RTX is impressive and the difference is visible, but that fire at
Looks like a gif. When are we going to have much more realistic fire simulation?
Looks like a gif. When are we going to have much more realistic fire simulation?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Digital Foundry: Metro Exodus PC/RTX Analysis: The Next Level In Real-Time Visuals
- Thread starter abracadaver
- Start date
Yeah, that and the water animation framerate being half really stands out.
Well, turns out it works well but only with DLSS disabled. That was the missing link!
Is ray-tracing for sun only? other light sources contributing to GI looks to be way too demanding for now.
And one bounce too, needs to be at least 3 as some scenes look unnaturally dark. It's amazing regardless, but will take a looong time before RT becomes somewhat of a standard.
And one bounce too, needs to be at least 3 as some scenes look unnaturally dark. It's amazing regardless, but will take a looong time before RT becomes somewhat of a standard.
You can probably do 1440p with a 2070 and get 60fps nearly all the time without DLSS. I'm getting mid 40's at superwide without DLSS and RTX on high and hairworks at ultra settings while outside. A little tweak to high and 60 should be doable.
This ensures i'm not touching this game until my RTX build with the next-gen Nvidia cards hopefully in 2020
I don't think the bounces actually matter much (maybe in a room exclusively with white drywall or a lot of metallic surfaces, sure). I believe it is more bounces for the ultra RTX setting.
What matters more is doing many more rays per pixel (cumulatively or otherwise). The way raytracing works is it bounces a ray off of a visible pixel on screen at a randomized direction based on the material. But if you just bounce one ray off a pixel, maybe it doesn't hit a light that's very nearby because it randomly chose a different angle.
The proof that this is the problem is evident in that many of the areas that are slightly dimmer are in rooms with direct or indirect sunlight shining in. Not a bounce problem.
Already Metro Exodus bounces effectively many rays off any small area (otherwise the quality would be terrible), but I think if we did exponentially more rays, we'd have brighter lighting.
I don't think we're a long way off RT being standard at all. It is being done today for a large improvement of image quality. Better image quality would be even better, but already we're absolutely blowing away raster quality.
Last edited:
I've never been impressed by this game frankly, and the raytracing support doesn't change my mind. Maybe it's a matter of aesthetics or the overall art design.
Take this image for instance. The lighting on rasterised side just looks unnecessarily screwed up.
Here I only adjusted the brightness and contrast.
*shrug*
This argument is pretty silly.
Are you expecting to adjust the brightness and contrast of your display as time of day adjusts? And per scene / environment / cloud cover?
Ray Tracing in these instances are to provide realistic lighting that better creates a dynamic environment. It isn't a matter of looking better and worse on one screenshot. You're better off look at real time sequences in different environments and arguing about each scene as a whole
not to mention that adjusting brightness is no fix for flat, uniform lighting without any kind of depth
in a single video, alex has demonstrated the full effect of ray traced lighting. good show guy. this game really shows off
Awesome video. This really sells the idea of using Ray Tracing, there is a big difference.
Not sure if anyone replied to you yet, but I'm currently playing with everything on Extreme and full GTX options enabled and it runs flawlessly on my 2080! I'm sticking to 1080p though, actually haven't ever tried 4K yet.
Edit: Bumped it up to 4K and Ultra on the raytracing (had to update windows thanks to another post) and I'm getting the same performance!
Last edited:
Eh, because it does so many things right, those few shortcomings (and they are short) are hardly game breaking.
Yeah, I'd definitely recommend people using HDR displays, to turn off DLSS and adjust the scaling to your preferred performance level rather than going without HDR. I'm not sure DLSS is really all that great here either way, but HDR definitely isn't worth sacrificing for whatever IQ advantage it may have (and I'm not convinced there is an advantage).
Last edited:
I've been waiting for this, great watch. GI ray tracing effect looked great. Shame about DLSS. Image so blurry with DLSS on, it's like a giant smear filter went over the screen. I don't see much of a point to DLSS anymore if modern games keep offering a resolution scale slider. Resolution scale is my favorite option now to have in a game. Easy way to increase performance without a major visual impact when you are sitting 8 feet away from your tv (Probably good on a monitor too). Especially when you want to hit a target over 60 fps on a fixed frame rate display.
Loved the detailed of showing off different areas and how ray tracing GI affected the game world in a separate fashion. Glad to read HDR is only busted with DLSS enabled. I'll resolution scale instead of using DLSS. Excited to finally try this out later tonight.
Loved the detailed of showing off different areas and how ray tracing GI affected the game world in a separate fashion. Glad to read HDR is only busted with DLSS enabled. I'll resolution scale instead of using DLSS. Excited to finally try this out later tonight.
Last edited:
User warned: Derailing thread bringing up drama from other discussion.
Good post. I assume they needed to make RTX "pop", over wise the only way to notice the difference would be to flip between screenshots and zoom it at 300%. So they made RTX GI super dark, which in many scenes even looks like black crush (unwanted effect form wrong HDMI levels selection on source and TV).I've never been impressed by this game frankly, and the raytracing support doesn't change my mind. Maybe it's a matter of aesthetics or the overall art design.
Take this image for instance. The lighting on rasterised side just looks unnecessarily screwed up.
Here I only adjusted the brightness and contrast.
*shrug*
Your post won't get much love here though. If you try to have discussions and criticism you'll get bashed by DF team and other ERA members and called names. Happened to me in another thread after I posted this comparison, which doesn't even have any brightness or contrast altered!
Good post. I assume they needed to make RTX "pop", over wise the only way to notice the difference would be to flip between screenshots and zoom it at 300%. So they made RTX GI super dark, which in many scenes even looks like black crush (unwanted effect form wrong HDMI levels selection on source and TV).
Your post won't get much love here though. If you try to have discussions and criticism you'll get bashed by DF team and other ERA members and called names. Happened to me in another thread after I posted this comparison, which doesn't even have any brightness or contrast altered!
At this point it seems as if you have an irrational vendetta against this tech.
RTGI and Raytracing are better than the previous methods. Period. It's what we have been trying to emulate for years.
The console versions of this game look great, and don't use RTX. So insuating that they purposely made the rasterization worse to make GI pop is silly. Not everything is a conspiracy mate.
I meant as a standard for default lighting solution for most games, it's exciting that adoption has started though. I wonder how much current RTX GPUs will struggle on night city rendered with ray-traced light sources all over the place :p
You got bashed because you insinuated that we were dishonest and paid off. You're free to dislike the RTX in this game and that's a fair discussion. Just don't suggest that those who DO like it aren't being on the level. That is absolutely unfair and the only reason I took issue with your statements. That's it.Good post. I assume they needed to make RTX "pop", over wise the only way to notice the difference would be to flip between screenshots and zoom it at 300%. So they made RTX GI super dark, which in many scenes even looks like black crush (unwanted effect form wrong HDMI levels selection on source and TV).
Your post won't get much love here though. If you try to have discussions and criticism you'll get bashed by DF team and other ERA members and called names. Happened to me in another thread after I posted this comparison, which doesn't even have any brightness or contrast altered!
I get that all the time and it's always wrong and hurts. When you're putting in such crazy hours to try and make interesting videos and people wave it away as being a shill or paid off or suggesting something like that...it genuinely makes me feel unwell. It has a huge impact (at least on me).
This is a question I've been dying to ask. What is 1440p exactly? Every time I think I'm trying this setting in games on my TV I'm choosing (I think) something like 1080x1440 and it's always letterboxed and squished. Is that the wrong resolution and does this 1440p only appear selectable on certain TV's? Or is 1440p the 3840x2160 setting I usually choose? Sorry if this is a dumb question but I've never been able to use this 1440p everyone talks about unless I'm a complete moron and have been missing it. I've only ever been able to choose 1080p or the 3840 one, everything else just gives me letterboxed squishyness.
How about going back and reading how it all unfolded? I didn't say a thing about anyones integrity until Alex made a long winded post which he felt that me posting images from alternative source is some kind of attack on his integrity. He didn't have to make that post, he could have just commented about why images from other websites look different than his images.
I did read it. I'm completely clear on what happened. You should never have suggested what you did.
I'm willing to apologize for reacting harshly if you can do the same.
I get full 1440p support on my display but, in this case, it's not necessary. Metro will output 4K and you can either using shading rate or res selector to reduce rendering res. It'll still output 4K, though.
Good post. I assume they needed to make RTX "pop", over wise the only way to notice the difference would be to flip between screenshots and zoom it at 300%. So they made RTX GI super dark, which in many scenes even looks like black crush (unwanted effect form wrong HDMI levels selection on source and TV).
Your post won't get much love here though. If you try to have discussions and criticism you'll get bashed by DF team and other ERA members and called names. Happened to me in another thread after I posted this comparison, which doesn't even have any brightness or contrast altered!
Its close. Giving both a hard look a think the bottom pic looks better. Credit to the artist for getting this area close to looking like the RTX GI version. Too bad they weren't able to do so for the majority of the game.
That's the issue. Developers have done a good job faking GI this generation but doing so with a real-time time of day is difficult. You can make some areas look amazing but it requires a ton of manual work to get right across the world and you'll still fall short.
Thanks for the informative video. Even though I'm not sold on RTX yet, it's good to see a game implementing it in the right way, without destroying performance.
It's too bad the game has so many bugs for a lot of people (not for me by the way, after 3 hours not one problem) and the Epic store stuff is still in peoples minds, because if you like great visuals, the PC version of this game is something really special.
It's too bad the game has so many bugs for a lot of people (not for me by the way, after 3 hours not one problem) and the Epic store stuff is still in peoples minds, because if you like great visuals, the PC version of this game is something really special.
To be honest those downplaying rt are just using the 2 locations where rasterisation works well and ignoring all the others 943218421 where rt is miles better but that's how it works, nothing new.
But I'm totally happy for them to continue down the rasterisation path.
I so far do not understand the arguments presented hear, revolving around a couple of screenshots, and entirely ignoring the nature of the scene in real time, any dynamic variables such as time of day, clouds coverage, environment / scenes / events.
It does seem like the discussion here is more platform / vendor bait than actually discussing global illumination and this implementation of ray tracing
I found this example and it's absolutely incredible
It completely changes the scene. I don't know if the darkness isn't a bit exaggerated though, but the RTX off illumination is way too dull in comparison.
It completely changes the scene. I don't know if the darkness isn't a bit exaggerated though, but the RTX off illumination is way too dull in comparison.
It's always the same, was the same with 4k, variable refresh rates etc
I don't if I'm included in this.
But I did say overall RT does look better, but sometimes it just looks different.
Some people are like
"UNLESS YOU THINK THESE RAY TRACING IMPLEMENTATIONS ARE THE BIGGEST GRAPHICAL IMPROVEMENT EQUAL TO THE IMPROVEMENT PHYSICALLY BASED LIGHTING BROUGHT, YOU ARE DOWNPLAYING RAY TRACING!!!!!!"
That's the thing though, it's a somewhat flat rate computational expense regardless of the number of light sources. That's one reason raytracing is so great. The only question is how well limited raytracing (limited by number of rays that can be shot) can represent a scene accurately.
We'll have 1 million raytraced light sources long before we have 1 million rasterized light sources.
From my playing around with Minecraft non-RTX raytracing, I think all night scenes with a lot of light sources benefit tremendously from raytraced GI / lighting.
It's actually way bigger than physically based lighting, because it's more holistic and it wasn't like the lack of adherence to physically based lighting model meant standing opposed to physically based materials at all times (except maybe that one PS1 Space Race kusoge that used to be infamous).
Depicted: an outright rejection of physically based materials
(joking... because it's not like they made the desert glow as it approaches parallel with the camera viewpoint or whatever)
Last edited:
Pretty much. When the best cherry picked screenshot someone can come up with for the rasterized version is "it looks close" then they aren't saying much. If the 2080ti had been $700 you wouldn't be hearing any of this so dont sweat it too much.
I mean, any time there's a difference that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, and a location has a different mood, I can always understand why people might have a preference scene by scene.
But when you remember that RTX doesn't require any kind of scene by scene tweaking, and comes out looking much better more often than not, I think excitement is warranted.
I think the thing I like most about it, is just how *different* it looks, in a more accurate way. Like I haven't played much of the other Metro games (played each for a handful of hours) but the realtime GI in this really makes it stand out aesthetically. Again, you're going to have preference. Realism isn't always going to be warranted or desireable.
But the overall mood of the game is definitely helped by the technique here even if it isn't as obviously flashy or showy as real time reflections in BF5. It makes the lighting *more* subtle I think, which definitely won't be for everyone.
I think they just mean, don't post screenshots at one point in the game where RT isn't an improvement, against the 99 times it is.
I'm not interested in RTX cards at the moment, but I'm not saying I don't want RT to be developed and implemented in the future, especially in more games.
To be negative against that take, even if they're currently enjoying RT in this game would be kind of strange, since it's not that special of a take on an early feature that still has to mature.
I wasn't referring to you, or anyone in particular, but I think the whole "it looks different" is just down to the fact that rasterisation is doing an approximation, while RT is taking information from light sources and materials.
So RT is basically right while rasterisation sure is different, because it's wrong at some degree.
But I truly believe you just have to play and experience how big the leap is, how everything is finally in place, how materials, fog, everything is affected by light.
HDR makes even a bigger difference.
It's so amazing.
Would adaptive sync/GSYNC really offset some of the performance hits from ray tracing? Anyone playing the game with one of those monitors?