Jump to content

Ray Tracing!?!


Opinionated Ham Scarecrow
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, footle said:

Does watchdogs on Xbox only have perfect 1-1 reflections? On pc there’s a huge amount of partial, occluded reflections in windows - which are much more realistic than perfect mirrors.

 

(Not so obvious in screenshots, or compressed, because they just look like additional shading when static)

 

The console version of Watchdogs uses ray tracing that's so downgraded it's below the "Low" preset on PC - you have to go into a config file and turn everything down below Low to get a reasonable approximation of what's available on consoles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/11/2020 at 22:37, Fallows said:

Here:

 

 

 

 

I've not really been following this game as I didn't care for Witcher 3 at all but those are some exceptionally fancy graphics.

 

Would it be wrong to buy a game just because it is so pretty? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/11/2020 at 02:04, MK-1601 said:

 

If the Series S/X do reasonably well over Christmas the XBONE version of Halo Infinite will be sent to live on a farm with the Switch port of Doom Eternal.

 

I expect it will be increasingly unusual for 30fps to be intentionally targeted, continuing the raising of expectations that happened in the last gen. Plus being able to offer a 120hz option is too alluring a prize for the most technically advanced games.

 

I wouldn't bet on it, especially not with real money.

 

Using piss easy to run last gen-based games as an example of performance targets going forward is dubious, 30fps allows much more room for visual improvements. It was the reason given for why Insomniac gave up being a flag bearer for 60fps über alles over a decade ago:

 

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/insomniac-60fps-no-more

 

You've got the added pressure of having to do higher output resolutions without a huge leap in available power to do so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mushashi said:

 

30fps allows much more room for visual improvements.

 

 

But expectations are higher. I expect most devs will be targeting 1080 and 1440 @ 60fps, and chopping resolution and image quality at 4K in the hope that image reconstruction gets more sophisticated over the generation.

 

An article from 11 years ago is kind of meaningless today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I care substantially more about a solid 60fps than I do about 4k or ray tracing etc. If it's a tradeoff between 30fps and 60fps, I very much want the option to turn the shiny graphics settings down this gen in every game.

 

Maybe pc will be the place to go this gen for people like me because you have a guarantee that you can turn OFF certain features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MK-1601 said:

 

But expectations are higher. I expect most devs will be targeting 1080 and 1440 @ 60fps, and chopping resolution and image quality at 4K in the hope that image reconstruction gets more sophisticated over the generation.

 

An article from 11 years ago is kind of meaningless today.

 

I think the opposite will still be true, what was the complaint about Halo Infinite? The True 4K crispy rendering resolution? The stable 60fps update rate? or the graphics...?

 

Graphical quality, rendering resolution or update rate, you can only ever choose 2 and the other choice suffers.

 

I still doubt the mainstream consumer demands 60fps if given the choice of better visuals. The most Next Gen 'game' shown so far ran at ~1440p at 30fps, most people will choose that (I certainly would depending on the game type) over a lesser 60fps target game on console.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I like having the choice. At the moment I have my PS4 connected to a 1080p projector and when I can find a PS5 that will be too. So I will be playing Demon’s Souls in performance mode, and with something like Miles Morales I would really like a 60fps option with ray tracing that drops the resolution to whatever it needs to achieve that (let’s say 1080p for argument’s sake). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CoD is the odd one out so far in terms of console games with RT, all the others only target 30fps at ~4K with RT, with only DMC5: SE even giving you the option of saying fuck it to rendering resolution in exchange for RT and ~60fps.

 

Or you can turn it off on CoD and run the game at a lower rendering resolution and 100-120fps instead, which for an online shooter is the new desired standard update rate on consoles, especially if you 'cheat' and use the mouse and keyboard for that extra edge.

 

Most games wanting to be a flagship title will prioritise visuals over update rate, I fully expect Naughty Dog and the rest of Sony's premier studios to choose that as their focus over 60fps. Not sure if Microsoft will do that with their recent marketing bullet points.

 

Or if you want to have your cake and be able to eat it too, throw money and effort at the problem and buy a gaming PC, solves the choice problem for 99.99% of available software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The main thing a lot of console games will use RT for is shadows and the simple reason for that is because it is the easiest thing to do and given the limited RT performance of consoles it makes the most sense. I highly doubt point based RT will be used as that is incredibly expensive even for top range cards. Reflections as also a bit expensive but they can be really paired down for performance (Watch dogs for example on consoles uses a setting much than the PC's lowest setting which is why the PC version only has a medium,high and ultra setting and no low setting...silly ubisoft).

 For PC's DLSS is the saving grace for RT. It allows you to get some acceptbale performance with RT on. You can kind of have your cake and eat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Super Craig said:

It's a game that's always (as far as I know) made a point of targeting 60fps. It shouldn't look as good.

 

Assassin's Creed Valhalla runs at 60 (although they've broken it now), is an open world game and manages to have reflections. They're not using ray tracing at all but everything looks about right.

 

In CoD you can have a character stand in front of a mirror and not be shown in the reflection. A good example is when you're on the underground train. All the seats are reflected in the windows but everyone on that train is a vampire. It's just silly for a linear game in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mikeyl said:

PC militants always dismiss resolution because they are all playing on their tiny Excel monitors at their desks. So they go on and on about imperceptible to the human eye frame rates instead. 

 

I'm not sure if this is a joke post or not, but you basically have to go out of your way to buy a gaming monitor <24" these days and the difference between 1080p and 1440p when you're sat about a foot from a screen that size is blindingly obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, mikeyl said:

PC militants always dismiss resolution because they are all playing on their tiny Excel monitors at their desks. So they go on and on about imperceptible to the human eye frame rates instead. 

Yes, someone said to me recently that the "1440p is enough" line that is quite frequently heard might be a result of the price in monitors jumping significantly beyond that price, so 1440p is a sort of sweet spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wahwah* said:

Yes, someone said to me recently that the "1440p is enough" line that is quite frequently heard might be a result of the price in monitors jumping significantly beyond that price, so 1440p is a sort of sweet spot.

 

At 55" the difference between 1440p and 4k is pretty much imperceptible sat more than about 1.5m from the screen. 

 

Perhaps it's worthwhile at larger sizes?

 

Selling 8k TVs at 55" is properly stupid, mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Isaac said:

 

At 55" the difference between 1440p and 4k is pretty much imperceptible sat more than about 1.5m from the screen. 

 

Perhaps it's worthwhile at larger sizes?

 

Selling 8k TVs at 55" is properly stupid, mind.

Yep, 65" C9 here and the difference between 4k and 1440p is negligible at around 1.8m. I played GTA 5 at 1440p and a rock solid 60fps earlier this year, was fucking awesome! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Isaac said:

 

At 55" the difference between 1440p and 4k is pretty much imperceptible sat more than about 1.5m from the screen. 

I sit pretty close to the TV when I play, so I probably get more mileage out of resolution increases but when I played Doom Eternal recently, I assumed it had got a next gen update, but it was just the dynamic resolution being... less dynamic. No idea how low the resolution was dropping before though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.