At this point I have to ask why do we not just prebake the RTX lighting and provide it as DLC?
I think most people would be happy with it, if it meant the game played at 200 FPS.
but the game would then look like shit.
the current industry solution is TAA smearing and DLSS to get an acceptable framerate. I highly doubt people will mind.
Not to mention you can still keep some optional RT effects in places where they matter more like rooms with non static lighting.
They can't sell u $15000 6900 with prebaked textures
raytracing lighting
prebake
retard alert
nobody cares about how good a game looks, they care about telling their friends they can turn on RTX
How do you think devs create prebaked lighting? Well yes there's the static way but you can also use ray/path tracing to create them.
meanwhile I'm playing every game on max settings with a 4k240hz OLED with my 5090 while being humble and not bragging about it
Drop raytracing altogether
It adds nothing to gameplay. It adds to player experience but not gameplay.
Ray tracing has never added anything to stealth games where light sources are huge factors for staying hidden just as dynamic physics has added literally nothing to games made by AAA jewfucks.
that's what prebaked lighting is, retard
Yes anon the result will not be raytraced.
Obviously.
I'm just asking why not just fake it.
And we can fake things like this.
yes but you are probably use DLSS to achieve a frame rate that works on a 4K240Hz display(meaning 30/60/120/240FPS)
or you play old games
I love how you all seethe the same shit in every single RT thread. It's wonderful to see how much you're bitter and broken because you can't run it.
lol
Ray tracing has never added anything to stealth games
Nigga, the (high budget) stealth game genre died years ago before ray-tracing came onto the scene.
The problem isn't RT. It's lazy/rushed/incompetent devs.
I find it wonderful that I'm not alone in being poor
Nice brown statement you got there
At this point I have to ask why do we not just prebake the RTX lighting and provide it as DLC?
Not really viable since the main appeal of Ray/Path traced light is that it's dynamic and can respond to player actions. Like the whole appeal is that you can have a firefight in an open world game like Cyberpunk and all the muzzle flashes or grenade explosions or explosions will have a realistic look compared to traditional rendering methods. Think about it, the image in your post shows a dynamic light reflection, how can you prebake that if a character turns to face the player? Or when the player walks past a puddle or other reflective surface?
I definitely think the performance overhead means that studios should be looking into more static lighting solutions but people want so much more dynamism from their video games. People were shitting on Avowed because it didn't have dynamic, reactable NPCs that you'd expect from Skyrim or GTA. Real-time rendering techniques are so much more suited to developing these huge open world games and those are much more common compared to when good static lighting was the standard.
The whole fucking point of raytracing in games is simulating the lighting reflections in real time.
what modern games are you able to run at 4k 144hz RT with no dlss upscale bullshit?
please make some sense
is it really worth it when we have to simulate the frames? i would rather fake light and real frames.
I've been going back and forth between path tracing on/off in Indiana Jones and I'm not really sure it's better but it drops the FPS by half. You can't pre-bake it because the whole point is it's dynamic. I think normal ray tracing looks better in this screenshot I took and look at the FPS difference in the corner (frame gen was on)
you must disable things to meet my specific demands
why?
How do you think prebaked lighting was made? Your hubris is hilarious, read a book
yes. it's worth it
because dlss looks like blurry vaseline dogshit? you're not actually running the game at 4k
Why do you think they favour ray tracing more?
doesn't on my machine. next
Because it's easy.
blind
they stopped pre rendering ray traced textures to do real time ray traced lighting because it's easy
what?
dlss is a black magic cheat code for better performance. no reason to not use it in modern games.
framegen is alright but I turn it off in some games because it absolutely can be poorly implemented. DD2 is one example, there's too many artifacts and it fucks up the minimap too (just spinning the camera causes a ring of smearing around it)
in something like stalker 2 you'll never notice it unless you're staring at the edges of your screen while running around
the thing i personally dislike about framegen is how reflex caps your framerate to around 225 meaning 4x framegen will only ever have a "base" of ~56fps. granted literally the only game you'd really use 4x framegen in are glorified tech demos and benchmarks like cyberpunk or indiana jones
i mean fine, cyberpunk is actually fun, but I have 0 interest in indiana jones so it's not the end of the world.
post a picture from your own PC running a game of this blurry vaseline dogshit you see
Yes? The former requires far more effort and artistic talent to execute well, real time ray tracing is entirely automated. Seriously do you have any clue what you're even talking about?
Frame gen is only good for watching movies
Yes. I have a good idea what I'm talking about. I used to make graphic mods and do HLSL.
You clearly don't.
sell it at an extra cost
Have you lost the fucking plot? don't give EA games ideas. You could start a new trend. What the fuck is wrong with you? if we ever reach the point of selling ultra settings as DLC then gaming will be dead.
Yes. I don't now. I used to.
the irony is that real light usually looks like shit, they give oscars to cinematographers for a reason.
I think one of the advantages that isn't talked about enough is how, because the light is working mostly accurately, it makes a scene feel more solid, it gives a scene a much more 3D feel because everything looks the way it should, no light passing through objects or not casting a shadow. Each face being a slightly different illumination level based accurately on its angle to the light source.
It's not essential, of course, but it is nice when implemented properly it improves the experience.
You realise that's still real light, though? It's a masterful use of it but it still does everything that light does.
Games with RT do need lighting experts now, though.
who gives a shit.
Let it die faster
No, you are the one who has no clue what he's talking about. The whole deal with ray tracing is simulating how light reflects repeatedly off surfaces, from one to another and you're not going to (reasonably) prebake it in a dynamic game environment.
it is very rarely natural light.
watch barry lyndon, kubrick went out of his way to showcase natural lighting and every scene had to be carefully curated and they still had to use alternate/artificial light sources to make it look good.
unreal engine jeets clicking the 'redeem raytrace' button aren't exactly up to snuff.
jeets doing rt = bad
jeets placing artificial lights = good
Just admit you dislike it because you can't run it.
You missed my point. Artificial lighting is still light. It reflects and bounces and occludes just the same as natural light.
i would rather fake light and real frames
[hottake]The fake frames are much less jarring to me than entire fake lighting.[/hottake]
REALISTIC LIGHTING DOES NOT MEAN GOOD LOOKING
FOR CHRIST SAKES REAL MOVIES NEVER USE "REALISTIC LIGHTING" BEEEECAAAAUUUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SHIT.
A MOVIE SET WILL LITERALLY HAVE HUNDREDS OF LIGHTS OF VARYING COLORS TO MAKE SCENE LOOKS INTERESTING,
JUST THROWING GLOBAL ILLUMINATION WITH RAY TRACING DOESN'T MAKE YOUR SHIT LOOK GOOD, YOUR ART STYLE STILL LOOKS LIKE SHIT, FUCKING HELL.
post image of RT and GI making a game look worse then
that ray troiced effect in the middle pic can be achieved trough specular maps
wtf is this shit?
because the light is working mostly accurately, it makes a scene feel more solid,
Anon, the light in RTX is not in any way even close to working accurately. It's currently at the absolute most primitive and resource unintensive level as you can get.
Rendering tech using raytracing took quite a while before they got to photorealism and it's why even today CGI movies aren't made with GPUs at all. Getting accurate lighting takes an absurd amount of resources. RTX just runs the bitch-basic "Raytraced Mario 64" model with an AI denoiser to make up for the pathetically small ray counts. That's everything shines and reflects everything to alleluja unlike in the real world where a reflective surface is such a rarity most animals' brains cannot even cope with it.
why does graphic effect , designed to look similar to RT look similar to RT?
crazy stuffs
Real movies have to use realistic lighting because they exist in the real world... unless they are CGI.
Hey, you know what looks retarded? When they slap someone’s head on a CGI creation and just do some shitty burn tool darkening around the edges. You know why it looks shitty? Because it's not real light.
In fact, 99% of the time CGI looks shitty because they fucked up the lighting.
skill is skill, i wouldn't expect unskilled artists to produce good results with any technology.
yes and you missed my point, natural light usually doesn't look good naturally, hence the need for people like cinematographers, filming at specific times, specific weather, etc.
it's like saying normal maps are good so everything with a normal map looks better.
so skill is required to "redeem RT" button?
Anon, the light in RTX is not in any way even close to working accurately.
It's more accurate than not using it, and doesn't take away from what I said in that it makes objects look more solid and three dimensional.
That's one of the obvious bumps this style of lighting brings, just as in how real time stencil shadows created a large bump in the realism of an image.
And just like early shadows improved over time, RT technology will improve over the years too.
Every single person in this thread would choose to use ray tracing if it didn't effect frame rate.
Anyone saying otherwise is coping.
skill is usually required to produce high quality art.
everyone has a camera, not everyone can take a good photo.
At this point I have to ask why do we not just prebake the RTX lighting
..they already did you dumb fuck.
Source is prebaked RT. The whole point of modern RT is that its real time.
You cant do reflections like your pic pre baked
Well you could, but it would be static and look off the moment he set one step.
light doesn't care about your skill. It's either realistic or it isn't.
And just like early shadows improved over time, RT technology will improve over the years too.
The thing is we already know how RT works. It is not a scalable tech. You'd need to start making conventional PCs into render farms but the reality is that the chips are already ballooning in price due to their size and we can't make them smaller, we're talking making them even bigger or asking for more of these massive error-catchers per sillicon dye.
It's like looking at a graph of average age at death and declaring that humans will live to 300+ by 2500.
Nothing short of a miracle will enable us to shrink those chips further and it is mathematically proven you can't bullshit these algorithms. You have to brute force them. And for that, you need more CPUs or GPUs in your case.
why do we not just prebake the RTX lighting
Smartest poster on Anon Babble right now
It's either realistic or it isn't.
yes, realistic. to make realistic lighting you need skill and knowledge. there is a billion dollar industry specifically built around achieving realistic lighting. and no, i'm not talking about the lightbulb industry.
You're conflating the movie industry lighting, which requires knowledge into dynamic ranges of cameras and film etc into video game production which requires direct light points placed where light sources are.
Stop trying to sound intelligent , you're not as bright as you think you are
We've had what you're talking about for over a decade.
muh vidya game uses real light! NO NOT LIKE THAT!
lmao retard. you should consider looking into virtual and digital cinematography, a lot of the complaints people have about modern games and the misuse of raytracing will make a lot more sense.
that first pic
welcome back half-life chrome texturing
muh digital cinematography
what about it? It doesn't change the fact video games just need light sources placed where lights are in the game, tinted to their correct hues and brightness and then ray tracing will look after the rest.
Show a game with Ray Tracing where they got this wrong?
Nobody said anything about a dynamic game environment.
this is a great example because you have the original game to compare it to, it completely ruined the mood of the original scene.
just because light is simulated correctly doesn't mean it looks good.
What's wrong with it?
It adds to player experience
That's more important than gameplay.
the whole point of raytracing is you financially picking up the slack for lazy incompetent devs
Ray tracing is meme technology that will depreciated and render every game that requires it unplayable in the near future. Its the physx of today.
Show a game which has full ray tracing where you think the lighting is bad due to lazy incompetent devs