Support NeoGAF

[dgrdsv]

Will it be an option on console though?

I don't see any other way for it to even be on a console.
FG from 30 to 60 won't happen, the lag will be too severe and artifacts too obvious. Same is true for 40 base.
60 to 90-120 is the only option where FG makes sense on a console, and you can't ship your game expecting everyone to have 120 TVs with VRR to play it, let alone not provide a non-FG 60 FPS mode.

What's with the weird Technoskepticism lately?

 

[Honey Bunny]

Sonybros we really fucked up trusting this guy how do we 180 on our opinion without the pc masturdrace noticing...

 

[asdasdasdbb]

FG from 30 to 60 won't happen,

I could see some games try. Be easier to get away with it on console, esp on the handheld.

 

[BlownUpRich]

At some point people need to start accepting the shriekingly obvious prospects of AI Neural Rendering, it is here, it is now, it is the future.

The good thing is this generation took the brunt of introducing 60 FPS performance modes across-the-board, half of the potential of this generation was wasted on games having to run at 60 FPS.

Next-gen will obviously have the same target ambitions with AI Frame-gen on top to take them to 120 FPS or even above, who knows? But the graphical leaps will be far bigger than this gen and that will be thanks to Neural Rendering, DLSS 5 (while it's still not taking the full 3D geometry/pipeline into account) is the beginning of what to expect FIDELITY wise for PS6 & Project Helix, just at much lower resolutions of course.

 

[CentralScrutinizer]

What's with the weird Technoskepticism lately?

Because to me the over reliance on AI upscalers and frame gen is the gaming industries version of shrinkflation. Tools that make gaming worse in practice because developers lean on it to save on their own development cost.

 

[Bojji]

Because to me the over reliance on AI upscalers and frame gen is the gaming industries version of shrinkflation. Tools that make gaming worse in practice because developers lean on it to save on their own development cost.

They can make every game in native 4k performing 60fps - but those games need to looks like PS4 titles. There is no hidden secret here.

Same way we could have all PS3 games running 1080p/60fps (they would just have to look like PS2 games).

 

[Katatonic]

I think the thread title would better convey the message by adding "because" developers hate it.

 

[CentralScrutinizer]

They can make every game in native 4k performing 60fps - but those games need to looks like PS4 titles. There is no hidden secret here.

Same way we could have all PS3 games running 1080p/60fps (they would just have to look like PS2 games).

Nothing wrong with that. Its preferable.

I would've been fine if this entire gen was PS4 graphics at native 4K /60fps with no tricks or artifact inducing techniques.

Is the chase of realism really worth all the trade offs now? For me they aren't.

RE9 on PC with no upscaling and no RTX running at 4k 120fps looks phenomenal. But we are being gaslit by Nvidia so they can sell more GPUs and they're successfully convincing people there's still more juice to squeeze.

 

[Bojji]

Nothing wrong with that. Its preferable.

I would've been fine if this entire gen was PS4 graphics at native 4K /60fps with no tricks or artifact inducing techniques.

Is the chase of realism really worth all the trade offs now? For me they aren't.

RE9 on PC with no upscaling and no RTX running at 4k 120fps looks phenomenal. But we are being gaslit by Nvidia so they can sell more GPUs and they're successfully convincing people there's still more juice to squeeze.

RE9 looks like crap in raster compared to PT.

I don't want to be stuck with PS4 graphics, thank you. We have high end GPUs and Pro consoles - why not use them not just for framerate and resolution increases?

 

[DeepEnigma]

RE9 looks like crap in raster compared to PT.

The laziness of developers. The song of the bean counters.

 

[Bojji]

The laziness of developers. The song of the bean counters.

I think raster version still compares favorably to other current gen games. Path Tracing just shows how next gen games will look like with fully real time lighting (and RT is in between).

 

[DeepEnigma]

I think raster version still compares favorably to other current gen games. Path Tracing just shows how next gen games will look like with fully real time lighting (and RT is in between).

It could be so much better, but that requires more time and investment, really.

 

[Bojji]

It could be so much better, but that requires more time and investment, really.

If they did more in raster version - it would run slower/use lower resolution.

Nothing is free in rendering, we have few raster only games that are extremely heavy to run - like Final Fantasy XVI.

 

[viveks86]

I think raster version still compares favorably to other current gen games. Path Tracing just shows how next gen games will look like with fully real time lighting (and RT is in between).

It doesn't imo. The game was clearly not built and art-ed up with PT in mind. PT was probably used during development for debugging lighting issues and as reference for cutscenes. When assets and in-game lighting are built with PT in mind, from the ground up, that's when we will truly see PT shine. Currently it's a bolt on, and results are understandably unpredictable. There are scenes where the difference is massive and there are scenes where it actually looks like a step backwards.

 

[DeepEnigma]

If they did more in raster version - it would run slower/use lower resolution.

Nothing is free in rendering, we have few raster only games that are extremely heavy to run - like Final Fantasy XVI.

No way, man.

The game is literally developed in a corridor setting. You have massive open world games like Crimson Desert that look amazing and run very well.

There is no excuse for RE engine with all the walls and narrow hallways everywhere other than time and optimizations.

 

[Bojji]

It doesn't imo. The game was clearly not built and art-ed up with PT in mind. PT was probably used during development for debugging lighting issues and as reference for cutscenes. When assets and in-game lighting are built with PT in mind, from the ground up, that's when we will truly see PT shine. Currently it's a bolt on, and results are understandably unpredictable. There are scenes where the difference is massive and there are scenes where it actually looks like a step backwards.

Lighting with PT behaves like lighting in real life so yeah, there could be scenes that look less "dramatic" vs. how they place lights in raster (cutscenes for example).

Here, we can see how much they always added to cutscenes so they look much better than gameplay:



And PT might or might not be a standard for next gen games on consoles, depending on how powerful PS6 really is in these types of calculations.

 

[viveks86]

Lighting with PT behaves like lighting in real life so yeah, there could be scenes that look less "dramatic" vs. how they place lights in raster (cutscenes for example).

Here, we can see how much they always added to cutscenes so they look much better than gameplay:



And PT might or might not be a standard for next gen games on consoles, depending on how powerful PS6 really is in these types of calculations.

Not just dramatic, but even to convey artistic intent. Let's take a scene in a dark room. Since nobody really cares about hidden light placements in cutscenes, devs would fake it all up with hidden lights to stage the shot. All that will be removed with PT (as keeping fake lights will likely flood the scene with too much unnecessary light bouncing everywhere). But the side effect is they will end up with a darker scene that is badly lit instead. The correct approach for the future would be to design the whole stage and position the characters in places where the lighting would naturally make sense in PT (or use much more subtle fake lights to enhance the shot). Then place artificial hidden lights only for the baked version.

Over time this would result in devs not paying much attention to the baked version at all and older gen versions looking like trash compared to PT all the time. But that's the only way forward if they want to get the maximum out of PT.

 

[Bojji]

Not just dramatic, but even to convey artistic intent. Let's take a scene in a dark room. Since nobody really cares about hidden light placements in cutscenes, devs would fake it all up with hidden lights to stage the shot. All that will be removed with PT (as keeping fake lights will likely flood the scene with too much unnecessary light bouncing everywhere). But the side effect is they will end up with a darker scene that is badly lit instead. The correct approach for the future would be to design the whole stage and position the characters in places where the lighting would naturally make sense in PT. Then place artificial hidden lights only for the baked version.

Over time this would result in devs not paying much attention to the baked version at all and older gen versions looking like trash compared to PT all the time. But that's the only way forward if they want to get the maximum out of PT.

True. We need games with only RTGI for lower end systems and PT for higher end systems - to finally have games build around fully real time lighting!

Raster lighting belongs in a museum.

 

[Mr Moose]

Because every time I use frame gen on pc the games look and feel like shit IMO?

I have never had one scenario where I thought it made a game look better, run better, or not introduce a massive tradeoff.

I remember trying it on Oblivion remaster and it felt like dog shit to play so I turned it off fast. Tried it again not too long after and it didn't feel terrible, not sure what I changed in the settings between that time.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

hopefully next gen consoles get a lowish latency version
just use it to take 60fps+ games to 120fps+

metroid4's 120hz mode felt good
assuming it didnt use FG though due to pretty big drop in visuals

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

FG from 30 to 60 won't happen.

Ooooohhhh... make no mistake, there will be devs that will try.

Unless Sony mandates certain things to ensure a certain standard of quality.

Because to me the over reliance on AI upscalers and frame gen is the gaming industries version of shrinkflation. Tools that make gaming worse in practice because developers lean on it to save on their own development cost.

The sooner you start looking at AI upscalers, the same way you look at pixel shaders... the better for you. The performance cost savings that upscalers give in relation to the out quality is so significant that its practically irresponsible not to use it. How can we justify spending 40-50% more performance just to run 4K natively when you can get close enough to 4K and even run at a higher framerate?

Its only unfortunate that naturally this means some devs would abuse it.

True. We need games with only RTGI for lower end systems and PT for higher end systems - to finally have games build around fully real time lighting!

Raster lighting belongs in a museum.

I personally believe that most PS6 games will be using ReSTIR GI... not even PT. ReSTIR GI can get you close to RT, while costing significantly less. Costs only about 30% the rays PT would otherwise cost.

 

[viveks86]

I personally believe that most PS6 games will be using ReSTIR GI... not even PT. ReSTIR GI can get you close to RT, while costing significantly less. Costs only about 30% the rays PT would otherwise cost.

ReSTIR GI has already been expanded to support PT years ago and is now fully implemented by Nvidia as ReSTIR PT within UE 5. It runs at 1 spp, so the ray count is as low as ReSTIR GI. Unless CDPR plans to create their own version of ReSTIR PT, they are likely to use Nvidia's branch. Or... may be they will put together their own version for cross vendor support.

I don't think any game uses it yet (may be RE: requiem, but I'm not sure), but it seems to be production ready for a while and what Nvidia uses in all their PT demos.

That has since evolved further into techniques like Area ReSTIR, ReSTIR with MCMC mutations, ReSTIR with forward splatting, path guided ReSTIR (or RESTIR PG) etc., all to push the output quality much further while keeping the ray count low. They are a bit heavier than ReSTIR PT, but the quality goes up significantly that you may even be able to go below 1 spp to squeeze out more performance.

With AI denoising and a neural radiance cache, PT should be viable next gen, for quality or balanced mode at 1080p base resolution, if not performance mode. By mid to late next gen, I fully expect PT to become mainstream and may be even hit 60 fps.

What I'm hoping to see is quality mode becoming 48 fps instead of 30 (with 30 fallback only for TVs that don't support it), which would be a major forward-looking change in paradigm.

 

[Fafalada]

Damn necromancy thread lol