To convince others that theres still much improvement left for the graphics to be made?
Ray Traced graphics look correct optically not better, there's a reason why movies never use natural lights and always have lamps hiding behind the cameras. Devs now try to make games without raytracing look worse and almost put no work into making non ray traced reflexions look realistic.
Funny: Devs are forced now to make the environmental geometry much more simpler so that the people who bought RTX cards are able to trace the in game lights back to its source and reassure themselves that this looks like the way it is supposed to look like and their purchase wasn't a big waste of money and time investment.
>there's a reason why movies never use natural lights and always have lamps hiding behind the cameras every cgi piece you ever saw in a movie is raytraced realtime raytracing is definitely the future, hardly the present though
Isaac Peterson
I didn't mean that, games shouldn't use the lights of the scene as the only resource for lighting, devs are always opting out of doing this now and say thats better because its more realistic even though movies never do this and movies and their cinematography should be the standard for devs try to strive to. Examples:
Ray tracing is computationally expensive and all of what RT is achieving can be faked using shaders. There is a reason why Renderman (used across in vfx for decades now) never had ray tracing features until after 2010+.
As for now the biggest thing with ray tracing is that it is another buzzword like '4k' and 'ssd' (for normies...). This is why they buy new shit every year.
Daniel Walker
raytracing has been "the future of realtime graphics" for the entire history of computer generated graphics we are just barely at a point where it's it's viable
honestly, the easiest fucking way to make RTX ON shit seem like a good investment is to have ridiculously dramatic lighting and put mirrors fucking everywhere and all kind of heavy shadowing that would look like balls with non-raytraced methods
>games shouldn't use the lights of the scene as the only resource for lighting 'the scene' can be anything and so is the lighting, it's a fucking virtual fucking world raytracing is just a 'tool' used to a portray realistic light behavior
Nolan Kelly
the models and textures are too simple for realistic light behaviour to really have an recognisable effect and this probably won't change either because it is more of an time consuming problem modelling this rather than the lack of power needed and games are also much larger than animated movies. The scene can't be anything if you can control the camera and move through the space as you wish because light movie sets and their results are limited to one or a small amount of few perspectives., so games are only left to restrict themselves with having the only light sources to be the actual virtual light sources in the game environment scene.
Asher Barnes
Anything mentioned in marketing materials is just a scheme. Marketing is a scheme by nature.
Levi Moore
It's not a scheme, just too soon. Nvidia ALWAYS rely on a proprietary gimmick for marketing, every single time. No clue why this one stuck where all the others failed. I guess normies just had never heard of ray tracing before and saw Minecraft with realistic lighting and thought this is next gen.
The worst argument in favor of ray tracing-based lighting is that the developer need not worry about lighting. It is the opposite, in fact, from the moment you include realistic lighting you will have all the problems that photographers have, with the aggravating factor that in many games the player has the ability to move the camera. Of course, practically no game renders images using only the ray tracing method yet the argument doesn't make sense.
Lincoln Jones
>the models and textures are too simple for realistic light behaviour to really have an recognisable effect I'm starting to think that you've never played a video game before.
>The scene can't be anything if you can control the camera and move through the space as you wish because light movie sets and their results are limited to one or a small amount of few perspectives., so games are only left to restrict themselves with having the only light sources to be the actual virtual light sources in the game environment scene. Ok at this point I can not fathom your logic anymore. Video game can dynamically adjust lighting or anything really. There's a whole lot of things that are possible in a video game engine. You can change various properties or ignore the altogether. For example, you can make a light source invisible while retaining it's ability to generate light, if that makes sense.
Angel Lee
Ray tracing is old but real-time implementation in games isn't a gimmick, I don't get how people bemoan the fact that we lost dynamic lighting while pointing to old games like d33m and FEAR but then when new technology comes out to bring it back they call it a gimmick and buzzword.
Easton Miller
>the models and textures are too simple for realistic light behaviour to really have an recognisable effect Nigger, even a few cubes and spheres will look drastically different with raytraced lighting as compared to traditional rasterization tricks.
>games shouldn't use the lights of the scene as the only resource for lighting This is not even a limitation of ray tracing. Whether you place "fake" lights or "realistic" lights, ray tracing is only a method of rendering the scene illuminated by those lights. And furthermore, level designers in pre-raytracing games DO place lights in the scene, often as the only source of lighting (ever opened a game's maps in a level editor?). Movie lighting only works from particular viewpoints, and are not suitable for an interactive experience, which is why "realistic" light placement is much more scalable when applied to games.
>The worst argument in favor of ray tracing-based lighting is that the developer need not worry about lighting. I think when people say that, they mean that the developer no longer needs to 'bake' the lighting and shadows, or worry about the reflections. But raytracing certainly brings some caveats of its own.
Levi Reyes
real time raytracing has been the endgame of computer graphics since the invention of computer graphics, no it's not a meme. the current iteration of it is far from perfection though
James Adams
>movies and their cinematography should be the standard for devs try to strive to. uh no zoomer.
Jayden Long
This.
/thread.
Tyler Lopez
The fuck? Renderman is old enough to have existed before there was any alternative to raytracing for VFX. Only relatively recently have there been ways to fake a sufficient number of things with cumbersome rasterization tricks (see Blender's Evee renderer) but still not all of them, and only in certain situations. Optimizing your scene to actually look good using non-raytracing tricks is a real undertaking in its own right; you have to place cubemap probes in the right places, irradiance caching volumes with some hand-tweaked resolutions, shadow buffers, and a myriad of screen-space effects that break down when things are partially out of the view.
Michael Howard
Because like mentioned plenty of times, it's too soon, especially for a console to handle that much workload. Therefore it's a gimmick.
Camden Adams
>console i thought we were talking about technology not toys
We're talking about RTX and the implementation of ray tracing in video games, that discussion is going to involve consoles, are you illiterate?
Landon Taylor
No because console ray tracing is a joke and the only ones making any effort are nvidia, whose hardware is in PCs. Yeah it's too early for CONSOLES, but on PC it's long overdue for widespread adoption.
Camden Morgan
The current implementation in games is quite precarious, actually. Even today, to render a single frame of a complex scene using ray tracing you need several minutes on a tens of thousands of dollars rendering station. What the guys use in games these days are interesting tricks, but which, in my opinion, are often not justified. For example, in the trailer for the new gran turismo there are a lot of examples of more realistic reflections, but if you look closely, it's all low res and fucking ugly.
Matthew Watson
Well good luck convincing people to make their games with ray tracing when maybe 0.8% of their audience is capable of taking advantage of it.
Joshua Thompson
>there's a reason why movies never use natural lights Ahem...
