I'd said what I said, ohh well. Don't get your panties in a bunch for someone having a different opinion.
i remember hearing that as a child in one of my game magazines lol.
No fucking shit, I'm not stupid. It's just ya'll talk about the wrong things about next gen and it's technology
lol what your saying doesn't make sense, Ray Tracing is the Next step towards Next Gen Visuals like the link you posted
Like I said, I'm not holding my breath on next gen just yet. Problem?
I know. But I said what I said. Raytracing is just pretty lighting. Nothing more or less of anything.
That's just not true. Ray tracing is more general purpose, so the mathematical concepts scale better with scene complexity (while scanline rendering involves more optimization tweaks - perspective corrections, etc.). Ray tracing naturally solves things like the visibility problem with a higher computational baseline
Minecraft would be a better representation on what RT can do.
It's clear you don't actually know what ray tracing is, what it means for the industry and the insane number of applications for it.
Ok, what is ray tracing? Don't google it, just tell me what you think ray tracing is.
Vector graphics are already more than enough for high end graphics tbh.
You think native 4k 60fps open world game with tons of effects raytraced at full resolution is realistic? Even a 2080Ti does not come even remotely close to that. There's nothing valid about that. Even at 30fps it's not even close to realistic for next gen...
They did a really good job without all that tech. Still, we aren't getting pixar quality games on PS5.
But "pretty lighting" is basically the single most important aspect of what makes games and CG do a major jump in realism.
Having basic assets and post processing makes it look cleaner because it's less cluttered. I'd say Toy Story 1 was surpassed this gen itself in most aspects.They did a really good job without all that tech. Still, we aren't getting pixar quality games on PS5.
Pixar from 25 years ago... okay... maybe I can give him that. But tbh, there's something about how clean it looks, I don't think it's just the models, maybe it's the shadows or the light quality I'm not sure. But I just don't think games look even this clean currently, even with all the extra tech.
Pixar quality from 25 years ago in other aspects but in real-time? Okay, sure.
that's because there's a shit ton of anti-aliasing. way more than is possible for 33 milliseconds of render timeThey did a really good job without all that tech. Still, we aren't getting pixar quality games on PS5.
Pixar from 25 years ago... okay... maybe I can give him that. But tbh, there's something about how clean it looks, I don't think it's just the models, maybe it's the shadows or the light quality I'm not sure. But I just don't think games look even this clean currently, even with all the extra tech.
Pixar quality from 25 years ago in other aspects but in real-time? Okay, sure.
Agreed.
The first video (the UE4 engine one) reminded me of this video of a person making a realistic looking League of Legends map. Lighting looks very user friendly in UE4.
www.youtube.com
Wow that was cut or changed greatly for the final game, seem to be downgraded too. Though the demo was real. Jimmy Fallon played it live on his show and did stupid stuff like run into a wall from what I remember. Also the lighting seems similar, and Horizon Zero Dawn still drops my jaw.
Wait, this compares the aircraft part with the E3 demo. It seem to be in the final game.
Edit: Yep this is the demo section. The buildings aren't as shiny, and the lighting changed from being in the light to having the landing area more in the shade of the building, including less glare from the sun, maybe from the lighting change. Also there's some boxes near the landing that were covered and are now uncovered, there was no cloth simulation so that seem to be just to make it more interesting.
Killzone Shadow Fall 2013 Gameplay Demo vs Retail PS4 Graphics Comparison
Killzone Shadow Fall was one of the PS4 launch titles and the very first gameplay video debuted on PS4 reveal conference back in February 2013. Let's watch 2...
The first video (the UE4 engine one) reminded me of this video of a person making a realistic looking League of Legends map. Lighting looks very user friendly in UE4.
Also lighting seem to be a powerful point in Decima games so far. Horizon Zero Dawn's was Hyper Realistic and faked for beauty, and it looks impressive.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/gu...cimas-lighting-and-render-systems-work.54431/
Because it's often overhyping stuff. Previous two generations have also promised to deliver A LOT more than what they actually did. This gen's consoles in particular came to be less powerful than PCs around the same time.
See this is the problem, you can fake it yes. And you can get excellent even jaw dropping results. Case in point? AC Unity's GI, which imo is as good as any ray traced GI, hell they even managed to fake the look on some dynamic objects using small probes for stuff like character lighting etc. But in the end it did mean the game doesn't have a dynamic TOD and the Devs have to spend a lot of time micromanaging the assets plus wait for the baking process anytime they want to make a change.
Or how about thr room in UC4? This is equivalent to ray traced GI, but ever wonder why other parts of game don't look like this despite the game not having dynamic TOD? It's because it's a lot of effort and not really feasible for anything other than a small pretty much non interactive environment.
So yea we can get results that look as good without ray tracing, but at what cost? Cause the moment something is done on large scale, or something moves...it breaks, and it still requires a lot of time to be spent on making it work. With ray tracing GI you get a one solution fits all implementation, you deploy it and it is global...for all TOD...at all times...for all objects. No need to spend time micromanaging stuff to make it look good under all variables, always a guarantee to work on every object dynamic or static under all lighting conditions, and most importantly....no need to wait for generation of pre computed data effectively speeding up development. It streamlines the process so much and it's physically accurate to boot. This is why it's the holy grail of computer graphics.
We already have 4K, 60fps games on One X, next gen systems will be more powerful than that and have hardware accelerated ray tracing.
There's barely, if any, triple A looking native 4k 60 fps games on the X. Mostly Forza titles, though they don't require beefy hardware to run very well. It doesn't get close to that performance in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, for instance. Few PCs would be able to do that. Add RT to the equation and with the notorious 50% cut on frame rate that usually entails, then you're surely not checking all the marks.
See this is the problem, you can fake it yes. And you can get excellent even jaw dropping results. Case in point? AC Unity's GI, which imo is as good as any ray traced GI, hell they even managed to fake the look on some dynamic objects using small probes for stuff like character lighting etc. But in the end it did mean the game doesn't have a dynamic TOD and the Devs have to spend a lot of time micromanaging the assets plus wait for the baking process anytime they want to make a change.
Or how about thr room in UC4? This is equivalent to ray traced GI, but ever wonder why other parts of game don't look like this despite the game not having dynamic TOD? It's because it's a lot of effort and not really feasible for anything other than a small pretty much non interactive environment.
Then there are more dynamic implementations of GI using probes, but hen these probes themselves are pre calculated. So it's more like instead of switching between 4 high quality variables like AC Unity, they dynamically switch between 6-8 variables throughout the day. The limitation here being light has a lot more variation and properties throughout the day than 6-8. And since it's precalculated it doesn't consider variables such as dynamic clouds (which games seem to use a lot). So you could have situations where there's cloud over but the room is still lot like it's clear day. And again, as with the previous method this one requires even more micro managing and wait time to generate all the light data.
So yea we can get results that look as good without ray tracing, but at what cost? Cause the moment something is done on large scale, or something moves...it breaks, and it still requires a lot of time to be spent on making it work. With ray tracing GI you get a one solution fits all implementation, you deploy it and it is global...for all TOD...at all times...for all objects. No need to spend time micromanaging stuff to make it look good under all variables, always a guarantee to work on every object dynamic or static under all lighting conditions, and most importantly....no need to wait for generation of pre computed data effectively speeding up development. It streamlines the process so much and it's physically accurate to boot. This is why it's the holy grail of computer graphics.
They did a really good job without all that tech. Still, we aren't getting pixar quality games on PS5.
Pixar from 25 years ago... okay... maybe I can give him that. But tbh, there's something about how clean it looks, I don't think it's just the models, maybe it's the shadows or the light quality I'm not sure. But I just don't think games look even this clean currently, even with all the extra tech.
Pixar quality from 25 years ago in other aspects but in real-time? Okay, sure.
Ray tracing techniques and surface descriptions we have are all mathematical approximations as well.
Pretty much.
