/v/ - Video Games

>>15333647

Can someone explain to me the details of what raytracing is specifically?

>I for one am very excited about raytracing

I don't see a reason to be excited until video games are starting to make use of it and nvidia can deliver cards that utilize it to consumers for non-inflated prices.

Blacked Alaska

>>15333670

According to NVIDIA, it authentically renders light, shadows, and reflections by reverse engineering the path of light from your eyes to the light source. So its basically just a way of making the most realistic graphics by imitating how reality does it.

Mostly bullshit so you won't notice "new" cards haven't really got any faster yet cost a lot more money. Yes, they do think you're stupid enough to fall for it.

>>15333671

Hey now, he put his life on the line pepper spray himself and streaming from his parent’s basement

>>15333647

>That said, I for one am very excited about raytracing

Few if any games will really take advantage of the tech for a long time.

>>15333686

>reverse engineering the path of light from your eyes to the light source

isnt this more or less what ancient civilizations believed? as technology gets smarter its going to look more and more ancient

Baked Alaska what a wanka, look what you did.

Real time global illumination via voxel cone raytracing has been a functioning tech for a while now. nvidia didn't pioneer it and their "dedicated raytracing videocard" is a load of garbage.

>>15333712

>>15333718

>>15333724

>not pirating reality

Wage cucks, the lot of ya……

goyim will eat this shit up

>>15333647

>Is ray tracing just a meme?

learn what a meme actually is. what games are you actually going to fucking play with all that GPU power?

>>15333700

It does the geometry math to check what light would be visible to your eyes. The camera (your eyes) is the starting point. For any surface visible to the camera it figures out what light would hit it and what light would reflect in a way the camera could see. It's just tracing the path of the light. It goes from the camera backward so it only has to render what the camera sees.

>>15333700

In raytracing, rather than locally just applying brightness to a surface and rendering that, for every pixel on screen, you shoot out a ray. This ray hits an object, some calculations are made about how it should look in regards to its color, material, opacity, its distance and angle from the light source and the qualities of the light itself, and the ray bounces off in the appropriate direction, refracts or possibly passes through and splits into multiple rays. This continuation now hits another object, and more information is gathered. All hits are composited together using some fancy math. Repeat until desired fidelity is achieved. Repeat for every pixel. Possibly in multiple passes for each light source.

>>15333944 (checked)

/thread

>>15333944

Prebaked lighting looks bad the moment something moves into a position you didn't expect. That forces you to keep shit stationary and makes everything feel dead.

>>15333647

Artists spend a lot of time making shit look nice the old way. There's no fucking way they'd pay them to do it all twice. And they're not ever putting $1000+ cards in consoles.

Alright you fucks, hear me out: all raytracing is is an algorithm we have known for decades. You pick a pixel (technically a point and not necessarily a pixel, but whatever) of the screen, then you "shoot" a ray forward until it hits a polygon. Bing, you get a position inside a polygon, which has a color; this is more or less what the original Doom did, obviously extremely simplified and with columns rather than pixels, but whatever.

Now let's say you have a 3D environment with illumination, and you want to provide a more realistic illumination. All materials reflect some light, otherwise they would be vantablack, so we can say they have some specularity, which means the light will bounce off into another surface, depending on the angle of the polygon and how the light source incides into said polygon. This means you will have to make several calculations more: you will have to raycast from the light source as well/instead, and then trace another line to all polygons that may be affected by the light bouncing off that surface. Obviously, the more you bounce the light, the more expensive it is, and all surfaces will likely be affected by more than one specular surface. If I recall correctly, Quake did something similar, but obviously much more simplified, which is what the infamous fast inverse square root function was used for. We have done this for years for prerrendered pictures, though, which is why the lighting in 3D artists' renders always looks so well, or why they can have colored glass balls that modify the color of the light as it passes through them.

The reason the RTX is interesting is because it has dedicated hardware for that. This is what is called an ASIC, which basically means it has a specialized, non-programmable chip which is dedicated exclusively to do this, which means it is fast as fuck. Basically, you can bounce off each ray of light several times. The reason the single light source trailer is so cool is because the sun is able to illuminate the entirety of a mostly closed cabin, which means they are bouncing off the light several times.

The reason it is a gimmick and will fail is only a few games will use them: those where Nvidia has put money and dev time, which means mostly AAA garbage and some AA games, like it happened with PhysX, but even worse because PhysX wasn't exclusive to high end cards. Only a few games will use it because they are adding dev time for what will be a tiny fraction of the market. It won't work with mid tier cards, it won't work with AMD cards (watch AMD reply with something similar, but probably open), and it won't work on OSes other than Windows because all this rack sounds driver heavy. This will be a total blunder for Nvidia in two or three generations. Just watch them change the nomenclature by then to something not using RTX nor the same numbering to try to escape this shit and justify not adding it to their cards anymore.

>>15334012

No, I'm an environment artist and mapper.

>>15334041

i hope you make maps that take place in giant houses. those are the best.

>>15333745

Did he died?

>>15334098

We talking Rats Maps or mansions?

The answer is yes

>>15334117

post maps

>>15334123

I use those in my portfolio so I'm going to have to say no, but you can probably find them.

>>15333700

the light looks gooder.

>>15333670

Rasterizing works by drawing triangles. Math is done to put the triangles at the correct place and to stretch the texture & magic to the correct position… and that's about it. Triangles are simple & fast.

Raytracing, on the other hand, works by simulating light. It doesn't draw triangles, instead it defines a 3D environment (that usually consists of triangles), and has light sources fire rays around the environment that bounce around a few times. If the rays hit the camera, then it colors a pixel on your screen.

This is, of course, expensive out of the ass, and very complex.

The main reason why raytracing is the future(tm) is because rasterizing is absolute fucking ass at things that aren't just drawing triangles. You want a mirror to reflect the environment? You get to draw all the triangles a second time for the other side of the mirror, doubling your render cost. Another mirror? Doubled again. A third mirror, and you're up to times eight.

Raytracing, on the other hand, doesn't really give a shit around mirrors. It already simulates light bouncing around the environment. It doesn't know anything else.

Note that real raytracing wont be around anytime soon. Instead, we'll see hybrid solutions. We'll end up with a rasterized scene for most of the environment, which then has raytraced lighting blended into it. The lighting produced by raytracing is actually quite affordable, and doesn't require you to make as many compromises. (Like making certain objects not cast shadows, receive certain lights or be reflected.)

However, as OP suspected, raytracing is going to be a big fat meme. Nvidia will release an Nvidia gameworks to allow developers to make awesome raytracing graphics, which then must be made optional or they will flat out lose AMD users. It will then become another stupid locked-to-vendor feature like everything else in gameworks, which will then be disregarded by many developers unless Nvidia pays them.

>>15334037

That sounds like a reasonable assesment. It's unlikely to be added as a rendering option for the popular engines leaving it in the realm of larger developers who as a whole won't buy in enough to sustain it.

>>15334139

You can get realtime raytracing on most hardware in 720p using vulkan functions you stupid faggot. The devs are just incompetent morons or don't have the time to delve into the assembly for each individual GPU's pipeline. Which is what the rendering engine makers should be doing, but they too are incompetent fucks.

>>15334160

Are we going back to the dark ages? Remember "lighting" on the Xbox 360 where everything was hidden in darkness so you couldn't see their terrible textures.

What's with these incremental performance gains? I thought every facet of technology was supposed to double in processing power, speed and memory capacity every 2 years without limit.

Why are we not on 3.1 yottabyte processors running GPUs with 600 exabytes of vram? Why don't we have heat sinks that can harmlessly dissipate millions of degrees of waste heat per second?

I was promised the future, and I was delivered the past.

>>15334192

>Why are we not on 3.1 yottabyte processors running GPUs with 600 exabytes of vram? Why don't we have heat sinks that can harmlessly dissipate millions of degrees of waste heat per second?

We have that, just not for the goyim.

>>15334181

Yep and it only took nvidia 10 years to drag is back to the dark ages

Ffs how does a game that isn't even out yet look worse on pc with rtx shit then on a 2 year old fucking xbox one x?

Phsysx and gimpworks at least looked better (besides hair works) especially hbao+ and the pcss+ shadows and cool shit like temporal aa

I bet they will even break basic shit to get rt running like certain effects.

Can't wait for digital foundries Richards full fat cock from df to absolutely rip into it and pixel count like a gamer jew and tell us what's missing

>>15334160

Well one of the potentials for raytracing is moving from polygonal models like that to true spheres and algebraic forms

>>15334192

It actually should be increasing at a cubic rate every other week

>>15334192

We've basically reached the end of Moore's Law, so engineers will need to start looking into other types of computing for that kind of speed. As the other anon said, it probably exists, but we'll never see it.

>>15334139

Listen to this anon, he knows what's up. The only thing I'd add is that an additional factor in this situation is console ports, which are never ever going to benefit from this.

>>15334209

Which makes for better games and game play how exactly? Current gen Vega cards could do this shit easily at 720p+ but amd left all of it up to devs including prim shaders (sort of a in-between solution for rtx raster + rt we are seeing from nvidia) but dropped it shortly afterwards becuase they have also been messing around with this useless crap in games for a decade and pro stuff for even longer it's just not worth it until gpus get 10-100x faster at this rtflop crap nobody will bother games will look and run worse and more importantly won't play any better it's nothing tangible added to the game experience even visually it's a sidestep

Modern shadows and lighting is good enough even if they just used rt for mirrors many other engines and games have come up with better solutions 10+ years ago like rockstars rage powered gta 4

>>15334192

node sizes are getting too small OR modern engineers are too lazy to overcome the size limitations OR NVIDIA and Intel realized they can jew the customer by making marginal gain every couple years with substantial price hikes

>>15334237

It's all 4 sadly we have just entered another 3+ year gpu dark age

Even if new amd cards drop tomorrow the same games will still be shit its not like they are magically gonna get better

Thank fuck ea is starting to stumble with battlefield it much rather it died a hero then turn into This horseshit and judging from pre order slumps 85% of our fellow faggots agree

Never thought I'd see cod outlast bf I thought it would be the other way around

>intel flops on cpu market

>RTX meme hits nvidia in the balls

>amd releases zen 3 and new gpu's

can't make this shit up

>>15333712

>as technology gets smarter its going to look more and more ancient

Man I never thought about it like that.

Remember when PhysX dedicated cards were being pushed as the next hot stuff?

>>15333955

>>15333958

>>15334037

>>15334139

Thanks for the explanations.

>>15334133

At last I see.

>>15334037

While ray tracing can actually speed up development time, there's no point in games using it if the technology is going to be locked to the newer generation of cards only. I would probably make an ultra-cheap ray tracing card, but then again, Nvidia wants people to upgrade, which is why the 2070 is priced fairly modestly especially if you sell your current card. That move I also described seems like something AMD would do anyways.

>>15334278

Best timeline it's literally 00s all over again except Intel has even more problems and nvidias gaming divisions fucked if this flops they have nothing besides a card that's 5-10% faster than a 1080 Ti oc for over double the price what a absolely aubsurd and funny ass time the next 2 years are going to be

>>15334293

Sips ahhh I remember that rtx launch of 2018 fellow zoomer it was the worst card nvidia ever made it made Fermi Vega and Intel's larrabe look like Sega kek

>>15334293

That was before Nvidia bought Ageia and killed discrete physics cards.

>>15334311

I wonder when dedicated add in raytrace cards will become a thing? Average pc fags won't bother but I reckon that's what Intel is working on first optane then 3dpoint 4d memeram that can be used as cpu cache ram and ssd all at the same time

>>15334304

>>15334300

Totally agree.

Rly, realtime raycasting is like mid 2020 tech, the only reason they rolled it out now is to gain the advantage over the competition. We just needed more power to play current games, they could save RTX for more sophisticated line like tegra and then push it as matured tech mid 2020. Now all they can expect is backlash straight in their face…

>>15334345

like >>15334312 said, they probably just made consumer versions of the technology they primarily made for business via quadros in order to sell a gimmick that won't be used for years.

>>15334345

>ray tracing in real time

<2020's tech

>what is luxrender

No, most graphics cards from 2005 onwards could do realtime raytracing on a vidya game in 720p with the proper optimization. It is just that vidya game devs in current year are stupid as fuck.

>>15334373

So in your mind the last 15 years of development akin video games should have been wasted on muh precious mirror reflections? Fuck off

>>15334384

There's also tech to do mirrors without having to double the render load.

>4k 60fps+ vr hdr for $500 right now or 2k 30fps+ with a noisey artifact ridden colourless flat image for $1000 that no game will ever use this decade

DURR nvidia here let's do the latter

>>15334384

No, it should have been invested in better gameplay and storyline, but the devs are not artists anymore. So the one thing they should be getting right, the logic to the game, they absolutely fail at. Even if soytindo, (((EA))), pajeetsoft, and others got their heads out of their assess and made crysis looking games that ran on toasters, the games themselves would be nofun pozz fests.

>>15334388

WHO THE FUCK CARES?

>>15334402

I do

>>15334399

And they literally are

Gaming sucks ass I quit

>>15334384

>>15334388

this

>increase computation power by 50%

>use some more expensive techniques to do reflections

>still faster than shitty low res noisy RTX meme

ayyymd save us pls

>>15334405

i suggest tabletop, it got me off from the cancer that is gaming forever

>>15334404

Go look at you self in a mirror then cunt fuck taking 100fps+ hit to performance so u can have your precious self inserted fucking ugly face

>>15334407

Imagine if they put the same effort into 4k or even 8k down sampled quad upscale like amd did

>>15334384

We have a lot of awful programmers and awful 3d artists they don't know how optimize their assets in this generation.

RAY TRACING makes a huge fucking difference in graphics quality

ray tracing = ultra realistic

>>15334419

It doesn't take a 100fps+ hit to do it.

>>15334399

>be AAA dev company

>you have like 50 people that make gameplay and engine tech

>the other 3k of employees create multimedia and manage god knows what

That's why small games tend to be more enjoyable. For fuck sake, why they cannot decide if they want to make games or fucking blockbuster movies?

>>15333647

>Is ray tracing just a meme?

Ray tracing isn't, their solution is

https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia-rtx-2080-ti-hands-on

>can't do 60 FPS at 1080p

>couldn't change graphics settings

>can't see if the cards can do 60 FPS at 4K

NICE JOB NVIDIA

>>15334418

I think quantumn break tried to do alot of this ray-tracing shit over 4 years ago and it even ran at 30fps on a original xbox one

They used some sort of voxel based system which switched on/off as the player went through the level every couple of meters it was insane but for the time

Here it is running on a titan x in 8k downscaled

https://youtu.be/j1rNwaGZ4mM

>>15334438

The infinite detail point cloud will save video games.

>>15334438

This shit isn't ray-tracing.

>>15334460

op said it was ray tracing tho

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/nvidia_clarifies_-_rtx_in_games_doesn_t_mean_ray_tracing/1

NOT ALL OF THE GAMES ADVERTISED HAD RAY TRACING

>>15334438

Sure but the tech is years away from being viable and no one is using it and probably won't be until consoles start using it.

>>15334447

See

>>15334452

>>15334468

It is but beyond one pass/ray it's fake denoised

Check out the noise (grainyness) on these shadows which is a tell tale sign of it https://youtu.be/GJfEy-kMdFc

>>15334480

I'm saying the tech that already exists to do reflections as we have it in games can adequately reflect the environment and it wouldn't take a "100fps hit" as you would call it.

>>15334472

>Nvidia Clarifies - RTX in games doesn't just mean Ray Tracing

At their Geforce Gaming Celebration before Gamescom 2018, Nvidia announced that a total of 21 games would support Nvidia's RTX technologies, a feature that was almost exclusively marketed as Ray Tracing support at the show, with examples like Battlefield V, Metro Exodus, Atomic Heart and Assetto Corsa: Competizione all featuring support for real-time Ray Tracing.

Now that the dust has settled a little, Nvidia has released a press release to confirm that RTX technology refers to both AI and Ray Tracing, which means that almost half of the "RTX Games" below will lack any support for Ray Tracing. In fact, more of the titles below support Nvidia's AI-driven DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) than real-time Ray Tracing, with 16 games supporting DLSS while 11 support Ray Traced elements.

Below is a list of all the games below that will support Real-Time Ray Tracing;

- Assetto Corsa Competizione

- Atomic Heart

- Battlefield V

- Control

- Enlisted

- Justice

- JX3

- MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries

- Metro Exodus

- ProjectDH

- Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Hahahahahhahahahha

>>15334490

Yes it fucking did try run it o b your shit gpu

>>15334487

It looks ok but I'm not gonna pay for that shit

>>15334494

They're

All

Shit

Niggers fucking look at good games they don't need any of that fancy ass bullshit, none of this does anything but give accountants boners I hate current gaming

Fucking off button all your companies and turn to teaching japs how to pc ports instead so we can get shit like JSRF or gravity rush on a medium that won't be unusable 10 years later

>>15333670

Raytracing is tracking light as it bounces around off things from a source and the differences of color that happens on each bounce

Like a white light hitting a red wall, which then bounces off and hits a blue ball, which then gets reflected to the ground as a purplish hue

It's a super costly process because it creates billions of calculations as light scatters in all directions and reflects all over the place and is not feasible in a video game

>>15334499

So are you pretending to be retarded or are you just illiterate?

>>15334453

Quantum Break used Voxels for lighting and is extremely CPU heavy

>>15334533

OK show me at 4k 100fps im waiting

>>15334532

Yep literally just a huge marketing stunt for their new quadro line

Amd did the exact opposite 2 years ago and nobody cares

>>15334519

Luxrender exists literally to prove you wrong. Ray tracing is not only possible, but achievable even on older hardware at 720p resolutions with enough optimization. But current year software devs either suck (((manager))) deadline dick or are incompetent fucks.

>>15334536

U can't read I already said they used voxels

Besides I'd be interested to see how their new game runs on hedt 8 16 and 32 core CPUs

>>15334543

Why blame the devs? As a 3d game fag of 25 years Ray tracing adds nothing besides shit performance for no gains

>>15334554

It's not just the devs, it is the managers too you faggot. Learn reading comprehension. Whether or not ray tracing adds anything noticable is irrelevent. I am more concerned about people saying you need the latest pozzed hardware from jewvidya to run realtime raytracing. You don't, you only need post 2005 hardware and the proper optimization per card for 720p real time ray tracing.

>>15334543

You're fully full of shit, because while Luxrender is great it's still not good for gaming

Just looking it up and people taking 4-6 minutes to render 1 image, how the fuck would this make sense to game with?

>>15334585

It's an example you faggot. Luxrender is not optimized per GPU whatsoever as it uses opengl functions. But it does prove you can do ray tracing on older hardware, without much of any optimization.

>>15334574

Ah so u can't even femkgoback up your retarded statements with any proof gee thanks you made my response easy as fuck I thought you'd at least post a ancient tech demo or enb mod lul

>>15334578

Tonnes

As I said their gaming arm has been a publicity stunt for their workstation shit going on 6 years with all the shit demod only seeing the light of day in some render farm

>>15334579

OK show me a playable demo then

>>15334595

Your a bad example of a tech dodo fuck off

>>15334595

You could always do ray tracing with openGL/openCL

We're talking about gaming with ray tracing enabled, you're talking about ray tracing being hardware accelerated for rending but is nowhere near fast enough for gaming

>>15334599

There are no examples of realtime ray tracing on older hardware that I am aware of because as I stated before software devs are incompetent fucks.

>>15334604

>you're talking about ray tracing being hardware accelerated for rending but is nowhere near fast enough for gaming

Yes it is fast enough, you are just a faggot who sucks at engineering. Along with the devs of the game/driver/library being incompetent and or time constrained.

>>15334626

So if you have no proof how the fuck do u even know its possible? If 2018 hardware literally can't do it and struggles to fake it at 1080p 30fps no way in fuck older cards could

>>15334599

No faggot, it's not worth the time it would take me to compile and test something you could look up on youtube.

>>15334655

https://archive.fo/ip6Uo

https://archive.fo/nDpXR

If autismcraft can do it, modern AAA devs could do it too. The difference being that AAA devs are supposed to be professionals and the autismcraft not so much.

>>15334675

Lol nice proof

>>15334687

Now try that in a non voxel based game engine and get back to me

It literally hasn't been done since the 00s and late 90s and the last game to even attempt this flopped so bad it was universally forgotten (quantumn break)

>>15334709

>you showed me proof? Now lets raise the bar higher

Nevertheless, with the proper optimization real time ray tracing is indeed possible on older hardware for vidya.

>>15334715

What fucking proof? Minecrapft isn't remotely near modern games in terms of complexity it's closer to a fucking 00s mobile game

>>15334757

We are talking about graphics. Not gameplay, story, and or fun factor. It is graphically possible using resources from 2005 onward to do real time ray tracing in a playable video game. Something you jewvidya shills don't want to see the light of day as it ruins your monopoly over the idea that people need fancy hardware for said graphical gimmic.

>>15334126

The illumination model isn't even nearly complete. Reflections are perfectly lambertian and there's no subsurface scattering model or distinction between dielectrics and metals.

>>15334757

>complexity

Complexity is a bad thing for resource optimization you stupid brainlet fag. You need simplicity for optmization and understanding the programming. Even if ray tracing isn't what you consider "simple" that doesn't mean you need spaghetii code to compute it.

>>15334771

>jewvidya shills

>conveniently ignores that his example only works on nvidia cards

>>15334786

Care to give an example of the math, step by step, for understanding then? Or maybe edited said pic to include the calculations for such?

>>15334236

It won't and I never claimed or implied it would, we all know this won't stick

>>15334807

He's just saying it's a simplistic model you posted. Why did you post it if you don't understand it?

>>15334790

Show me it working in a game that isn't shit? This was dropped in the 2000s and took Intel's larrabe down with it for a reason it's just literally deminishingbreturns the renderer

I can't think of one majorly secessful game that came close and those that did needed a literal NETWORK OF SERVERS to work out the ray tracing beyond a couple of traces

It's the holy grail of real time graphics for a reason because it will never ever be practical in our lifetimes we are already seeing the end of Moores law with lithography die shrinks and cpus

Now it's gpus that hit the wall so in short of everything going brute force streaming only from a 30k+ home server or a huge render farm cluster cloud rendering solution I don't ever seen real time raytraced graphics to be a thing in pc gaming let alone consoles

Hell all avenues of tech are stagnating outside of memory telecommunications and ai

Gonna be so funny seeing normalfags rebut the same shit over and over since 2017

>>15334839

I do understand it, I just don't get what's wrong with simple. How noticable to the player is it going to be if the light doesn't reflect properly off of a metal looking object in game? Or is the contrast of not applying lambertian reflectence going to be noticable/performance worthy? Or even just a pass for low/med/high reflectence to keep it simple. Subsurface scattering equations deserve their own graphic tbh.

>>15334871

How do you explain >>15334687 and >>15334453 in this thread that prove you wrong about real time ray tracing on consoles and older hardware?

>>15334924

>>15333944

This is one of the stupidest things I've read in this thread, and there's a whole lot of uniformed idiocy in here.

>>15333903

It does, however, mean older cards are going to bottom out for a bit. Labor Day sales should do nicely for picking up a suitable upgrade before nvidia completely shuts down older card manufacturing.

>>15333647

I used ray tracing a lot in my bachelor's thesis. The reason it's not used in games much is because:

>1. It's much more difficult to implement than most alternatives

>2. Unless you heavily optimise and parallelise it, it's going to tank your performance even on good rigs, even with a fairly small amount of it used

>3. most vidya devs can't into optimisation and definitely can't into proper parallelisation (can't expect some affirmative action hire to start fucking about with GPU kernels, can we?)

The time when games would compete against each other with graphics is mostly over, as you can achieve decent looks even without advanced techniques and fugly games like FO4 still sell like hotcakes, so it makes sense there wouldn't be much of a push to press the boundary. Especially when you can just plaster some hideous post-procession shit like ambient occlusion all over your game and claim it now has the best graphixx. Then there's also the fact that consoles seem to be having issues running games at 30FPS, so shit like ray tracing is a no-go.

>>15334771

Minecraft with raycast lighting Pushes my GTX 1080 to 100% load and I maybe get 50-60FPS, and those are just flat blocks as surfaces with very few triangles

Now imagine the same raycast lighting on surfaces with millions of polygons vs thousands, you'd be lucky to get 1 frame per second

>>15335067

Minecraft is not all that well optimized as a opengl rendering engine. Minetest would run better, but still not optimized enough.

>>15335067

>millions of polygons

This isn't a realistic expectation for any game; the most ridiculous models tend to cap out at 100k and nothing else even compares if that model is intended to be on-screen for more than a few minutes. You can, in fact, hit a million polygons with a Minecraft jungle biome (which seems to be the most dense by the numbers), and most games go to pains to avoid getting anywhere near that, especially if there are complex hardware effects applied- like SVO.

>same raycast lighting

Minecraft has non-static environments and a lot of retarded ideas on how to handle rendering and availability; the person working on SVO implementation is a lone hobbyist and taking advantage of mistakes to make his job easier.

If you can render a fairly taxing and "poorly" put together version of this tech (in quotes because it's actually pretty damn impressive) at 60fps with limited engine optimization or coordination with GPU devs, on a single 2016 card slowly entering the broader consumer market, then you could very well start seeing serious implementations by 2020, or apparently even right now.

>>15334908

There isn't anything wrong with simple, he was just giving examples of what a more full fledged solution would include

>>15334944

Agreed, there's no reason for all game developers to drop existing technologies and start exclusively using NVIDITA RTXtm ray tracing technology for all lighting needs!

>>15334037

>ASIC

So the prices are going to be hyper inflated because assholes will scoop them all up for bitcoin mining, since ASIC miners are the only viable means of bitcoin mining left.

>>15334139

Didn't several games cheat at adding mirrors by creating a duplicate room behind the mirror and created copies of the actors that followed the original's actions, thus the rendering cost was negligible?

>>15334192

Moore's law didn't take into account: shady corporation practices + greed^Nth power * an inexhaustible supply of human error

then you've got politics, patents, and prices fucking everything up along with that

>>15335067

I think one of the biggest drawbacks in performance for minecraft is that even when something shouldn't be visible to the player it is still getting rendered. I don't know much about rendering but I imagine raytracing could actually help it's performance by scheduling only the visible objects for render, not taking realistic lighting into consideration.

>>15333647

Anything other than good gameplay is a meme.

>>15333944

Convenience always wins out, in every situation. You just don't realize it because you, like most people, haven't connected the dots yet. Why do you think the iPhone was so successful? It is the easiest smartphone in the world to use. How many signatures do you think a person will get standing in a front of a supermarket with physical paper to sign vs. a one-touch signature via email?

The more convenient something is, the more propagated it will be. It doesn't matter what your personal reality dictates. This is the way the world works. If raytracing is indeed open and available to developers, it will exist everywhere in 3 years (the time to develop a game from today).

>>15334181

I'll take mildly looking clay people to going back to the dark ages.

>>15335638

this is only really true in America. don't mistake American thinking for some sort of universal truth. that would be Anglo thinking and it is non-sense.

>>15335782

The fuck? Every god damned indian and chink I've ever met would take the more convenient route of half assing it and sweeping their troubles under the rug even when it would save them thousands of dollars in the future.

>>15335454

paper quake looks "hella tight"

>>15333944

>Prebaked lighting is superior to ray tracing.

Prebaked lighting is a ray tracing you stupid faggot

>>15335807

Niggers are worse than Americans though, no matter your opinion on America.

These rtx cards are a complete meme and will offer absolutely nothing to the average user

But I'm buying one because the promise of seeing streaks of light beaming across an anime tiddy in VR is my religion.

>>15335454

Again, path tracing is not ray tracing. Real-time path tracing is something we will not see in games for a very, very long time.

>>15336038

What the difference of path and ray tracing?

>>15335863

No one calls baked raytraced lighting raytracing you tard or Quake 1 would be called the first raytraced game.

>>15336303

So path tracing is just a raytracing lighting? and raytracing is not resticted to lighting only?

Or is it that path tracing calculates everything in one path traced. while ray tracing calculates only one thing ray is tracing?

>>15336353

or is it just the same thing. but path tracing is a complex solution to rendering, while ray tracing is a name of basic function in it?

>>15336353

>>15336368

What you said about path tracing is correct. Path tracing can only do one thing and one thing only, simulating light paths. It solves an equation known as the rendering equation. To get anything that isn't grainy, it needs to trace light billions of times, which is far too much for anything short of a super computer to handle in real time. Ray tracing retrieves information about a specific pixel, but only through implementation of several other lighting solutions for various other effects can it achieve the level of fidelity naturally seen in path tracing. Games like Battlefield V will just to use it for reflections and maybe shadows.

WE LOVE OUR COPS

OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT

WE LOVE OUR MILITARY

THEY'RE IMPORTANT

>>15337604

maybe the ultra settings are actually overkill

Most games don't really have a "low" setting any more. Crysis 1 on "low" looks like dogshit, Crysis 3 on "low" looks pretty good.

The problem is that there's next to no performance difference. Honestly how many times have you played a game in the past 3 years where changing ONE setting increased your FPS by like 20?

>>15337636

Reminds me of this that I just stumbled upon.

Ray tracing is awesome but I do not see it being available for consumer grade games for quite a while because for one - consoles struggle as it is, throw in ray tracing and you will have a slideshow.

Voxelstein 3D is good enough to show how demanding it is.

>>15337883

Honestly this card will sell but as a poor man's workstation card since it'll do the job like one but 7000$ less.

>>15337725

What's the deal between those voxels and Ray tracing. I don't get it

>>15333686

that's literally what the Doom engine does , just in low res.

yes it's how movies render cgi one frame at a time but it's not some magic new technique

>>15333647

>Is ray tracing just a meme?

Pretty much.

Have you ever played a video game and say:

>Fucking woah, the shadows in this game is good!

No one really cares for shadows, and casuals won't even care even if shadows were just a dark blob under the character model.

The only games that raytracing would be a great benefit to would be:

<Horror

<FPS

>>15340208

>yes it's how movies render cgi one frame at a time but it's not some magic new technique

what this anon said, ray tracing shadows in nothing new. the reason games dont use it is that it needs a lot of power to render in real time. that being said, nooooboodyyy caaareees. i mean look at DX12, it was supposed to be just mind blowing when it came out, FF 3 years later and no one gives a shit about it barely any games utilize it even then there isnt much improvement, so i highly doubt anyone will utilize this technology until AT LEAST 5 years after the release.

>>15340208

No that's not what the Doom or Wolfenstein engine does. Doom was ray casting based on sector in a two denominational map to create the illusion of pseudo 3D.

>>15341898

>Have you ever played a video game and say: Fucking woah, the shadows in this game is good!

Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow which was my first one, since lights/shadows are a gameplay mechanic and it was fucking great.

>>15333944

>fixed geometry is okay

>separate lighting models for level and object geometry is okay

>piling hideous hacks on top of each other and handing these tools to nocoder artists that will produce severely artifacted results is okay

Nah

>>15334160

We could do real RTRT in the year 2000, entirely in software, on a single Athlon core, without SIMD, vid related. 640x480@30FPS, sure, but I'm certain the 1-2 teraFLOPS of raw compute between modern CPUs & modern GPUs via Vulkan/SPIR-V would bridge that gap.

You might also notice a number of other features that still don't exist in modern Gouraud-shaded games, like true refraction, true reflection, zero-penalty dynamic global lighting, volumetric lights, and non-polygonal geometry (implicit solids, isosurfaces, fractals). Here's an excellent article describing the technical details and history of RTRT in the cracktro demoscene from the 90s to the mid-2000s:

http://mpierce.pie2k.com/pages/108.php

And here's something a little more recent, the 2010 nuWolfenstein running on quad "Knights Ferry" Xeon Phi boards (750 single-precision GFLOPS each, about the same as one GTX 960 in total), with a genuine full scene raytracing renderer modded in, all in software:

http://www.wolfrt.de/

>>15334209

This

>>15337725

>>15339510

Voxels are awesome, and can be used alongside raytracing, but the two are in no way necessarily related, aside from both being killed off by 20 years of ASIC Gouraud renderers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/08/21/nvidia-rtx-20-graphics-cards-why-you-should-jump-off-the-hype-train/1#41dcba773f8e

The dust has settled from the GeForce Gaming event in Germany, where Jensen and company revealed Nvidia's next-generation RTX 20 Series graphics cards. There was a 90 minute deep dive on ray tracing, the expected amount of hype, new and somewhat nebulous metrics for measuring performance and some steep price tags. When you step away from the spectacle, what the event lacked was a compelling reason to upgrade.

Before you pull the trigger on pre-ordering the RTX 2080 Ti or RTX 2080, though, please listen to some advice: don't. Don't pay inflated prices for marginal performance gains over the 10 Series. In fact, don't buy this new generation of GPUs from Nvidia at all, because there's something better coming.

The reality of the RTX 20 Series that releases next month is this: it's a money-grab designed to get early adopters on the ray tracing hype train for the 20 or so games that will ship with the feature. It's a stopgap to 7nm cards that should arrive in 2019 and offer substantial performance gains and power efficiency improvements. And as for the price tag, Nvidia can charge whatever it desires due to lack of competition in the high-end space.

Seriously, glance at the clock speeds for the 20 Series. Check out the unimpressive CUDA core increase over the 10 Series. Realize that the memory configuration is the same as the 10 Series (albeit with GDDR6 instead of GDDR5). Take a hard look at what the performance increase should be. Most in the tech media are putting it at maybe 10% to 15% over the 10 Series when it comes to the majority of games out there. But you'll pay 40% to 50% higher prices for this generation's replacements based on MSRP. And you know we won't be paying MSRP. . .

Ray tracing is bleeding edge right now, but do you want to spend an exorbitant amount of money to enjoy a handful of games optimized with it?

Path tracing is the future. Developers are always chasing better ways to make more realistic things, and you don't get much better than path tracing because that's how reality works. The question is whether hardware can handle it in real time yet or not.

The same technique works for audio too, not just light.

>>15343710

>We could do real RTRT in the year 2000

We could do it way before then, but it was a shitty technique. The main effect in your video goes back to at least '94 in demos and they're just casting a ray per light per pixel and you end up with hard shadows and no bounces.

>>15343834

>The same technique works for audio too

Fuck Creative, death wasn't good enough for what they did to Aureal.

>>15343837

It's still superior to the current status quo in realtime graphics, both due to its greater flexibility, and its architectural uniformity. That said, any real exploitation of its potential will require games built from the ground up exclusively to use it, exactly the opposite of the piecemeal approach being taken by nVidia, but I hope the renewed interest sparked by this hype will cause all the good raytracing tech to come back out of the woodwork.

>>15343846

>It's still superior to the current status quo in realtime graphics

It's not, though. The hate for hard shadows killed stencil shadows long ago and those could be used in infinitely more complex scenes. Dr. Dobbs tier raytracing just won't work today except maybe in some sort of retro indie '90s revival.

>>15339510

If i remember correctly voxels can be used to make some sort of low res 3d environment from mesh. and light renderer can use them instead of meshes wich is cheaper.

I think this is how raytraysing does use them.

>>15333686

>>15340208

It's not a new thing, but nvidia approach is making a card specialised for ray tracing as i understand it. And some ai denoise for it.

>Doom engine does

where? If it's what this >>15342596 anon said then it's just about cutting geometry to not render it. It's not about lighting.

>>15342115

Not dx12 but Wolf and Doom use Vulkan, a similar thing and devs say it does improve performance.

>>15343943

Soft shadows aren't a huge deal, just multiply the number of rays somewhat. Here's something from the same group that did the Nature Suxx demo, just a few years later. Still single-threaded, no SIMD, no GPGPU.

Oh, and the only video I could find is awful and incomplete, I should fire up my XP install and do better. Here's the benchmark itself, if you've got an old enough OS to run it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080510145655/http://www.realstorm.de/realstorm/data/RealStorm_Bench2006.exe

>>15336050

Since the other guy is too retarded to give a straight answer, (whitted stile) ray tracing is sending one ray per pixel and having it bounce around for a while, reporting the resulting color to the pixel. Path tracing is sending a lot of rays from each light source, letting them bounce around for a while, and having them report to pixels if they happen to hit the camera.

Path tracing is naturally slower, but makes area-lights easier resulting in better soft shadows, automatically creates bouncelight from nearby surfaces and mirrors, and for instance those bright spots when light converges after being refracted through a lens I forgot the official term for it. But because not every pixel is guaranteed to get a result, and requires multiple results to get a good image, it has to converge an image over multiple runs of the light simulation, resulting in a grainy effect whenever you have to restart from a new frame (see vid related). Nowadays people like using some AI stuff to take the noisy result of a single or just a few passes of path tracers and filling in the gaps, but while hard to notice this produces "technically incorrect" results.

Ray tracing has hard shadows unless you fake area-light by just using many point-lights to create one, and scales worse regarding speed depending on the amount of lights you have. But it does render one whole frame every time.

>>15349264

Perhaps the simplest way to put it is that raytracing can do most of the things pathtracing does with enough hacks stacked on top, much faster, but pathtracing is more architecturally elegant, assuming you can figure out a way to run it fast enough.

>I forgot the official term for it

Caustics

JUST so you guys know…

Ray tracing dates back to at least the 80's. It's a buzzword because its now feasible for advanced hardware to actually render now.

>>15349313

Mostly true, although the hacks tend to slow raytracing down more in the long run when stacked on top of each other. To get the absolute same result for ray tracing would be costlier than path tracing is.

>caustics

That's the one, thanks.

You fucking retards are over complicating a simple question.

yes its a fucking gimmick and a shitty one at that.

its absing the assumption that real life uses retarded and inefficient particles to bounce lights off objects.

You shoot a laser at an object and it bounces off the object lets say a red balloon and hits another point, it does this multiple times until it bounces the light back at the camera. the multiple light spots are realistic the light from the red balloon is reflected onto the 2nd point and other surrounding points causing reflection.

You need to do this millions of times to get each and every point of light.

>>15349369

You're overcomplicate this issue

Just draw a person and a the sun and the light acts like reality.

It's EASY.

>>15349334

>To get the absolute same result for ray tracing would be costlier than path tracing is.

Oh, certainly, but you can get 99% of the way there (radiosity, photon mapping, ambient occlusion, etc.) with raytracing in realtime on commodity hardware. Whereas pathtracing requires orders of magnitude more computational power without dithering artifacts, so there's absolutely zero chance of it being doable in realtime on even the fastest supercomputers, barring an incredible optimization breakthrough.

>>15349437

Are you retarded?

>>15349443

my explanation isn't the best because i can't practically show it working, but it would work better than ray tracing.

>>15349443

Yes

>>15349448

"Waves" does not mean light "pulses" out in all directions like a wave in a pool when you drop a pebble in.

"Waves" means like electromagnetic waves, you fucking moron.

>>15349437

>>15349448

>Real life doesn't use Rays of light it uses waves.

translation from gibberish

<Real life doesn't use waves of light it uses waves.

thats why people call you retarded. ray is a direction of the wave

>>15349437

>it uses waves

i can't even, i don't even it doesn't make a difference because shooting a bunch of "rays" is as effective as your "waves" if not your waves would be more terrible

>>15349468

His "superior solution" would require EVERY object to send out AT LEAST 360*360 (360 vertical degrees * 360 horizontal degrees) paths per unit of measurement per frame and still have to relate to camera and light source positions.

For comparison, to ray trace every single pixel on screen would require 1920*1080 paths. His system would render about 16 pixels for pixel-level ray tracing. It's about 0.0000077 times as efficient as the most simple solution.

>>15349459

If you don't understand how it works then shut the fuck up.

>>15349460

a ray is a particle you fucking moron, it's a point of light. if you can't read then shut the fuck up.

>>15349468

You don't understand, using ray tracing you need to shoot individual beams of "particles" and capture this in a camera millions of times, the waves would dynamically be doing their job already so all you need to do is look from your point of view rather than wasting fps shooting light.

>>15349437

What you've described just so happens to bear substantial resemblance to a conception of optics called a lightfield. The core of the idea is the lightfield function, a higher-dimensional vector which describes the optical characteristics of any given point in a volume:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_field

Aside from computer graphics, it's also used in a variety of real world applications, like multi-pinhole cameras that can take an HDR photo variable focal distance and stereoscopy in a single exposure. There's also an audio equivalent, soundfields, which can be used to do surround sound with an infinite number of channels using only three microphones.

>>15349483

You only need to render what you see not what you DON'T see. stop being a dumb shit and construding it.

the objects can tell from which direction you are viewing and only show you what you need to see not doing unnecessary calculations on points.

>>15349496

Wow, it's almost as if there's a reason people start ray tracing from the cameras perspective.

>>15349500

wow it's almost as if it's useless because it takes too much calculation.

did you ever hear once from nvidia about the fps or did they keep it hidden.

>>15349503

>>15349500

>>15349496

Just to clarify:

>you only need to render what you see [the objects can tell from which direction you're viewing - which is a path you have to trace for collision]

<This is WHY ray tracing starts from the eye [because you don't know objects position relative to the eye without complex calculations and it's much easier to send out rays from the camera because it's one position vector and one direction vector and you know the FOV - THE WHOLE POINT OF RAY TRACING FROM THE CAMERA IS BECAUSE YOU DONT JUST KNOW WHERE THE OBJECTS ARE RELATIVE TO THE CAMERA]

>no, that's dumb. Calculating rays from potentially thousands of objects then determing their position relative to the camera is much smarter. NVIDIA hid the numbers!!

>>15342115

In other words, wait 5 years before buying the next Nvidia scam because by then the price will be lower but also more games will (probably) utilize Ray Tracing.

>>15349536

>analog wave calculations

>tricks to make it simple for the digital machine

LOL

>>15349551

>>15349551

>analog wave calculations

>tricks to make it simple for the digital machine

we have such a thing as vectors, we abandoned it a long time ago but could make a resurgence.

>>15349536

Describe precisely how this works algorithmically.

>>15349560

fuck of you fucking retard, I said i wasn't a programmer but i can make concepts.

a program is just your imagination onto practical applications onto code.

skeptical dipshits are always on the backburner of advancement and technology only coming out when its already established like rats.

>>15349570

Are you retarded?

You can describe an algorithm without knowing how to program. You just need to explain the unambiguous, step-by-step logic to achieve what you want.

I'll explain to you why you don't know what you're talking about.

>>15337604

Alien: Isolation looks fan-fucking-tastic and it could manage to run 60fps on my Radeon 6850 rig I had at the time before upgrading it.

>>15334141

But it's already in UE4 and Unity.

>>15349576

ok, let me get my textpad and explain a 40 page explanation on a concept i just made up.

using logical fallacies to argue, Fuck off

>>15349570

Like everyone else has noted, calculating a lightfield for an entire scene, especially every frame, would be far too demanding. There are, however, some applications for precalculated lightfields that cover only areas a camera is likely to traverse, for static scenes:

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/07/25/nvidia-sdk-updates/

Aside from the VR walkarounds nVidia is using it for, this sort of thing could be combined with actual realtime graphics to create more complex scenes, and even added to using dirty/clean routines, but it would use very large amounts of RAM.

>>15349264

I still don't get it, only thing i could think as a difference is raytracing trace from the eyes (pixels) through the scene and to the light. while pathtracing trace from the light through the scene and to the eyes (pixels).

>>15349638

Raytracing ignores the calculations that aren't going to hit the camera, path tracing calculates everything then ditches what's going to hit the camera.

We'll eventually do graphics via path tracing as it's trivial to parallelize, doesn't need a bunch of hacks to look right, and there's practically no physical limit on scaling the hardware. We're going to hit a physical limit soon for most of the existing techniques because we don't know how to shrink transistor designs smaller than 1 atom.

>>15349594

You're simply an idiot.

Your fundamental error is misunderstanding the entire purpose of ray tracing. Calculating rays from every object is beyond moronic and literally more computationally expensive than calculating rays from a light source with probably worse results. It makes literally no sense

You're saying to calculate objects to determine what is visible to the camera. Which is what you generate rays from. This is expensive and useless by itself since the problem IS NOT trying to find a path from the object to your eye to begin with. You're complicating an issue where you now have to calculate rays from every single unit of a texture visible to the eye which accomplishes nothing because you don't know where the light source is and that takes another whole bunch of ray tracing which then has to connect back to your original calculation. Not only that, but you have to do this for every object in existence which is many more times what's visible on the screen.

You're a fucking idiot and you should kill yourself

>>15349557

>we have such a thing as vectors, we abandoned it a long time ago but could make a resurgence.

Except vectors are exactly how ray- and pathtracing work, and they have never been abandoned even outside that, you fucking tard. I'm not sure why you think you can improve upon something when you don't even know how the thing you want to improve upon works. You're not even on mount stupid yet, you shouldn't even want to open your mouth.

>>15349638

In implementation that's the main difference, a lot of what I said was the results from doing it the ways you said.

>>15349646

Not quite.

>>15349496

>construding

That's not a word retard

This entire thread is an embarrassment, I can't believe so many people who pla vidya know next to nothing about 3d rendering.

Ray-tracing is how the majority of CG software renders lighting, it's actually simulating photon. It's not a meme and the fact that we can use it real time now rather then just for prendered shit is a huge deal.

That being said, it's usage in the games they showed it off in might as well be like PhyX or hairworks or whatever, but unlike those this actually has potential to become a widespread, game changing paradigm shift iinto changing how the entire industry does lighting and graphics in general down the line.

>>15349738

>It's not a meme and the fact that we can use it real time now rather then just for prendered shit is a huge deal.

>we can use it

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? At what framerate and at what cost?

There has been some performance estimates both from nvidia and elsewhere about the performance of the 2080 ti. The same guy who leaked the existence of the rtx 2080 a week before Nvidia revealed it got internal numbers that it is anywhere from 8 to 25% faster which is frankly pathetic considering the jump in price. Nvidia has been churning out flat out awful generational improvements since the 600 series where the high end was only about 18% faster than the previous.

PC gaming has been fucked for a very long time and a portion of it goes back to people not buying AMD and AMD not putting themselves in a good position.

>>15349751

Personally, ray tracing is more interesting from a scalability perspective, the closer we get to simulating real physical phenomena on computers means the closer we get to graphics that look real.

Currently, most graphics cards have had years to optimise for old techniques of lighting. The future will bring more of a focus towards ray tracing, performance issues will be smoothed out and game devs will start designing with Ray tracing in mind (e.g. blending more vibrant objects into scenes because lighting accurately reflects colour reflecting onto nearby surfaces)

Like most big changes though, wait 5-10 years until the products get cheaper and are worth it. It's like with AA… a paper comes out documenting a new type of AA and only 5-15 years later is it present in a significant amount of games.

>>15334173

This. Anyone that's been a fan/member of the demoscene knows this. They shit out RTRT consistently and years ahead of dedicated hardware features.

>>15334041

If you were really an environment artist and mapper then you'd appreciate how a lot of tedium of your job would be removed by real-time ray tracing. No setting up hundreds of light probes or wasting time waiting for lighting to bake just to see it's not quite what you wanted and having to tweak it and wait for baking times again. This isn't some automation that will just make devs lazier, it's freeing up their time to work on other things.

>>15338264

The only RTX cards Nvidia has announced that are worth it are the workstation ones. The job of artists in the industry will be made a lot easier with a real-time solution to ray tracing. If their editors and other software support real-time ray tracing, a lot of stuff that took countless iterations will now just be edited on the fly until the artist is satisfied with it.

>>15349523

Ultimately this is the most important post in this thread. Wait until there's actually a catalog of games that use the technology. Which in reality probably just means wait for AMD to make their own ray tracing GPU with an open source solution so that people other than the billion dollar corporations can implement the thing into their games.

>>15349678

I never said that idiot, i said let the object know where it is so that the camera doesn't have to figure out where it is, the object tells the camera where it is so and it projects reflections on its own to its surroundings, all the camera has to do is capture what is shown.

>>15349709

Except vectors are exactly how ray- and path tracing work

No it's not like that at all you retard, Don't go and think everything is perfect just the way it is and the way you have been doing it is the only way, Fuck off and learn something rather than being a peice of shit.

>>15349729

its construing you fucking moron

>>15349751

at half the frame rate and more cost.

>>15333647

>Is ray tracing just a meme?

>Here is a rendering process that makes games look absolutely beautiful…

<.. except it has never been feasible outside of 2D games because the average technology isn't powerful enough, and all the latest tech, that is powerful enough, is flying off the shelves as quickly as it comes out because of idiots chasing after the modern day version of the Califronia Gold Rush.

>>15349847

Bitch don't you fucking tell me what to appreciate.

>>15333647

Not a meme. If developers just have to specify a light source and let the hardware or APIs determine where the shadows go and other effects, then it will save them time and resources in the long run.

Only problem is it was introduced way too early with a massive performance hit with a ridiculously high price. It's too impractical.

>>15354867

Actually that isn't the only problem. The games that take advantage of the effects suck and the games that were demoed didn't let players turn off ray tracing to see how different the games look without it. It also didn't let them disable ray tracing and let them change resolution to 4K to see if the new cards can run 4K at 60 FPS on a single card. If the cards are capable of running games at 60 FPS on 4K resolution with high settings, that would have been some positive publicity for nVidia.

>>15354872

Actually that isn't the only problem. The games will be shit, and photorealism can't save it, it's just boring CGI

>>15352905

>the object tells the camera where it is

ok makes sense, storing location is fairly easy

>[the object] projects reflections on its own to its surroundings

and you don't use that location information at all because now any and every arbitrary object is projecting reflections instead of behaving reactively to the camera, and this is somehow supposed to be more efficient than everything else proposed thus far. Even if you do a hack-y solution by shitcanning objects not in FOV there would still be a problem of having too many objects on scene, or more likely, too many surfaces, so things would be permanently capped to low res and low density white-room hell while other solutions advance into tracing actual scenes.

Ideaguys are the future.

>>15342596

>two denominational

lol

>illusion of pseudo 3D

Does fake fake 3D mean real 3D? Because Doom was real 3D.

>>15354907

Maybe it's me, but the lighting in that demo seems bland, and the graphics are no better than Skyrim.

>>15354940

That's because (like many of the games nVidia demoed) it's just a camera moving through what is overwhelmingly a static scene of opaque polygonal geometry with diffuse surfaces and a single static lightsource.

Lemme see if I can try and find something with more dynamism, but in the meantime, here's a classic hybrid RTRT demo with some pretty translucent objects. And a list of some more RTRT demos:

http://realtimeradiosity.com/demos/

>>15333647

Who cares when it's just going to be used games where you walk forward and press the context sensitive button prompt and watch the scripted event unfold.

>>15349646

More like raytracing ignores the camera altogether. Because every single vector could be used to arbitrarily create a view plane. That's all the "camera" is in these cases.

>>15355000

Also let's be honest. We're going to rapidly move beyond discussing rendering in terms of vectors in favor of discussing tensors.

This means there's going to be a huge pile of shit software (Ie, games) made by people with very little to no actual high level math education.

>>15355025

>Why is it penniless teenagers who've barely entered highschool have been cranking these things out since the 90s

idk, maybe because they're not diversity hirelings

>>15340208

>>15342596

Wolfenstein used grid-bound raycast checks to determine the distance of walls from the camera. Doom doesn't use raycasting at all for rendering. It uses a BSP tree culled to the current sector's PVS so it can determine what lines are visible and in what order from the player. It then finds the x screen co-ordinate for start and end of the line from a lookup table based on bitshifted angles to the player, with wall height determined by distance from the player and height of the lineseg.

>>15355025

Because cranking out extremely complex code for little return is one of those things that get boring when you're not doing them just to show off you can

>>15355053

I don't know why but I've seen this explanation both in more detailed and more simple forms but only clicked just now.

>isnt this more or less what ancient civilizations believed? as technology gets smarter its going to look more and more ancient

Could someone explain in laymen’s terms what he meant by this?

>>15355233

ancient civilizations thought your eyes shot seeing rays that interacted with surfaces and communicated back instantly, which is more or less what is happening here.

the idea that as technology gets smarter its going to look more and more ancient is just Berenstein bear-tier baseless theories.

He looks like Blacked Alaska

RAY TRACING IS A MEME

>>15355025

Because better educated graphics programmers get hired by companies like Pixar and Autodesk. Games don't cause technological innovation, they take advantage of it.

gay tracing might as well not exist, any idiot who buys the new card for something no game supports right now is a fucking retard.

The important thing is that you buy the new card so Mr. Huang can buy a new leather jacket and washes the old one in your tears.

No, it's not.

RTX may be a meme, but that doesn't make ray tracing a meme. Stop calling things a meme.

GUYS. Answer the fucking Alien guy's question. Graphics like those? WHEN AND HOW?

>>15333647

Graphics is just a meme.

DAT FUCKING ALIEN