
Please be bait...
Funnily enough, if the Switch 2 has got the rumoured RT abilities I think they will have a play with it and show what it can do for gameplay rather than just replacing existing lighting. A Mario based on light sources moving and playing with the concept would be a very Nintendo thing to do.
CoreyFlawless
Member
No, the ones that add rt look worst when the rt can’t be use, ones not using it at all, looks amazing and greatyeah. games look shit without it. it is demanding but we're getting there. the current gen consoles are too weak for it but next gen will be better of course.
i'm playing on a 5090 so no issue for me. give me all the traced rays
Physiognomonics
Member
It's probably not RT. They were likely rendering twice the number of sprites with transparency effect. It's possible because the view is fixed.
They used that back then and it didn't drop in performance.
Last edited:
That's definitely the case. The reflection is a direct copy of the sprite and at the wrong angle for the light source.
Schmendrick
Member
*As long as nothing moves outside of direct lighting
sachos
Member
A NECESSITY in a general sense? No.
But if you want your game to look trully next gen RTGI is a must imo. People shit on RT and at the same time cry when worlds are not fully dynamic, guess why is that? The reliance on baked lighting makes devs make more static worlds. If RTGI was common then you could have way more dynamic worlds without braking the lighting in the process.
But if you want your game to look trully next gen RTGI is a must imo. People shit on RT and at the same time cry when worlds are not fully dynamic, guess why is that? The reliance on baked lighting makes devs make more static worlds. If RTGI was common then you could have way more dynamic worlds without braking the lighting in the process.
Xaeroxcore666
Member
RT has been more of a gimmick since it release. I was kinda excited to test it on PS5´s The Withcher 3 upgrade, within other "improved with RT games" and yes, reflections on lakes and stuff improves, and also the lighting effects and shadows when there are light sources, like candles or something...But it´s not like "woooow a generational leap" I mean, we have also seen impressive stuff with SSR and prebaked lighting...but of course RTGI and Path tracing can change that. Good news is RTGI is not that taxing and even run on base PS5 and Xbox Series X and sometimes S, thing is it depends on the type of game how effective and noticeable can be. Path tracing is amazing and real next gen leap, but any console and most PC GPUs can´t take full advantage of that, just the high end expensive ones.
Matsuchezz
Member
i agree that Nintendo would try to play with it in a different way than just implementing it to make the game look better. Then again i don’t think it will be powerfull enough to incorpórate RT.
Katajx
Member
Depends on which camp you are in. I think the approach to this lighting is why so many people think graphics have taken a step back.
There has been this push for realistic lighting in some attempt make things more photorealistic I guess. I feel like you lose lot of the impact of playing with light and dark.
You have people that would rather sacrifice performance worried about puddles and accurate reflections, with accurate and high resolution shadows than whether it actually looks “good” or dramatic or not.
I think that’s where the artistic side is lost a bit. This push towards “technical” over creative.
There has been this push for realistic lighting in some attempt make things more photorealistic I guess. I feel like you lose lot of the impact of playing with light and dark.
You have people that would rather sacrifice performance worried about puddles and accurate reflections, with accurate and high resolution shadows than whether it actually looks “good” or dramatic or not.
I think that’s where the artistic side is lost a bit. This push towards “technical” over creative.
Bojji
Member
SSR looks like shit in most games. Only time I was impressed by it was in 2010 with Crysis 2 (it was the first game using it).
Most games had better water tech before SSR was invented.
At the end of the day it's a 30 series GPU equivalent, so it won't be capable of heavy Ray Tracing on realistic games, but in a Mario or Luigi game built for it from the ground-up it would be fine. Nintendo often find something to work a game around and then build it up to use that feature to fit within the hardware.
The resolution is also a lot lower on the handheld and it will have DLSS.
Last edited:
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
It already looks really good. Sure, there are examples of poor implementation, but plenty of other examples to the contrary!
Xaeroxcore666
Member
That´s an interesting statement. Why SSR has been so dominant on industry. Maybe Cubemaps or other techniques if the were still dominant would manage to provide better results? Would be nice to see some screenshots to prove that!
Romulus
Member
What's the best example in your opinion? I've seen several that we're supposedly very good and I didn't think much of it.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
My best examples are Cyberpunk2077, Alan Wake 2, and Metro: Exodus (all PC versions). Are you experiencing these games on PC at their best quality?
PaintTinJr
Member
Same. Cyberpunk on a friend's 7800X3D/4080 Super in motion looks nothing special compared to faked raster techniques outside of internal non-action rooms in which they were on par with DS on OG PS4 internal non-action rooms. The whole game's production quality felt more grounded in faked raster GI techniques than the impressiveness of Quake2 RT's ray traced lighting in interior rooms IMO.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Some example screenshots would be nice. I keep seeing people say "raster looks better", yet no one shows a game with both techniques side-by-side and raster is the victor.
PaintTinJr
Member
Not better, just not too different, but with huge frame-rate gains on raster.
Quake 2 RT is probably my favourite example of gaming RT because irrespective of game graphics, the lighting alone is clean as whistle and sells the dynamics of the RT. Most of us that ever built a quake 3 amateur map and had to wait hours for the lightmap baking probably have a idea of how Quake 2 would have looked with idtech3 quality, and yet the RT version is even better visually than that, but with dynamic lighting. Most other efforts get no where close to that uplift in visual quality IMO, and that's sort of my benchmark, now.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Becase most other efforts don't shoot for RTGI. The ones that have show massive improvements and Cyberpunk is one of them. With path/raytracing, the lighting looks nowhere near as good.