MULTI [OT] Metro Exodus | Journey Beyond

Necrokiller · Mar 11, 2019

CerebralTiger said:
In fact, things like baked GI/light probes will still be used in situations where the dev wants artistic control over how lighting works in a particular scene.

This is kind of like devs saying decades ago "we don't want dynamic lighting because static lighting gives us more control". Fast forward to this day and every engine support dynamic lighting and shadows now. One thing doesn't necessarily come at the cost of losing another. Both can work in tandem as Exodus has proven and I do believe the next-gen consoles and game engines will work to get a hybrid "fake" solution working because resources will be limited and the results are beyond whats capable with traditional rasterized techniques now.

CerebralTiger said:
Personally, I wouldn't want ray traced lighting to trickle down to the console space until hardware is powerful enough to make its inclusion a trivial matter.

Trivial? That's a pipe dream even for current modern rendering techniques, let alone ray tracing. Just ask Capcom lol
But the performance levels in Exodus is exactly what makes it an earth shattering achievement.

CerebralTiger said:
I'm more than happy with the results of existing GI solutions

So you're perfectly satisfied with Witcher 3 dropping real-time GI in favor of light-probes? Thats good to finally know. When games drop expensive solutions they are criticized and when they do implement it, its dismissed in favor of faked solutions

CerebralTiger said:
and would rather like to see the performance budget spent towards other advancements, such as increased world interactivity, more complex AI, more complex shaders etc.

Or pixel counts because apparently it sells

Chandoo · Mar 11, 2019

Or pixel counts because apparently it sells

You're trying to make a sarcastic 'gotcha' here but we all know it's true.

What is the main focus and marketing pitch for Pro and X ? They're both primarily marketed as 4K capable machines first and foremost.

Necrokiller · Mar 11, 2019

Chandoo said:
You're trying to make a sarcastic 'gotcha' here but we all know it's true.

What is the main focus and marketing pitch for Pro and X ? They're both primarily marketed as 4K capable machines first and foremost.

That wasn't even the point though? Lol

4K being used as a marketting tool doesn't mean that the average "casual enthusiast" is more likely to notice pixel count differences. As far as developers are concerned, all games are capable of "4K output" as the label on the box reads regardless of internal rendering resolutions which only the hardcore enthusiasts care about. Even most of them wouldn't recall rendering resolutions of their fav games lol

Can you show me how many companies are marketing 1440p, 1620p, 1800p in their trailers and ads if its suppose to sell? The idea that the average person even cares about exact pixel count, let alone notice it, is ludicrous, which was the basis of your dismissal towards RTX.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Chandoo · Mar 11, 2019

Necrokiller said:
That wasn't even the point though? Lol

4K being used as a marketting tool doesn't mean that the average "casual enthusiast" is more likely to notice pixel count differences. As far as developers are concerned, all games are capable of "4K output" as the label on the box reads regardless of internal rendering resolutions which only the hardcore enthusiasts care about. Even most of them wouldn't recall rendering resolutions of their fav games lol

Can you show me how many companies are marketing 1440p, 1620p, 1800p in their trailers and ads if its suppose to sell? The idea that the average person even cares about exact pixel count, let alone notice it, is ludicrous, which was the basis of your dismissal towards RTX.

You said pixel counts because they well, I just highlighted that yes .. it does sell .. it's used as a primary marketing method by the 2 major HD console makers.

Most people buy new consoles for the prospect of better graphics, not arbitrary scaling resolutions or higher frame rates, which goes to what CT was saying earlier. If the next heap of consoles start incorporating RTX, it would mean they will need to have games running at lower resolutions. Like how BFV runs good at 1080p/60 on the latest cards with RTX on. This point alone makes me believe RTX won't be the primary focus of next gen consoles.

Besides, both Sony and MS always go with AMD tech and since AMD doesn't currently have a ray tracing enabled GPU (I think ?) it's an easy guess that PS5/XB2 won't have one either.

Necrokiller · Mar 11, 2019

Chandoo said:
Most people buy new consoles for the prospect of better graphics, not arbitrary scaling resolutions or higher frame rates [....] If the next heap of consoles start incorporating RTX, it would mean they will need to have games running at lower resolutions.

So let me get this straight, higher resolution = better graphics?

Chandoo said:
You said pixel counts because they well, I just highlighted that yes .. it does sell .. it's used as a primary marketing method by the 2 major HD console makers.

You didn't. You just showed an advertisement.

Can you show any game ad showing its pixel count which according to you people care about?

Do you have numbers of how many people are playing on base console vs mid-gen refreshes?

Most people would buy it because their TV is 4K and the console supports 4K output. It doesn't mean that one is more likely to notice the difference between 1440p or 1620p or 1800p on their screens lol Only the minority tech enthusiasts who care about arbitrary internal rendering resolutions who have both consoles will dig out technical analysis and pick and choose. These people are not the norm lol

Chandoo · Mar 11, 2019

So let me get this straight, higher resolution = better graphics?

That's on a per-game basis, but in general how many games are said to have worse graphics in higher resolution ? Example Rise of TR's 1080p enriched mode vs its 2160p mode... which mode did you think more people would say 'looks better' ? .. but regardless of that, it's the first point of focus on for new consoles. Would you disagree ?

Can you show any game ad showing its pixel count which according to you people care about?

"pixel count" is a very specific term, but sure, here are a few which focus on '4k' etc.

Do you have numbers of how many people are playing on base console vs mid-gen refreshes?

What does this have to do with anything ? Do you have numbers of how many people are playing the recent RTX enabled games actually in RTX ?

Most people would buy it because their TV is 4K and the console supports 4K output. It doesn't mean that one is more likely to notice the difference between 1440p or 1620p or 1800p on their screens lol Only the minority tech enthusiasts who care about arbitrary internal rendering resolutions who have both consoles will dig out technical analysis and pick and choose. These people are not the norm lol

Sure people won't notice much difference between 1800p and 2160p but people will definitely notice a difference between 1080p and 1800p/2160p.

However, this entire conversation is stemming from the fact that the RTX enabled pictures you posted earlier from Metro Exodus don't really look like any kind of a game-changer. They look like a different lighting profile for the same game, sure a relatively more accurate one .. but again it doesn't feel like the game has had a transformative (or any at all) improvement visually with RTX on based on those Metro samples you provided earlier.

I don't think you have an RTX enabled GPU at this point either .. just a little weird that you're advocating for a tech you haven't had any exposure in first-hand and only have seen the same videos/pictures the rest of us have.

Or is it merely because it's a Metro Exodus implementation so we should all agree that it's a game changer

Necrokiller · Mar 11, 2019

Chandoo said:
That's on a per-game basis, but in general how many games are said to have worse graphics in higher resolution ? Example Rise of TR's 1080p enriched mode vs its 2160p mode... which mode did you think more people would say 'looks better' ? .. but regardless of that, it's the first point of focus on for new consoles. Would you disagree ?

A better example in this context is, which do you think more people would say 'looks better'? BFV or Metro with RTX on a native 1080p display or Black Ops IV on native 4K display? My vote goes to BFV and Metro.

"pixel count" is a very specific term, but sure, here are a few which focus on '4k' etc.

So basically, none. Wonder why ND doesn't plaster "1440p" in their Uncharted 4 and Lost Legacy trailers.

What does this have to do with anything ?

It would support your claim that "it sells" and most people will notice resolution differences. Stands to reason that Pro would be outselling the base console if most people care about the higher resolution it offers.

I don't think you have an RTX enabled GPU at this point either .. just a little weird that you're advocating for a tech you haven't had any exposure in first-hand and only have seen the same videos/pictures the rest of us have.

Because I think its evidence enough to appreciate it. You are proving my point that anything you won't adopt yourself you will develop an irrational and misinformed vendetta against to downplay it. Unless of course it has to do with your fanboyism towards Sony...e.g. thats when you will advocate PS Plus to the grave yet never gets its subscription for yourself. So yeah, I find it weird that you find it weird

Chandoo said:
Or is it merely because it's a Metro Exodus implementation so we should all agree that it's a game changer

Tech experts love it and that's more important than random angry and misinformed forumer opinions

Chandoo · Mar 11, 2019

A better example in this context is, which do you think more people would say 'looks better'? BFV or Metro with RTX on a native 1080p display or Black Ops IV on native 4K display? My vote goes to BFV and Metro.

You'll be surprised at how many people might say the other way around.

So basically, none. Wonder why ND doesn't plaster "1440p" in their Uncharted 4 and Lost Legacy trailers.

well ... yeah .. but again the point is they're selling the game and a lot of people are buying the game on the enhanced consoles for the 4K. Is it marketing spiel ? yes. Does it work ? yes.

Because I think its evidence enough to appreciate it. You are proving my point that anything you won't adopt yourself you will develop an irrational and misinformed vendetta against to downplay it. Unless of course it has to do with your fanboyism towards Sony...e.g. thats when you will advocate PS Plus to the grave yet never gets its subscription for yourself. So yeah, I find it weird that you find it weird

That's just a whole lot of nothing I said at all .. I said like 10 times already, I'm sure there are better examples of RTX, the pictures you provided are not.

Tech experts love it and that's more important than random angry and misinformed forumer opinions

Tech experts also love and gush on gaming tech/engines where lighting is done with traditional 'fakery' too

It's not like ever since RTX got announced, Digital Foundry has stopped praising any game which doesn't feature it at all.

CerebralTiger · Mar 11, 2019

Necrokiller said:
This is kind of like devs saying decades ago "we don't want dynamic lighting because static lighting gives us more control". Fast forward to this day and every engine support dynamic lighting and shadows now.

Those devs werern't entirely wrong, though. Fast forward to today, and it's largely a mix and mash of both dynamic and static lights. The placement of light probes and baked area lights does give the artist control over the kind of ambience they want to set in a scene.

Necrokiller said:
One thing doesn't necessarily come at the cost of losing another. Both can work in tandem as Exodus has proven and I do believe the next-gen consoles and game engines will work to get a hybrid "fake" solution working because resources will be limited and the results are beyond whats capable with traditional rasterized techniques now.

The bolded isn't true for consoles, though. A fake/hybrid solution could work, but one has to look at aesthetic benefits of using such solutions over existing GI solutions. It's more of a case of diminishing returns.

Necrokiller said:
Trivial? That's a pipe dream even for current modern rendering techniques, let alone ray tracing.

Trivial, as in when the performance cost of using it in place of existing GI solutions will leave enough headroom for other graphical features. And yes, that won't be the case any time soon.

Necrokiller said:
So you're perfectly satisfied with Witcher 3 dropping real-time GI in favor of light-probes? Thats good to finally know.

Indeed, the Witcher 3 actually did a pretty good job of faking it.

There's something else that you'll find good to know. TW3's solution even had the knowledgeable one fooled

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/digi...isode-duscae-revisited.1062209/post-167778434
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/digi...isode-duscae-revisited.1062209/post-167663125

We ended up not using Global Illumination, light bouncing and reflecting… this is similar to what I mentioned previously with visual effects, an area where things keep getting better every year, but these really cool solutions are still far too expensive to use in a complex game. So to add more detail to the lighting, the whole world is covered in “lighting and reflection” probes, that analyse the surrounding area and light it accordingly. It does a pretty good job.

https://www.dualshockers.com/the-wi...her-lighting-consoles-graphics-and-much-more/

Necrokiller · Mar 11, 2019

Chandoo said:
You'll be surprised at how many people might say the other way around.

What would you say?

well ... yeah .. but again the point is they're selling the game and a lot of people are buying the game on the enhanced consoles for the 4K. Is it marketing spiel ? yes. Does it work ? yes.

Point is you can't narrow it down to 4K marketing unless you have base vs Pro player numbers.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Chandoo · Mar 11, 2019

What would you say?

Honestly ? As of yet I am perfectly content with traditional games. God of War, Horizon ZD, Red Dead etc are all perfectly fine IMO. Their 'faked' lighting techniques work well and look beautiful and convincing. So far, the best RTX implementation I've seen in a video is BFV's reflections (my favorite bit is the accurate reflection of the player model on your sniper rifle's scope glass) but IMO the traditional cube maps and SSRs that the same game uses without RTX work well. They're not as accurate yes, but you won't miss anything unless you know exactly the spots where to look at. These aren't things you can fully appreciate or experience outside of comparison shots.

You can say a part of it is probably because RTX is not widespread in more games, nor do I have a card capable of using it first hand so I don't have the exact hands-on perspective, but these are all my opinions based on available media.

Necrokiller · Mar 11, 2019

CerebralTiger said:
Those devs werern't entirely wrong, though. Fast forward to today, and it's largely a mix and mash of both dynamic and static lights. The placement of light probes and baked area lights does give the artist control over the kind of ambience they want to set in a scene.

This depends on the engine and platform. Which is why I said a hybrid solution is plausible.

The bolded isn't true for consoles, though. A fake/hybrid solution could work, but one has to look at aesthetic benefits of using such solutions over existing GI solutions. It's more of a case of diminishing returns.

Trivial, as in when the performance cost of using it in place of existing GI solutions will leave enough headroom for other graphical features. And yes, that won't be the case any time soon.

This is kind of like saying "Putting people on the moon isn't feasible for most countries so it doesn't mean much that US did it until most countries are able to do it as well" :hah:

This is all evidence to the fact that 4A Games is ahead of the pack. Other developers bounded by engine, toolset or platform limitations are irrelevant to what they have been able to accomplish.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

CerebralTiger · Mar 11, 2019

Necrokiller said:
This depends on the engine and platform.

Also the game in question and what the studio is aiming to achieve with its visuals.

Necrokiller said:
This is kind of like saying "Putting people on the moon isn't feasible for most countries so it doesn't mean much that US did it until most countries are able to do it as well" :hah:

Not really what I said, but okay

It's cool that PC, with annually updated hardware, can afford the GPU budget to allow ray-traced lighting. But as I said earlier, I hope this doesn't trickle down to consoles, as it's really not needed to make a game look visually appealing. I would instead like to see the GPU budget being spent in other areas. This is why I said the bolded part of your earlier post isn't true for consoles.

As for a hybrid solution, it remains to be seen how performance heavy it will be in comparison to real-time ray-traced lighting.

Necrokiller said:
This is all evidence to the fact that 4A Games is ahead of the pack.

Definitely ahead of the pack when it comes to lighting.

Also, I probably haven't mentioned this before, but Metro Exodus has the worst photo mode ever. There's no way to pan the camera outside of Artyom's view, who's probably just a pair of arms and legs attached to a camera lol.

P.S. No thoughts on Alex's comments regarding TW3's use of GI? Do you also not blame him for that?

Necrokiller · Mar 11, 2019

CerebralTiger said:
it's really not needed to make a game look visually appealing.

That could be said for a lot of modern rendering techniques depending on what aspects one considers crucial for visual appeal. An accurate lighting model, for me, is absolutely critical.

TLoU did fake indirect lighting after all. Or did they simply waste those resources?

The fact is that indirect lighting was deemed necessary to make it look more 'visually appealing' by the developers. But that has its own limitations. The same implementation cannot work in a game like Exodus which has a full day-night cycle and has to account for dynamic scenes. 4A Games managed to implement a real-time physically accurate lighting model to do that on PC today. It will get even better with time. But in the here and now, that is nothing short of a breakthrough achievement.

CerebralTiger said:
P.S. No thoughts on Alex's comments regarding TW3's use of GI? Do you also not blame him for that?

What about it? He did say it has "GI of some sort". And it does. I think you just have it against him because he is passionate about games you aren't

CerebralTiger · Mar 11, 2019

Necrokiller said:
That could be said for a lot of modern rendering techniques depending on what aspects one considers crucial for visual appeal.

Does each of those rendering techniques in question have a respective alternative that is less accurate and produces aesthetically similar looking results? Then, yes, the same could be said for those rendering techniques.

It's like this Guerrilla Games dev said in a DF interview from the early days of the Decima engine.

"If you make everything absolutely physically correct, we don't have any possibility to fake something. We're not making something photo-realistic or hyper-realistic, we're looking to make an image that's as pleasant as possible.

"So for example, you want to have extra [light] bounce on one room and you don't want it in another because of contrast and brightness, we have the possibility to bake these things as long as we are not using this type of system. Iteration may be faster but it costs more performance-wise, of course. The quality would probably drop - the benefit of pre-baking certain things is that if you don't need it for your gameplay element in this area and you need a static light that is not adjustable, it's much more efficient to bake this sort of thing because of performance or quality I guess."

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-killzone-shadow-fall

Necrokiller said:
TLoU did fake indirect lighting after all. Or did they simply waste those resources?

You answered your own question and advocated my point there lol. Not as much resources were wasted because it was faked using dynamic light maps baked into environments. And the results were quite convincing.

Necrokiller said:
The fact is that indirect lighting was deemed necessary to make it look more 'visually appealing' by the developers.

Of course, but that's not my point. My argument is that ray-traced GI doesn't enhance the visual appeal over the non ray-traced GI solutions present today, including TLoU1/2's implementation.

Necrokiller said:
The same implementation cannot work in a game like Exodus which has a full day-night cycle and has to account for dynamic scenes.

The Witcher 3 is an open world game that also has a day/night cycle. Surely you'd agree that such an implementation could work in a game like Exodus

Necrokiller said:
What about it? He did say it has "GI of some sort". And it does.

I can't seem to find his post from another Gaf thread where he assumed it was a real-time implementation. Oh well, maybe another time.

Necrokiller · Mar 11, 2019

CerebralTiger said:
Does each of those rendering techniques in question have a respective alternative that is less accurate and produces aesthetically similar looking results? Then, yes, the same could be said for those rendering techniques.

4A Games, as well as DICE, have made tons of optimizations with the help of engineers from Nvidia to achieve these results. In the hands of a less capable developer, it would still be too expensive to implement.

It's like this Guerrilla Games dev said in a DF interview from the early days of the Decima engine.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-making-of-killzone-shadow-fall

Ray-tracing is not a switch you can flip that works on its own without artists intervention and optimization. This statement assumes that physically correct implementation is devoid of artistic finesse. They've already been proven wrong. Twice. They will prove themselves wrong when they eventually have the hardware and render budget to implement ray-tracing or cheaper alternatives of it in their own engine.

You answered your own question and advocated my point there lol.

You missed my point then. I'm saying why even bother faking a feature with inaccuracies if that feature is not necessary to make a game visually appealing as you said? The R&D, testing, QA etc, all time and resources could be spent elsewhere. But no, having some form of indirect lighting was important to ND and thats ok? And if its also important to another developer in a more complex scenario and it means you need more capable PC hardware to achieve the best results, its somehow less desirable to you? Its understandable why GG would make such statements because their hands are tied by Sony lol

The Witcher 3 is an open world game that also has a day/night cycle. Surely you'd agree that such an implementation could work in a game like Exodus

Could work? Sure. It does. Exodus does have GI implementation in place on PC and consoles. But if off the shelf hardware allows for a vastly superior alternative to fit the rendering budget, then I'm all for that too.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

CerebralTiger · Mar 11, 2019

Necrokiller said:
In the hands of a less capable developer, it would still be too expensive to implement.

Widely used developer-friendly game engines like UE4/Unity have already incorporated support for ray generation and hit shaders. It's not as expensive as you think, as Nvidia has been working with the makers of these engines to expose high-level features just as it worked with 4A Games for their engine. Even an indie studio can now take advantage of it if they so choose.

You're looking at ray-tracing as some brand new phenomenon, which it really isn't. It was just too expensive to use up until now. The concept has existed since ray-casting, which is a less intense form of ray-tracing used to detect simple geometry and is therefore limited in practical use to accurate detecting of collisions (like shooting bullets through complex geometry, which is considered amazing nowadays lol).

Necrokiller said:
Ray-tracing is not a switch you can flip that works on its own without artists intervention and optimization.

It requires some effort, of course. You're still placing a direct light source in your scene that generates rays, which on hit with geometry will obtain its color info and produce the intended indirect lighting on the next geometry the ray intersects with based on the distance from point of the previous bounce. It's really not rocket science lol. If a studio makes a conscious decision to work with the right shaders from the very beginning, no extra work is required in that regard.

With regards to optimization, you're giving way too much credit to 4A Games. The fundamental ray-tracing acceleration BVH tree traversal algo itself is incorporated in Nvidia's software API.

Necrokiller said:
This statement assumes that physically correct implementation is devoid of artistic finesse.

Artistic intervention is limited to what you can do with the shaders themselves. You could technically bake light probes into environments, but they'd probably mess with the ray-traced output.

Necrokiller said:
They've already been proven wrong. Twice. They will prove themselves wrong when they eventually have the hardware and render budget to implement ray-tracing or cheaper alternatives of it in their own engine.

I don't recall. What have they been wrong about?

Considering how they already implemented less accurate 2.5D ray-traced reflections as part of their reflection model in KZ Shadow Fall in 2013, I think they'll be fine.

Necrokiller said:
You missed my point then. I'm saying why even bother faking a result with inaccuracies if its not necessary to make a game visually appealing?

Your point doesn't make sense. GI in itself is visually appealing. I never argued against that. But ray-traced GI is no more visually appealing than current solutions. This has been my argument since the very start of this discussion.

Necrokiller said:
But if that means a more capable PC hardware is required to achieve the best results, its somehow less desirable to you?

Never said that. What I said was that it makes sense for it to be an option on PC, where hardware is annually refreshed. It's not desirable on consoles because diminishing returns.

Necrokiller said:
Could work? Sure. It does.

And the less physically accurate results don't look less visually appealing to me. However, I do appreciate it as a technological advancement that works within the rendering budget of a modern high end PC.

Necrokiller · Mar 11, 2019

CerebralTiger said:
You're looking at ray-tracing as some brand new phenomenon, which it really isn't. It was just too expensive to use up until now.

lol I'm looking at it as exactly an old phenomenon that was sought after but was never achieveable in the form that it is today, which makes it brand new. An individual artist can probably spend months rendering the most realistic and visually appealing scene ever made but in a wide variety of gameplay applications it will be worthless.

Speaking of Unity, how many AAA studios/games exist that are even using it? Lol

(like shooting bullets through complex geometry, which is considered amazing nowadays lol).

Its a much more common problem than you think. This isn't even complex geometry and its CoD, not some obscure indie game.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Blackops4/...else/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

With regards to optimization, you're giving way too much credit to 4A Games. The fundamental ray-tracing acceleration BVH tree traversal algo itself is incorporated in Nvidia's software API.

Credit where its due. Both 4A Games and Nvidia have done a tremendous job pushing the boundaries of real-time rendering. And very much looking forward to Atomic Heart and Control's implementation as well.

Your point doesn't make sense. GI in itself is visually appealing. I never argued against that. But ray-traced GI is no more visually appealing than current solutions. This has been my argument since the very start of this discussion.

Agree to disagree then. Something "good enough" is just that until something better arrives. The results speak for themselves both on a technical and artistic level. The only real issue Im seeing in the arguments presented is that currently the consoles are not capable of it.

Never said that. What I said was that it makes sense for it to be an option on PC, where hardware is annually refreshed. It's not desirable on consoles because diminishing returns.

I never said it must be used at all costs no matter what, just that with the hardware getting more capable its the right time to come up with solutions which fit the budget on the respective hardware. I do expect console studios to start researching cheaper ray-tracing alternatives. All naysayers (not you specifically) will be singing a very different tune once studios will dedicate their resources on that lol

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

CerebralTiger · Mar 12, 2019

Necrokiller said:
lol I'm looking at it as exactly an old phenomenon that was sought after but was never achieveable in the form that it is today, which makes it brand new.

When you say "in the form that it is today", what specific changes to the technique are you referring to? There's Nvidia's RTX API, which accelerates the process through a node-based traversal algorithm for geometric objects, yes, but the BVH algorithm itself has existed for a while and is widely used in non-real-time ray-trace applications.

What's the difference between the ray-tracing that has been going on in non-real-time applications and a real-time one such as Metro Exodus? In both cases, it's still a series of raycasts that intersect with geometry and return information.

Moreover, ray-traced reflections in real-time applications have also existed in the form of SSR. These are 2D ray-traces, but a similar method is used to approximate vectors. There is no reninvention of the wheel going on here lol.

Necrokiller said:
An individual artist can probably spend months rendering the most realistic and visually appealing scene ever made but in a wide variety of gameplay applications it will be worthless.

Why would it be worthless? Both linear and open world games today have their fair share of lighting baked into scenery. There's also real-time lighting to go with it. Even if/when the real-time elements are replaced with ray-traced lighting, there will still be baked light probes and area lights. Now, the thing I'm not sure of is whether ray-traced and baked lighting can co-exist without things looking odd, but I'm sure a workaround will be found even if this presents itself as an issue.

Necrokiller said:
Speaking of Unity, how many AAA studios/games exist that are even using it? Lol

Does it really matter? Smaller, AA games (or tech savy indie projects with a moderate budget) have also been doing some great things with lighting, for example The Tomorrow Children (not a Unity game, but for the sake of giving an example). I mean, it's quite telling that Nvidia is very eager to help Unity Technologies incorporate it in their engine (and in its eagerness, even spoiled the announcement beforehand lol).

Necrokiller said:
Its a much more common problem than you think. This isn't even complex geometry and its CoD, not some obscure indie game.

That looks more like a collision bug in that particular region. How about the bridge up ahead? That's more complex geometry, and if bullets are unable to pass through the gaps, then I'd definitely agree.

Metro Exodus has bigger collision issues, where invisible walls are often blocking your way as you run past corridors. And no, I'm not talking about just moving through grass slowing you down.

Necrokiller said:
Both 4A Games and Nvidia have done a tremendous job pushing the boundaries of real-time rendering.

Metro Exodus just happens to be the first released game to implement ray-traced lighting. Not much different from the first game out that implemented PhysX.

Nvidia's efforts are commendable, but just as their other initiatives like GameWorks and G-Sync, RTX won't really take off and a non-proprietary solution will take precedence once the next consoles are out, and studios won't have to work with two different pipelines. The inclusion of VRR as an HDMI 2.1 standard has pretty much killed G-Sync for all intents and purposes.

Necrokiller said:
The results speak for themselves both on a technical and artistic level.

For me, on an artistic level, there's not much to distinguish between them, hence the lack of visual appeal over existing GI methods.

Necrokiller said:
I do expect console studios to start researching cheaper ray-tracing alternatives. All naysayers (not you specifically) will be singing a very different tune once studios will dedicate their resources on that lol

You mean like Guerrilla Games which already did that in 2013 for ray-traced reflections (albeit using less accurate 2.5D ray-trace)? But even then, they also used cube maps for reflections in other areas. Baked solutions aren't going anywhere, because a) they're cheaper b) they offer more artistic control in specific use cases.

I don't have anything against the use of cheaper ray-traced alternatives on consoles, because the keyword here is cheaper (what I was getting at with the use of the word "trivial" compared to existing GI solutions). However, if it eats up resources that could've been spent on physics, interactivity, AI, I'm not interested and hopefully developers of games I enjoy on consoles will prioritize the resource budget in that manner.

Necrokiller · Mar 12, 2019

CerebralTiger said:
What's the difference between the ray-tracing that has been going on in non-real-time applications and a real-time one such as Metro Exodus? In both cases, it's still a series of raycasts that intersect with geometry and return information.

By non-real-time applications do you mean 3D animated films or games using baked solutions?

Moreover, ray-traced reflections in real-time applications have also existed in the form of SSR. These are 2D ray-traces, but a similar method is used to approximate vectors. There is no reninvention of the wheel going on here lol.

But there is lol. SSR only works with the data that is available in a single given frame. Ray-traced reflection can incorporate off-frame data in the viewable frame. That IS reinvention of the wheel.

Why would it be worthless?

It would be worthless in...

a wide variety of gameplay applications

I wouldn't consider this an achievement on the same level. A solution that can handle more complex scenarios is more viable to other developers than a solution to a problem with a limited scope. Developers who want dynamism in games with higher levels of object interactivity and physics or dynamic changes to lighting in levels don't have much to gain from artists who created a static scene with fixed faked lighting. The more accurate solution on the other hand can cater to both.

That looks more like a collision bug in that particular region. How about the bridge up ahead? That's more complex geometry, and if bullets are unable to pass through the gaps, then I'd definitely agree.

End result is the same isn't it? Your bullets don't land where you intend them to due to inaccurate collision with geometry. But next time I come across it myself, I will definitely record it. It probably happens in Exodus too though I didn't notice it at all.

Nvidia's efforts are commendable, but just as their other initiatives like GameWorks and G-Sync, RTX won't really take off

Why are these questions affecting your judgement of what we DO currently have today?

For me, on an artistic level, there's not much to distinguish between them, hence the lack of visual appeal over existing GI methods.

So what you're saying is, the baked, non ray-traced GI solution on consoles and PC, where artists have "more control", is indistinguishable to you artistically from a ray-traced GI solution where artists lose control over the scene. So you get more physically accurate lighting while retaining the artistic quality? I think you kind of contradicted yourself there lol Artistic integrity and accurate emulation are not mutually exclusive.

Baked solutions aren't going anywhere

Did I say they are? Real-time solutions is what the technological advancements have always aimed to do, or get closer to anyway. Pre-computed solutions are viable and should be used where possible but that does not mean they don't come with any limitations or always give you superior results. The motivation to use them is largely to save on performance. RTX is making better solutions viable and I don't see anything wrong with that.

However, if it eats up resources that could've been spent on physics, interactivity, AI, I'm not interested and hopefully developers of games I enjoy will think the same way.

I don't know that gives you the idea that proponents of ray-tracing don't want any of those advancements lol

How many games that you enjoyed can you list from this generation that have actually given priority to physics, interactivity, AI over better shaders, shadows, SSS or SSRs? Even the actual effects of those advancements having a meaningful impact on gameplay is debatable. Are you not enjoying DMC5 which is basically just a visually better version of a game that came out 11 years ago or is inverse kinematics (never seen that before lol) really game changing in DMC5?

Also, to have better physics and interactivity, you absolutely need to focus primarily on a real-time lighting model, while baking elsewhere to achieve your primary target. So your preferences and how to achieve them are at odds with each other. Unless you want the industry to regress in terms of visuals.

I'm pretty much convinced at this point that your lack of enthusiasm is only because of this reason. This would also explain why you choose to ignore articles from specific people :hah:

Metro Exodus just happens to be the first released game to implement ray-traced lighting.

MULTI [OT] Metro Exodus | Journey Beyond

Expert

Resi Evil 4 > Your fav game.

Expert

Resi Evil 4 > Your fav game.

Expert

Resi Evil 4 > Your fav game.

Expert

Resi Evil 4 > Your fav game.

Expert

Expert

Resi Evil 4 > Your fav game.

Expert

Expert

Expert

Expert

Expert

Expert

Expert

Expert

Expert