3D animated films.By non-real-time applications do you mean 3D animated films or games using baked solutions?
lol I did say SSR uses 2D ray-traces, which naturally means they're limited to the 2D screen space. I was citing their example to point out that vector calculations are performed using similar methods to those that are applied to 3D ray-traced reflections. Moreover, 3D ray-traced solutions have existed in non-real-time applications (see above) and also run on the same fundamental algorithms.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.
So, again, my questions is what do you mean by "in the form that it is today"? How is the underlying algorithmic logic behind ray-tracing in Pixar movies from a decade ago different from that of a real-time application like Metro Exodus?
And yet, developers who strive for such experiences on consoles today are doing just fine. Yes, the high degree of object interactivity and physics in Breath of the Wild doesn't offer a corresponding physically accurate behavior wrt to lighting. But I certainly don't care. If there is a cheap alternative, more power to it. If not, I don't see its value over the lighting that's already there in the game.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.
Approximated collisions aren't perfect, but they get the job done most of the time. The only other alternative is collisions based on the meshes themselves, which isn't performance friendly.End result is the same isn't it? Your bullets don't land where you intend them to due to inaccurate collision with geometry.
This draws an interesting parallel with the discussion at hand. Mesh-based collisions are physically accurate, but they're taxing on hardware. Approximated collisions using simpler shapes with lesser vertices are great for performance, but they're not as accurate. However, if the artist baking approximated collisions does a good job with their placement, then the end result is just as pleasing (not visually, obviously ).
In the case of Metro Exodus, yes, but artistic quality is dependent on the developer. Remember how CDPR dumbed down the Witcher 2's lighting model so it could run on the the Xbox 360. The end result on the X360 version looked more visually appealing to me. They did a pretty decent job there.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?
Of course, I don't deny that they have limitations and don't always produce a superior result. It's why devs use a mix of both baked and dynamic lighting.but that does not mean they don't come with any limitations or always give you superior results.
I acknowledged that it's a great technological advancement at the very start of this discussion and that it's great for the PC space.RTX is making better solutions viable and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Can't have everything on a limited budget.I don't know that gives you the idea that proponents of ray-tracing don't want any of those advancements lol
I listed more complex shaders as something that does and will continue to produce visually pleasing results. You aren't paying attentionHow 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?
At the moment, these examples come to mind.I'm more than happy with the results of existing GI solutions 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.
- Breath of the Wild, a game that takes physics-based puzzle solving and interactivity to another level. Geometry was on the simple side, which is how they pulled it off on mobile hardware. Can't wait for the next Zelda game to continue this trend of emergent game design.
- Dynamic cover in shooters that is both destructible (Battlefield series) and/or reacts to world physics (Uncharted series).
- AI interactions and world simulation in Red Dead Redemption 2.
Lighting doesn't have to look physically accurate for a game's physics to behave in a physically correct manner. You're missing this essential point. So, no, to have better physics and interactivity, you certainly don't need ray-traced lighting. There are other cheaper real-time solutions that can work. lol that Frostbite engine slide is literally talking about graphical features, not gameplay.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.
Inverse kinematics is most certainly a game changer for the series, as it wasn't there in previous DMC games. It improves playability and traversals over complex geometry. So, yes, why wouldn't it be a game changer? Uncharted 4/LL also make great use of it.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?
Why did CDPR switch from canned movement to IK for the Witcher 3? Did it improve playability over The Witcher 2? The use of physically correct behavior for gameplay is way way more important than the use of physically correct behavior for graphical features.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-witcher-3-tech-analysisTo explore this terrain, a rebooted animation system is also in place for the Xbox One, PS4 and PC versions. Jumping, vaulting, grabbing and diving animations are added to Geralt's repertoire, allowing him to navigate the world in more flexible ways. Motion is no longer rigidly scripted as it was in the previous game. "We use animation IK (inverse kinematics)," says Mamais, "that's so you can grab things realistically, and movement on terrain is realistic and so forth."
Inverse kinematics - as also seen in God of War: Ascension - allows each foot-step and ledge-grab to land dynamically, based on the characteristics of the terrain. Given The Witcher 3's push for a landscape with a greater sense of verticality, ranging from fjords and swampy marshlands to medieval cities, the new animation system proves a necessary move to avoid uncanny scripted movements.
Last edited: