Support NeoGAF

[VFXVeteran]

I get where you are coming from, even RT can overly light geometry as well, hence why we stress artists need to get creative and tone down brightness in areas so it looks like how your eyes will see it if you were there, rather than looking through a camera lens. Just like they do with film.

RT GI brightness isn't the same as that though. RT GI light might be bright but all the objects are grounded properly because the occlusion is happening in worldspace instead of screenspace. The Lumen and every other GI-based lighting can't capture small geometry close to each other because the screenspace vectors don't go out a reasonable distance and the accuracy for small objects isn't there. FS2020 gets around this problem by increasing the distance of the occlusion extremely far away so that there is always some kind of contact shadow.

 

[DeepEnigma]

RT GI brightness isn't the same as that though. RT GI light might be bright but all the objects are grounded properly because the occlusion is happening in worldspace instead of screenspace. The Lumen and every other GI-based lighting can't capture small geometry close to each other because the screenspace vectors don't go out a reasonable distance and the accuracy for small objects isn't there. FS2020 gets around this problem by increasing the distance of the occlusion extremely far away so that there is always some kind of contact shadow.

I get what you are saying on the technical side and how it works, but aesthetically it's not always superior if the artist doesn't adjust in some situations where it's overly lit. Again, just like they do in film.

On a side note... Some overcast (diffused light) days IRL don't produce the same self shadowing or any perceivable self shadowing at all compared to direct light sources on a clear sky day.

 

[VFXVeteran]

I get what you are saying on the technical side and how it works, but aesthetically it's not always superior if the artist doesn't adjust in some situations where it's overly lit. Again, just like they do in film.

On a side note... Some overcast (diffused light) days IRL don't produce the same self shadowing or any perceivable self shadowing at all compared to direct light sources on a clear sky day.

Oh for sure. Every shot has to be adjusted.. no matter what rendering you are trying to use. That's often the render passes that can be used in comp so that they don't have to rerender the entire scene again.

 

[Hashi]

I love Killzone Shadow Fall, but as far as I know, I know about Ray traced sound and AI uses some ray traced stuff, which makes them not cheat, because rays are from their eyes and if they don't see you from the rock they don't engage. I don't remember anything about ray-traced reflection. And I doubt that's the case, I played a ton of this game. Right up to the point I sold my PS4 Pro last year.


Fucking Horizon, Killzone had to die for some Ubishit game.

"For the first MADDER prototype we did, we only had one ray-cast so it would give us the closest wall, the material and the angle of that wall. So yeah, we tried it, it sounds amazing and no other game has something like this but actually we need it for all the different walls"

"What we do on-screen for every pixel we run a proper ray-tracing - or ray-marching - step. We find a reflection vector, we look at the surface roughness and if you have a very rough surface, that means that your reflection is very fuzzy in that case"

"So what we do is find a reflection for every pixel on screen, we find a reflection vector that goes into the screen and then basically start stepping every second pixel until we find something that's a hit. It's a 2.5D ray-trace... We can compute a rough approximation of where the vector would go and we can find pixels on-screen that represent that surface. This is all integrated into our lighting model."

The system of lighting fallbacks is exceptionally cool - by using the ray-casting technique, there are admittedly limitations. Light sources behind an object wouldn't be available to the reflection system, but the algorithm knows that - and it can drop back to pre-computed lighting data to pick up the necessary info. It won't be quite so mathematically correct, but to the human eye, it's more than good enough.

via Eurogamer

Killzone engine from PS3 to PS4 is very technical. KZSF multiplayer (extended warzone) was soooo good and looks freakin amazing (on my plasma). At now when I look at videos from my shareplay or YT.. I got tear in the eye.
Cheers for every Killzone fan.

 

[BigLee74]

Great job on shrinking the PS5 so that it fits in the picture!

It is all about preferences, personally I rather have a world that is dynamic so if a light source moves or something changes then the world actually reflects that, i think that makes the world feel more vibrant/alive to me. I think it's different strokes for different folks.

Baked lighting can look great and as realistic as you are prepared to go, but at the mercy of being non dynamic, and taking a whole load more time and resources to set up. You change your scene, it has to be recalculated.

Ray tracing is the ultimate goal. Somewhere down the line, devs won’t need to worry about lighting at all. Lighting will just be there, and the world they build will always look correct (or stylised accordingly).

 

[M1chl]

"For the first MADDER prototype we did, we only had one ray-cast so it would give us the closest wall, the material and the angle of that wall. So yeah, we tried it, it sounds amazing and no other game has something like this but actually we need it for all the different walls"

"What we do on-screen for every pixel we run a proper ray-tracing - or ray-marching - step. We find a reflection vector, we look at the surface roughness and if you have a very rough surface, that means that your reflection is very fuzzy in that case"

"So what we do is find a reflection for every pixel on screen, we find a reflection vector that goes into the screen and then basically start stepping every second pixel until we find something that's a hit. It's a 2.5D ray-trace... We can compute a rough approximation of where the vector would go and we can find pixels on-screen that represent that surface. This is all integrated into our lighting model."

The system of lighting fallbacks is exceptionally cool - by using the ray-casting technique, there are admittedly limitations. Light sources behind an object wouldn't be available to the reflection system, but the algorithm knows that - and it can drop back to pre-computed lighting data to pick up the necessary info. It won't be quite so mathematically correct, but to the human eye, it's more than good enough.

via Eurogamer

Killzone engine from PS3 to PS4 is very technical. KZSF multiplayer (extended warzone) was soooo good and looks freakin amazing (on my plasma). At now when I look at videos from my shareplay or YT.. I got tear in the eye.
Cheers for every Killzone fan.

Alright so still approximation, but fair enough. However that does not change the fact, that KZ: SF is one of the best shooters last gen. And I am really sad about no future Killzone: Killzone.com

 

[ToTTenTranz]

RT GI brightness isn't the same as that though. RT GI light might be bright but all the objects are grounded properly because the occlusion is happening in worldspace instead of screenspace. The Lumen and every other GI-based lighting can't capture small geometry close to each other because the screenspace vectors don't go out a reasonable distance and the accuracy for small objects isn't there.

Alex specifically says the new RT GI in Metro Exodus is causing NPC hairs to "shine" in a way they're not supposed to.

 

[Hashi]

Alright so still approximation, but fair enough. However that does not change the fact, that KZ: SF is one of the best shooters last gen. And I am really sad about no future Killzone: Killzone.com

 

[VFXVeteran]

Alex specifically says the new RT GI in Metro Exodus is causing NPC hairs to "shine" in a way they're not supposed to.

I would have to go back over it. But I am thinking of doing my own analysis next week when the patch comes to PC.

 

[SlimySnake]

"For the first MADDER prototype we did, we only had one ray-cast so it would give us the closest wall, the material and the angle of that wall. So yeah, we tried it, it sounds amazing and no other game has something like this but actually we need it for all the different walls"

"What we do on-screen for every pixel we run a proper ray-tracing - or ray-marching - step. We find a reflection vector, we look at the surface roughness and if you have a very rough surface, that means that your reflection is very fuzzy in that case"

"So what we do is find a reflection for every pixel on screen, we find a reflection vector that goes into the screen and then basically start stepping every second pixel until we find something that's a hit. It's a 2.5D ray-trace... We can compute a rough approximation of where the vector would go and we can find pixels on-screen that represent that surface. This is all integrated into our lighting model."

The system of lighting fallbacks is exceptionally cool - by using the ray-casting technique, there are admittedly limitations. Light sources behind an object wouldn't be available to the reflection system, but the algorithm knows that - and it can drop back to pre-computed lighting data to pick up the necessary info. It won't be quite so mathematically correct, but to the human eye, it's more than good enough.

via Eurogamer

Killzone engine from PS3 to PS4 is very technical. KZSF multiplayer (extended warzone) was soooo good and looks freakin amazing (on my plasma). At now when I look at videos from my shareplay or YT.. I got tear in the eye.
Cheers for every Killzone fan.

Alex Battlestar Gallactica just gave KZ Shadow Fall his Game of the Generation.

 

[yewles1]

"For the first MADDER prototype we did, we only had one ray-cast so it would give us the closest wall, the material and the angle of that wall. So yeah, we tried it, it sounds amazing and no other game has something like this but actually we need it for all the different walls"

"What we do on-screen for every pixel we run a proper ray-tracing - or ray-marching - step. We find a reflection vector, we look at the surface roughness and if you have a very rough surface, that means that your reflection is very fuzzy in that case"

"So what we do is find a reflection for every pixel on screen, we find a reflection vector that goes into the screen and then basically start stepping every second pixel until we find something that's a hit. It's a 2.5D ray-trace... We can compute a rough approximation of where the vector would go and we can find pixels on-screen that represent that surface. This is all integrated into our lighting model."

The system of lighting fallbacks is exceptionally cool - by using the ray-casting technique, there are admittedly limitations. Light sources behind an object wouldn't be available to the reflection system, but the algorithm knows that - and it can drop back to pre-computed lighting data to pick up the necessary info. It won't be quite so mathematically correct, but to the human eye, it's more than good enough.

via Eurogamer

Killzone engine from PS3 to PS4 is very technical. KZSF multiplayer (extended warzone) was soooo good and looks freakin amazing (on my plasma). At now when I look at videos from my shareplay or YT.. I got tear in the eye.
Cheers for every Killzone fan.

The ray marching/tracing comparisons have been a little muddied for quite a while, imo.

 

[MastaKiiLA]

Is anyone making a State of Play thread? I think it's important that we all have a place to express our disappointment in realtime.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

The crazy thing is that he hasnt learned anything. He literally just that this the BEST LIGHTING HES EVER WITNESSED IN A VIDEO GAME. Come the fuck on.

This was the part that was on screen when he says that.

Really? THIS is the best lighting ever in a video game, Mr. I review graphics for a living?

I dont even have to look at lighting for next gen games like Ratchet and Demon Souls to find better lighting than that. Several last gen games like RDR2, Spiderman and TLOU2 have better lighting. Hell, Death Stranding came out that year and had better lighting.

This bizarre fascination PC gamers have with tech over actual visuals really dilutes what makes visuals great in the first place. Tech is only a means to an end, cinematography is way more important than what rendering technique you are using to light the game.

this is why Alex on DF is such a joke

he gets all giddy about technical details rather than the underlying visuals themselves

metro looks like ASS, yet somehow is amazing just because it used a borked version of RT

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Lumen runs on the PS5, so it's great. RT only Metro doesn't run on the PS5, so it's bad. Only from this point of view the conversation actually makes sense. Otherwise we wouldn't see Snake post screenshots of flat and gamey looking games, telling everyone how they look so much better than RT, and a dozen people giving thumbs up.

Hope this helps

No need to be obtuse. The discussion here has been about lighting approaches. The only people trying to make it about platform wars here is you...

...it's a terribly bad look.

True, but if we're only talking about lighting (just like Alex did), there's no doubt that Metro has the best (as in, the most accurate) lighting in a video game, ever. It's an objective fact.

Ok, this kinda stupidity really needs to die.

Best lighting =/= most accurate lighting.

Clearly, you've failed to grasp the thrust of the arguments and discussion in this thread so far.

Videogames like movies and TV are a visual medium and the final aesthetic, i.e. the end result is the absolute most important pursuit/goal.

The issue with the perspectives of industry people like Alex from DF as well as you is that by claiming a technical approach to representing videogame lighting is the best purely because it's the most accurate, you're completely missing the forest for the trees.

The accuracy of lighting in a videogame is irrelevant if the lighting design and composition of the scene is shit, as well as the textures and assets being lit.

Pedro Motta said it best in his previous post:

The tricky part about raytraced lighting, is that more often than not, realistic lighting does not look good in an image. If it was, Photographers, Directors of Photography, Fashion Photographers would all be out of business because anyone with a point and shoot would do better. Lighting has to be controlled to look good.
I for one am excited for this technology, and in some cases it looks really good here in Metro Exodus, but in many other cases it just simple looks worse and blander.

So if real-life lighting can be shit, then the accuracy of videogame lighting has no inherent visual quality value if the videogame lighting isn't carefully and artistically controlled. And if it has to be artistically controlled in order to look good, then it's inherently a subjective artistic quantity and not an objective technical one (contrary to the nerdgasms of people like Alex).

So claiming "objectively most accurate" lighting does mean shit if it isn't controlled well to make the overall scene appear more visually appealing. In such a case, it being objectively the most accurate lighting doesn't make it objectively the best lighting in a videogame.

The "best lighting" in a game takes into account an assessment of the overall aesthetic, which can NEVER be objectively assessed because it's inherently subjective.

So anyone trying to claim a feature of a game's visual presentation is objectively the best is merely spouting empty rhetoric.

Tbf, Alex never said that. He said "best lighting in a videogame ever". And he's objectively correct.

Again, best =/= accurate.

It could be the most accurate lighting in a videogame (and it absolutely isn't because their material shaders are shit --- if they're even using PBR material shaders at all), but that doesn't mean it's objectively the best.

"Objectively the best" of any visual feature of a visual medium doesn't exist and is just a shitty thing people say to try to elevate their own subjective opinion over the opinion of others.

 

[thewire]

Is anyone making a State of Play thread? I think it's important that we all have a place to express our disappointment in realtime.

It’s mainly for rachet gameplay, so as long as its 15 mins of gameplay for next gen rachet then I don’t see how that’s disappointing, i can’t wait to see more of it, it’s the most next gen game shown currently period.

 

[VFXVeteran]

It could be the most accurate lighting in a videogame (and it absolutely isn't because their material shaders are shit --- if they're even using PBR material shaders at all), but that doesn't mean it's objectively the best.

They do have shit PBR materials. But a material is independent of the lighting equation. The BRDF is a part of the multiply in the equation but the L(x) function is what we are talking about here.

"Objectively the best" of any visual feature of a visual medium doesn't exist and is just a shitty thing people say to try to elevate their own subjective opinion over the opinion of others.

Objectively the best means it's the best approximation representing light scattering around in a scene. Factually GI light probes are completely NOT the best when one is lighting the scene. It's not an opinion. I've worked at several big companies and with 100s of artists. RT lighting is indeed factually better. Since you are rude, I suggest you go look up what Pixar, Dreamworks, Sony Interactive, LucasFilm, Weta and all the other big name film companies are using for lighting and send them a nice email stating they are wrong in using RT lighting over rasterization. See how far that gets ya.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

They do have shit PBR materials. But a material is independent of the lighting equation. The BRDF is a part of the multiply in the equation but the L(x) function is what we are talking about here.

Again you're getting lost in the technical details and missing the forest for the trees.

If someone claims a game has good or great lighting, the intent isn't to artificially restrict their meaning to only refer to the way light is propagated through a scene. All aspect of direct and indirect lighting and shadowing, including the visual representation and accuracy of material shading is all encompassed by the term "lighting" when used by people in normal speech to refer to videogame graphics.

Arguing technicalities that only apply to graphics rendering engineers and the equations they implement as algorithms in-engine simply isn't important.

Objectively the best means it's the best approximation representing light scattering around in a scene.

Only to you.

To the rest of us, the definition is far less technical. And in the context of discussion with lay-gamers, your narrowly defined technical definitions aren't relevant.

 

[jroc74]

No need to be obtuse. The discussion here has been about lighting approaches. The only people trying to make it about platform wars here is you...

...it's a terribly bad look.



Ok, this kinda stupidity really needs to die.

Best lighting =/= most accurate lighting.

Clearly, you've failed to grasp the thrust of the arguments and discussion in this thread so far.

Videogames like movies and TV are a visual medium and the final aesthetic, i.e. the end result is the absolute most important pursuit/goal.

The issue with the perspectives of industry people like Alex from DF as well as you is that by claiming a technical approach to representing videogame lighting is the best purely because it's the most accurate, you're completely missing the forest for the trees.

The accuracy of lighting in a videogame is irrelevant if the lighting design and composition of the scene is shit, as well as the textures and assets being lit.

Pedro Motta said it best in his previous post:



So if real-life lighting can be shit, then the accuracy of videogame lighting has no inherent visual quality value if the videogame lighting isn't carefully and artistically controlled. And if it has to be artistically controlled in order to look good, then it's inherently a subjective artistic quantity and not an objective technical one (contrary to the nerdgasms of people like Alex).

So claiming "objectively most accurate" lighting does mean shit if it isn't controlled well to make the overall scene appear more visually appealing. In such a case, it being objectively the most accurate lighting doesn't make it objectively the best lighting in a videogame.

The "best lighting" in a game takes into account an assessment of the overall aesthetic, which can NEVER be objectively assessed because it's inherently subjective.

So anyone trying to claim a feature of a game's visual presentation is objectively the best is merely spouting empty rhetoric.



Again, best =/= accurate.

It could be the most accurate lighting in a videogame (and it absolutely isn't because their material shaders are shit --- if they're even using PBR material shaders at all), but that doesn't mean it's objectively the best.

"Objectively the best" of any visual feature of a visual medium doesn't exist and is just a shitty thing people say to try to elevate their own subjective opinion over the opinion of others.

IMO...Its the Amoled vs LCD smartphone debates all over again from years ago.

LCD had more accurate colors, Amoled had more vibrant colors, colors that popped.

I was a big LCD fan.....until I had my first phone with an Amoled screen. After that...I didnt know what to do, lol. In the end....I went with what my eyes liked more...and that was the colors, blacks of Amoled screens.

I meant to post this before....but when RT was confirmed to be available for these consoles, when the UE5 demo was first shown....I thought it was more about taking the burden off of devs vs making games look better.

Or it was a mix of both. Like to this day if a game doesnt have ray traced reflections some ppl knock the game or the use of RT in that game. I could have sworn RT had levels to it......

And I agree 100%, trying to make this into fanboy/platform/console wars is a childishly bad look.

 

[SlimySnake]

Lumen runs on the PS5, so it's great. RT only Metro doesn't run on the PS5, so it's bad. Only from this point of view the conversation actually makes sense. Otherwise we wouldn't see Snake post screenshots of flat and gamey looking games, telling everyone how they look so much better than RT, and a dozen people giving thumbs up.

Hope this helps

What? RT only Metro is coming out on PS5 too. Literally the only thing missing is RT reflections. Everything else is ray traced, and their next full game is already confirmed to be RT only.

This isnt about Lumens vs RT GI. Dynamic GI is dynamic GI, who cares how you get there anyway. The end result is what matters, and right now the 'gamey' games i showed looked better than the Metro RT GI lighting Alex is jerking off over. I am just not telling everyone how they look better, i literally posted screenshots to invite people to see how they look better. Anyone with two pairs of eyes would look at those screenshots and know that they look better. It has fuck all to do with ray tracing or Lumens. Just your eyes.

A year ago, back when we thought Hellblade 2 was realtime, I thought this was the best graphics Ive ever seen. There is no RT here. None whatsoever. It just looks amazing to my eyes, not because a PS5 dev made it or because its using Lumens, which its not. It looks amazing because it looks photorealistic, and the cinematography is approaching hollywood quality.

Quite frankly, i couldnt care less about Dynamic GI. Most games dont need it. Not even open world with dynamic time of day. Sun doesnt move that fast. I say go ahead bake them in. We need to first get to photorealistic graphics. Then we can worry about dynamic GI.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

IMO...Its the Amoled vs LCD smartphone debates all over again from years ago.

LCD had more accurate colors, Amoled had more vibrant colors, colors that popped.

I was a big LCD fan.....until I had my first phone with an Amoled screen. After that...I didnt know what to do, lol. In the end....I went with what my eyes liked more...and that was the colors, blacks of Amoled screens.

Absolutely. Agreed.

I meant to post this before....but when RT was confirmed to be available for these consoles, when the UE5 demo was first shown....I thought it was more about taking the burden off of devs vs making games look better.

Or it was a mix of both. Like to this day if a game doesnt have ray traced reflections some ppl knock the game or the use of RT in that game. I could have sworn RT had levels to it......

It absolutely does! And again it just goes to expose the silly reductive reasoning of some who only seem to consider things within this artificial and very binary dichotomy of RT vs non-RT games.


This recent Metro news is a great example of how RT can be improved on a graduated scale based on one of many factors, i.e. number of ray bounces considered in the simulation.

RT quality can also be adjusted using many other variables like ray sampling rate, for example, i.e. the number of rays per pixel.

We're in the infancy of RT for real-time applications, so people disingenuously pretending RT as we have it now is the best it'll ever be, is just as bad and obtuse as those who tried to pretend that traditional non-RT lighting effects haven't improved at all in the past 20 years (and aren't still continuously improving).

 

[SlimySnake]

IMO...Its the Amoled vs LCD smartphone debates all over again from years ago.

LCD had more accurate colors, Amoled had more vibrant colors, colors that popped.

I was a big LCD fan.....until I had my first phone with an Amoled screen. After that...I didnt know what to do, lol. In the end....I went with what my eyes liked more...and that was the colors, blacks of Amoled screens.

Years ago? Last year I went through the most agonizing two weeks before launch where i flipped between the Sony x900H LED and the LG CX OLED for two weeks until I ended up buying both, and then regretting it lmao.

I think the LEDs today have amazing colors and an incredible HDR picture. Brightness that is blinding. Hell, my 2016 KS8000 blinded me just last night during an explosion in a harry potter chase sequence. My newer tvs dont get that bright. And the OLED definitely doesnt get that bright. I paid $400 more for the OLED for 10 fewer inches (65 vs 75) and I cannot tell the difference. I wouldve seriously returned the OLED if i wasnt tired of unboxing two giant fucking tvs in two weeks.

And thats the point, if your eyes cant tell the difference, what difference does it make how the game is being lit?

 

[kyliethicc]

- Academy Award winning cinematographer Andrew Lesnie (The Lord of the Rings)

 

[Lunatic_Gamer]

3D Audio | PS5

 

[VFXVeteran]

Again you're getting lost in the technical details and missing the forest for the trees.

If someone claims a game has good or great lighting, the intent isn't to artificially restrict their meaning to only refer to the way light is propagated through a scene. All aspect of direct and indirect lighting and shadowing, including the visual representation and accuracy of material shading is all encompassed by the term "lighting" when used by people in normal speech to refer to videogame graphics.

Arguing technicalities that only apply to graphics rendering engineers and the equations they implement as algorithms in-engine simply isn't important.

You are backtracking because you don't know how the process works. It's just that simple.

Let me make it very clear: RT Global Illumination is BETTER than traditional rasterized Global Illumination in EVERY FORM and in ANY lighting situation.

There I said it. And that's what Alex is basically saying and that's what the entire entertainment industry (games and film) is also saying. I can literally prove it objectively.

This says nothing about textures, materials, overall level design, etc.. Me nor Alex was never talking about that.

 

[Dave_at_Home]

Ray tracing is cool and all, but holy hell has it turned into a Digital Foundry circle-jerk.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

You are backtracking because you don't know how the process works. It's just that simple.

No I'm not. You're just being dense.

Let me make it very clear: RT Global Illumination is BETTER than traditional rasterized Global Illumination in EVERY FORM and in ANY lighting situation.

There I said it. And that's what Alex is basically saying and that's what the entire entertainment industry (games and film) is also saying. I can literally prove it objectively.

This says nothing about textures, materials, overall level design, etc.. Me nor Alex was never talking about that.

How can you possibly consider yourself a professional in 3D VFX while claiming that the way different materials react and respond to light doesn't fall under the classification of lighting.

I think you're just arguing in bad faith now.

 

[VFXVeteran]

How can you possibly consider yourself a professional in 3D VFX while claiming that the way different materials react and respond to light doesn't fall under the classification of lighting.

Dude, you are really starting to irritate me. You don't know what you are talking about because you've never coded in a path-tracing before. Stop trying to antagonize me and move on.

If you know much about materials, then you should easily see each of those terms are independent of each other. BRDF() is materials. L(x) is light equation. Come back to me when you want to have a real discussion about RT.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Dude, you are really starting to irritate me. You don't know what you are talking about because you've never coded in a path-tracing before. Stop trying to antagonize me and move on.

WTF are you talking about yourself?

We're discussing the subjective qualities of how game lighting affects our perception of a game's overall visual aesthetic.

We don't have to have coded fucking path-tracing to be able to use our eyes and assess whether game lighting looks good or not.

You're trying to twist the discussion into something else just to pander to your own desire for mental masturbation. Nobody is impressed.

 

[VFXVeteran]

WTF are you talking about yourself?

We're discussing the subjective qualities of how game lighting affects our perception of a game's overall visual aesthetic.

We don't have to have coded fucking path-tracing to be able to use our eyes and assess whether game lighting looks good or not.

You're trying to twist the discussion into something else just to pander to your own desire for mental masturbation. Nobody is impressed.

/ignore

 

[Dolodolo]

/ignore

Half of this forum ignores you, don't worry

 

[Dave_at_Home]

WTF are you talking about yourself?

We're discussing the subjective qualities of how game lighting affects our perception of a game's overall visual aesthetic.

We don't have to have coded fucking path-tracing to be able to use our eyes and assess whether game lighting looks good or not.

You're trying to twist the discussion into something else just to pander to your own desire for mental masturbation. Nobody is impressed.

/ignore

Getting on his ignored list is how all discussions end with him. It's basically used as punctuation. I'm no lighting expert but doesn't take someone that is to understand what you were getting at.

 

[Kholinar]

Getting on his ignored list is how all discussions end with him. It's basically used as punctuation. I'm no lighting expert but doesn't take someone that is to understand what you were getting at.

Nothing VFXVeteran said was wrong, though. I can understand why he's frustrated. A lot of people are circling the drain and promoting 'subjectivity' as a reason as to why rasterization can compete with proper ray-tracing solutions. Once people start getting properly acclimated with RT, I guarantee you they're gonna balk at these flawed notions. The tricks just become woefully apparent, and everything looks wrong.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Nothing VFXVeteran said was wrong, though. I can understand why he's frustrated. A lot of people are circling the drain and promoting 'subjectivity' as a reason as to why rasterization can compete with proper ray-tracing solutions. Once people start getting properly acclimated with RT, I guarantee you they're gonna balk at these flawed notions. The tricks just become woefully apparent, and everything looks wrong.

Wut....?!?

In a discussion about how people subjectively appreciate lighting in games, he's trying to use terms in a fucking rendering equation to prove his own subjective opinion correct.

His knowledge and technical arguments aren't technically incorrect, but in the context of the wider discussion, they're irrelevant because he's trying to change scope of the entire discussion to fit a narrow technical definition of lighting that applies only to himself.

You're also making the mistake of misunderstanding/misrepresenting the arguments presented in the thread, because this:

...as a reason as to why rasterization can compete with proper ray-tracing solutions

Isn't even part of the discussion, nor is it a valid argument anyone has made.

The main thrust of the arguments presented is that both RT and non-RT lighting in games is less important than the end image said lighting approach produces. And that what people subjectively consider is "the best" is based on subjective qualities, because whether it's RT or non-RT lighting, the quality of the end result is still largely dependent on the artistic input to craft the final scene... thus it's an artistic measure, not an objective technical one.

 

[yewles1]

Nothing VFXVeteran said was wrong, though. I can understand why he's frustrated. A lot of people are circling the drain and promoting 'subjectivity' as a reason as to why rasterization can compete with proper ray-tracing solutions. Once people start getting properly acclimated with RT, I guarantee you they're gonna balk at these flawed notions. The tricks just become woefully apparent, and everything looks wrong.

The problem with all these arguments is the stage we're at with RT. We just barely started getting hardware acceleration for such a strenuous form of rendering. The evolution needs time to reach a point of satisfactory just like all other rendering methods.

 

[TheRedRiders]

Nothing VFXVeteran said was wrong, though. I can understand why he's frustrated. A lot of people are circling the drain and promoting 'subjectivity' as a reason as to why rasterization can compete with proper ray-tracing solutions. Once people start getting properly acclimated with RT, I guarantee you they're gonna balk at these flawed notions. The tricks just become woefully apparent, and everything looks wrong.

This is the problem that's flying over your head and others and in we've already echoed the same sentiment in response in the past few pages.

No one is saying that traditional rasterisation methods can compete with RT, but the visual improvement RT offers over other methods of dynamic lighting (including rasterisation) really isn't as big as you guys are making it out.

Most casual gamers won't really be paying attention to how rays are cast and bounced in real time during gameplay, they don't care about a how a stool in the corner of a dim room is casting it's shadow. That is no one other than the people who are looking out for it, mostly certain groups of enthusiasts who are passionate about such lighting technologies or people who are trying to hard to convince themselves that RT is somehow the be all and end all of the graphics rendering technologies which is an absurd notion.

I often think back to watching streamers play some of my favourite games. I'll use the example of God of War (2018) but there are many others. Streamers who are just casual gamers always mention "omg look at those insane graphics", often when we they see the high fidelity model of Kratos which has a high level of detail, or when looking at environments of the game which show high polygon counts or high resolution textures. It's rare for them to compliment lighting.

Even Unreal Engine 5, highly praised and became viral for it's absurd amounts of geometric detail, polygons and ultra high resolution textures with a more than good enough software based global GI system. Praised for it's high level of photorealism and the the consensus of the the gaming community was "this is next-gen". Lowering the polygon count and lowering the texture resolution significantly but then inserting realtime hardware accelerated RT would not have given the same level of photorealism.

 

[ethomaz]

Nothing VFXVeteran said was wrong, though. I can understand why he's frustrated. A lot of people are circling the drain and promoting 'subjectivity' as a reason as to why rasterization can compete with proper ray-tracing solutions. Once people start getting properly acclimated with RT, I guarantee you they're gonna balk at these flawed notions. The tricks just become woefully apparent, and everything looks wrong.

I'm not sure what is the conversation.
But in the Metro case a lot of places in DF video the lighting is really weird and off compared with what you with the Rasterization + RT solution before.
There is something that maybe should be fixed before release.

Being technically right or not doesn't change the final results is not better in a lot of cases... in fact it is really weird... too bright.

I support RT rendering and it will give fruits in the future but Metro case is now showing that... sadly it changes the game atmosphere to something different and worst in some some scenes compared.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Alex Battlestar Gallactica just gave KZ Shadow Fall his Game of the Generation.

I respect people's opinions but Killzone is not the best game of the last generation.

Games are more than tech demos.

 

[kyliethicc]

Knack 2 didn't need ray tracing and it has best graphics I win bye bye

 

[Razvedka]

WTF are you talking about yourself?

We're discussing the subjective qualities of how game lighting affects our perception of a game's overall visual aesthetic.

We don't have to have coded fucking path-tracing to be able to use our eyes and assess whether game lighting looks good or not.

You're trying to twist the discussion into something else just to pander to your own desire for mental masturbation. Nobody is impressed.

VFXVeteran is right though. He was just giving a technical answer which is often more 'narrow' or 'focused' then what is easily digestible to broader audiences.

Sure, non-RT solutions may end up being a prettier lookin game but that doesn't mean they're technically superior. Artistically sure, on a technical level no.

Note: I am not a graphics programmer. My background is in other stuff.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

This is the problem that's flying over your head and others and in we've already echoed the same sentiment in response in the past few pages.

No one is saying that traditional rasterisation methods can compete with RT, but the visual improvement RT offers over other methods of dynamic lighting (including rasterisation) really isn't as big as you guys are making it out.

Most casual gamers won't really be paying attention to how rays are cast and bounced in real time during gameplay, they don't care about a how a stool in the corner of a dim room is casting it's shadow. That is no one other than the people who are looking out for it, mostly certain groups of enthusiasts who are passionate about such lighting technologies or people who are trying to hard to convince themselves that RT is somehow the be all and end all of the graphics rendering technologies which is an absurd notion.

I often think back to watching streamers play some of my favourite games. I'll use the example of God of War (2018) but there are many others. Streamers who are just casual gamers always mention "omg look at those insane graphics", often when we they see the high fidelity model of Kratos which has a high level of detail, or when looking at environments of the game which show high polygon counts or high resolution textures. It's rare for them to compliment lighting.

Even Unreal Engine 5, highly praised and became viral for it's absurd amounts of geometric detail, polygons and ultra high resolution textures with a more than good enough software based global GI system. Praised for it's high level of photorealism and the the consensus of the the gaming community was "this is next-gen". Lowering the polygon count and lowering the texture resolution significantly but then inserting realtime hardware accelerated RT would not have given the same level of photorealism.

I agree, but I would also say that a huge part of why people were amazed by the UE5 demo was indeed the lighting, however, most don't have the technical background to explain why. And fundamentally, they don't need it.

This is the point. If it looks good in the eye of the beholder, it doesn't matter what techniques were used to arrive at the final image.

You're also absolutely right too that the average gamer simply doesn't give a crap whether a stool in a dimly lit room isn't lit in an accurate and realistic manner.

Again, lighting accuracy =/= human perception of visual quality.... It might be true for the vanishingly small number of subject matter experts who work professionally in the field of graphics rendering (who have trained themselves to spot subtle lighting inaccuracies), but for the rest of us the two simply are not the same thing.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

VFXVeteran is right though. He was just giving a technical answer which is often more 'narrow' or 'focused' then what is easily digestible to broader audiences.

Sure, non-RT solutions may end up being a prettier lookin game but that doesn't mean they're technically superior. Artistically sure, on a technical level no.

Note: I am not a graphics programmer. My background is in other stuff.

My point is, the discussion was never about what is technically superior. It's always been about what is subjectively visually more appealing.

Technical superiority in terms of accuracy is far less relevant to how the final end result will be appreciated. Metro is a prime example of this. The game that so-called has the most accurate lighting looks pretty bad next to an innumerable number of games with less accurate, more appealing lighting.

So lighting accuracy isn't really as important as VFXVeteran is trying to suggest. So his suggestions are wrong in the context of the discussion because they have to reframe the entire argument in order to make a sound case.

 

[SlimySnake]

WTF are you talking about yourself?

We're discussing the subjective qualities of how game lighting affects our perception of a game's overall visual aesthetic.

We don't have to have coded fucking path-tracing to be able to use our eyes and assess whether game lighting looks good or not.

You're trying to twist the discussion into something else just to pander to your own desire for mental masturbation. Nobody is impressed.

VFX is the kind of the guy who wont bang this hot robot chick because her A.I wasn't powered by ray tracing.

Meanwhile, I took differential equations in college, but I knew I was in before she finished saying Welcome...

 

[TheRedRiders]

I agree, but I would also say that a huge part of why people were amazed by the UE5 demo was indeed the lighting, however, most don't have the technical background to explain why. And fundamentally, they don't need it.

This is the point. If it looks good in the eye of the beholder, it doesn't matter what techniques were used to arrive at the final image.

You're also absolutely right too that the average gamer simply doesn't give a crap whether a stool in a dimly lit room isn't lit in an accurate and realistic manner.

Again, lighting accuracy =/= human perception of visual quality.... It might be true for the vanishingly small number of subject matter experts who work professionally in the field of graphics rendering (who have trained themselves to spot subtle lighting inaccuracies), but for the rest of us the two simply are not the same thing.

True, I don't want to sound dismissive of lighting in games, as I'm typing this I'm actually thinking about what I like most in the games in terms of visual elements. I would say that there are scenes and environments in games where the high fidelity of a character stands out and looks beautiful. There are scenes in a game where the geometric complexity or detailed textures stand out, especially in closed environments. There are scenes in which the lighting looks stunning like in caves and water and reflections. Mostly it's a combination of all 3.

I think high geometric complexity and high resolution textures are critical for "photorealism", as for lighting, I would feel a more than robust dynamic lighting system would be sufficient but I don't think that HAS to be through ray-tracing and this is the core of the argument. A dynamic GI system like Lumen would be enough for me personally. As for someone like VFXveteran who comes from a VFX background, he may value RT above other things such as geometric complexity, so for him personally, lighting (but only through RT) would be the difference maker. Likewise, people like Alex from DF would have the same outlook. Which I think is wrong, as it's an opinion really only echoed by a small number of enthusiasts and not really from any major or even minor game developers. And as I mentioned in my previous post but to reiterate my point, stating that lighting done through RT only is more important than geometric complexity and texture resolution in achieving photorealism is absurd.

Now my opinion may very well change in the next few years, I understand that we're still in the early stages of ray tracing technology in gaming but now that the consoles offer support we may see it get taken to the next level thanks to developer investment and adoption. Then again, we haven't even seen a truly "photorealistic game", my money is on Sony already having a few in the pipeline over the next year and just as I mentioned before the geometric complexity and texture resolution will be amongst the most important factors in achieving this photorealism, I think it's one of many reasons as to why Mark Cerny went with an ultra high bandwidth storage architecture on the PS5, this will allow such high levels of polygons and textures to be stored, managed and more importantly streamed extremely efficiently, thus not bottlenecking the RAM when developers aim for such high level of fidelity and graphics. The same can also be said for Series X although it won't be able to use it's RAM as efficiently as PS5 but that's not a knock on the Series X, it has it's own advantages, I only use the PS5 as an example because I primarily game on Playstation. I do believe a robust dynamic lighting system (like Lumen) will be critical but I just don't believe it has be ray-traced.

 

[assurdum]

this is why Alex on DF is such a joke

he gets all giddy about technical details rather than the underlying visuals themselves

metro looks like ASS, yet somehow is amazing just because it used a borked version of RT

It's not just Alex. All the pc elitist are like him. Expensive tech "better graphic ever". Same shit when Crysis was released. 10 FPS but who cares because "unprecedented lightings". It's always the same narrative with them.

 

[Fishake]

 

[Stooky]

My point is, the discussion was never about what is technically superior. It's always been about what is subjectively visually more appealing.

Technical superiority in terms of accuracy is far less relevant to how the final end result will be appreciated. Metro is a prime example of this. The game that so-called has the most accurate lighting looks pretty bad next to an innumerable number of games with less accurate, more appealing lighting.

So lighting accuracy isn't really as important as VFXVeteran is trying to suggest. So his suggestions are wrong in the context of the discussion because they have to reframe the entire argument in order to make a sound case.

Accurate lighting is super important to get correct material response, thats where RT is huge. Devs will use a mixture of rasterization and RT depending on what the art and technical limits. From what im hearing console RT is better used for other functions, AI etc. RT lighting will be used for special case scenarios ( hero shots, small rooms ).

 

[TheRedRiders]

I'd highly recommend watching this in 4K if you haven't already, it's looks way better. The stream was only in 1080p.

 

[yewles1]

I'd highly recommend watching this in 4K if you haven't already, it's looks way better. The stream was only in 1080p.

I say that looks comparable to Monsters Inc. in fidelity. *runs*

 

[MasterCornholio]

I'd highly recommend watching this in 4K if you haven't already, it's looks way better. The stream was only in 1080p.

The streams quality was trash. Hopefully we get some high quality downloads soon.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

True, I don't want to sound dismissive of lighting in games, as I'm typing this I'm actually thinking about what I like most in the games in terms of visual elements. I would say that there are scenes and environments in games where the high fidelity of a character stands out and looks beautiful. There are scenes in a game where the geometric complexity or detailed textures stand out, especially in closed environments. There are scenes in which the lighting looks stunning like in caves and water and reflections. Mostly it's a combination of all 3.

I think high geometric complexity and high resolution textures are critical for "photorealism", as for lighting, I would feel a more than robust dynamic lighting system would be sufficient but I don't think that HAS to be through ray-tracing and this is the core of the argument. A dynamic GI system like Lumen would be enough for me personally. As for someone like VFXveteran who comes from a VFX background, he may value RT above other things such as geometric complexity, so for him personally, lighting (but only through RT) would be the difference maker. Likewise, people like Alex from DF would have the same outlook. Which I think is wrong, as it's an opinion really only echoed by a small number of enthusiasts and not really from any major or even minor game developers. And as I mentioned in my previous post but to reiterate my point, stating that lighting done through RT only is more important than geometric complexity and texture resolution in achieving photorealism is absurd.

Now my opinion may very well change in the next few years, I understand that we're still in the early stages of ray tracing technology in gaming but now that the consoles offer support we may see it get taken to the next level thanks to developer investment and adoption. Then again, we haven't even seen a truly "photorealistic game", my money is on Sony already having a few in the pipeline over the next year and just as I mentioned before the geometric complexity and texture resolution will be amongst the most important factors in achieving this photorealism, I think it's one of many reasons as to why Mark Cerny went with an ultra high bandwidth storage architecture on the PS5, this will allow such high levels of polygons and textures to be stored, managed and more importantly streamed extremely efficiently, thus not bottlenecking the RAM when developers aim for such high level of fidelity and graphics. The same can also be said for Series X although it won't be able to use it's RAM as efficiently as PS5 but that's not a knock on the Series X, it has it's own advantages, I only use the PS5 as an example because I primary game on Playstation. I do believe a robust dynamic lighting system (like Lumen) will be critical but I just don't believe it has be ray-traced.

Spot on.

Accurate lighting is super important to get correct material response, thats where RT is huge. Devs will use a mixture of rasterization and RT depending on what the art and technical limits. From what im hearing console RT is better used for other functions, AI etc. RT lighting will be used for special case scenarios ( hero shots, small rooms ).

Well, according to VFXVeteran the BDPR term and the lighting terms are independent. So using PBR with non-RT lighting models can still produce materials that look just as accurate and realistic. So RT doesn't seem relevant to this.