Battlefield V with DXR on tested from Techspot(Hardware Unboxed)

[leadeater]

43 minutes ago, daimonie said:

Seems like it. But then because BF enabled it later in their process, they had all those entities in place already. So things that shouldn't reflect - e.g. tree bark - were reflecting when they turned it all on (What I called "enable it everywhere). It's not a RTX problem, but just that they developed without RTX and enabled it later. Clearly you don't want to go refactor everything, so they tried to fix it by using some kind of filtering. 

I imagine that the game assests have property tags for effects like RTX to define how the object should interact with the environment, this is done for other things as well. It shouldn't be too hard to set an object type that has RTX effects possible/enabled by default and others that are not. Similar to the way you can make an object solid or not, like a wall vs a bush.

 

Something along the lines of this.

https://docs.unrealengine.com/en-us/Engine/Physics/PhysicsAssetEditor

https://docs.unrealengine.com/en-us/Engine/Physics/Collision/Overview

[daimonie]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I imagine that the game elements have property tags for effects like RTX to define how the object should interact with the environment, this is done for other things as well. It shouldn't be too hard to set an object type that has RTX effects possible/enabled by default and others that are not. Similar to the way you can make an object solid or not, like a wall vs a bush.

  

Something along the lines of this.

https://docs.unrealengine.com/en-us/Engine/Physics/PhysicsAssetEditor

https://docs.unrealengine.com/en-US/Engine/Physics/Collision/Reference

That's how it is supposed to work, as far as I understand it. But I also understood - I think from GamersNexus video - that they are applying filters somehow. I would have to check where that idea came from (I'm at work currently :()

[leadeater]

Just now, daimonie said:

That's how it is supposed to work, as far as I understand it. But I also understood - I think from GamersNexus video - that they are applying filters somehow. I would have to check where that idea came from (I'm at work currently :()

Yea I have no idea how Nvidia's RTX tools tie in, not my area of expertise and my programming knowledge is now completely out of date and sorely unused. Really don't think BFV is a good reference for how RTX is supposed to work though, a lot of it sounded like it was running on general shader compute resources.

[asus killer]

39 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I imagine that the game assests have property tags for effects like RTX to define how the object should interact with the environment, this is done for other things as well. It shouldn't be too hard to set an object type that has RTX effects possible/enabled by default and others that are not. Similar to the way you can make an object solid or not, like a wall vs a bush.

 

Something along the lines of this.

https://docs.unrealengine.com/en-us/Engine/Physics/PhysicsAssetEditor

https://docs.unrealengine.com/en-us/Engine/Physics/Collision/Overview

in GN's video there was reflexions on windows on assets that were as i understood in places the gamers don't even go to.

At this time it seems to be implemented over the code of the game, and it doesn't even work that hell, there were thing without and things with rtx without a clear reasoning.

 

Maybe in the future thinks work better, but for this games were rtx seems to be applied over the code it's like @daimonie said it raytraces everything. I'm also kind of sure nvidia said it could be applied to any game even one not planed for it (i may be wrong) and i assume this is the case with B5.

In this beta phase things seem to be all or nothing, and that's the phase the tech is, beta.

 

And there was also things like the noise image, for me it looked even worst raytraced in the water example on GN's video. Pretty sure if they could (a easy way) they would fix this things, they don't seem to be able or to be easy.

[Kibelok]

You guys are underestimating RTX and it's capabilities and also how it works.

The gaming industry has had DECADES of experience with the old tecnology, mainly screen space reflection. Meanwhile they had a couple months at best with RTX. 
The only industry that understands how RTX works is the movie/marketing industry, and there aren't many interchangable artists.

RTX is going to be amazing, absolutely amazing in the future, in games like Ori and the Blind Forest, Hollow Knight, Zelda, Racing games and maybe a few FPSs. 

The thing is: the studios and artists received the tecnology at the same time the costumers did, so there was no time for development, which is way we're getting buggy and unoptimized RTX with BF5.

The pipeline up until now didn't involve RTX, the artists didn't have to learn it, no one really knows how it works yet. The workflow will slowly include it.

Yes it's a shame that this is the way we're getting this new feature, but looking at the bright side, it's going to make games insanely stunning in a couple of years.
 

[TechyBen]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well yes however like I said my entire point is specific to moving images i.e. playing a game. When you stop concentrating on the game to specifically look to see if you can see a visual difference between the resolutions your ability to do so vastly improves. If however you are concentrating on the game your ability to notice the difference decreases, a lot.

 

Our brains do very well but are easily overloaded, it's in that situation that anyone says they can significantly notice the difference between 1440p and 4k is mostly likely a victim of placebo effect, I expect a difference so perceive a difference.

The thing is... what are we use to? If you have 4k + HDR + Ray Tracing (better than Battlefield reflections only, but actual lighting + volmetrics etc) and textures, and FPS etc etc, you get use to that quality.

 

You can dial it back a bit, but likewise, try going back a generation of gaming. You will notice it. You'll still enjoy the game, but may go "I wish it also had X Y or Z effects".

 

I could easily watch black and white films... but I doubt I'd convince many others. So while we don't need, or in the majority (as you mention, with motion) don't realise the effects and quality, it will in general be noticed.

[asus killer]

20 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

The thing is... what are we use to? If you have 4k + HDR + Ray Tracing (better than Battlefield reflections only, but actual lighting + volmetrics etc) and textures, and FPS etc etc, you get use to that quality.

 

You can dial it back a bit, but likewise, try going back a generation of gaming. You will notice it. You'll still enjoy the game, but may go "I wish it also had X Y or Z effects".

 

I could easily watch black and white films... but I doubt I'd convince many others. So while we don't need, or in the majority (as you mention, with motion) don't realise the effects and quality, it will in general be noticed.

the latest and greatest is only a must for some people, there is still a lot of gamers on CS:GO. I mean, when you look to a game and go wow this is gorgeous it counts, but it isn't everything.

And don't forget when you see steam statistics most used gpu are the 1050's and a lot of people just uses intel igpus. You can get a loot out of a good game even if it looks outdated.

 

everybody i know says they would prefer to turn rtx off playing B5 and get framerate over fire reflections on some dude's eyes

 

kind of the crysis back in the day, it was amazing tech but come on...

[CarlBar]

14 hours ago, Carclis said:

I think reasonably sacrificing performance is what you're falling short of grasping. I'm perfectly happy to jump from low textures to ultra because it results in a margin of error performance decrease whilst bumping object detail from something like PS3 quality to far beyond what consoles today can achieve or shadows off to high because they are the difference between a game looking like arse to one that looks great whilst costing something like 20% performance. What I'm not ok with is something that looks decently better than traditional methods but at a 60% EXTRA performance hit. Games today look great and with current hardware there is no justifiable reason to take such a performance hit for what is a modest visual improvement. Plus, resolution is another element of visuals which needs to be considered.

 

I think your being very unfair here for several reasons.

 

A) First and least importantly. BFV's implementation is super buggy with RTX somtimes not doing stuff it should and somtimes doing stuff it shouldn't. This also raises questions as to weather where seeing true performance. So your not really getting the full RTX reflections improvement you should be seeing.

 

B) BFV is far from the best game to show off RTX reflections in, it's just too dirty, water aside there aren't a lot of high reflectivity surfaces around for reflections to appear on, (and water appears to be where most of BFV's bugs are as it happens), so you don't get a lot of situations where it's even all that relevant. A cleaner more sci-fi or fantasy style game is likely to see a much bigger jump in quality IMO because there will be more places for the reflections to show up and show their stuff.

 

C) BFV is an AAA*** title. The developers put an enormous amount of effort and time, (and thus money), into getting the normal reflections as good as possibble. Not every game can afford to do that, for them RTX offers a much more 1 stop solution to getting high quality reflections. Thats not a trivial factor for games on smaller budgets than BFV.

 

D) Reflections isn't the only thing Ray tracing can do or the only new feature on the cards. RT can do lighting and/or shadows too and we have no idea how thats going to look in actual playable gameplay yet, ditto for DLSS. The potential to implement 3 different types of effects using a 1 stop solution also plays back into point C, weather it's a genuine timesaver compared to high quality reflections may be up for debate, but cutting 3 seperate workloads down to 1 is almost certain to amount to major cost and time savings.

 

E) This is early day's. Forgetting questions abut the competency fo BFV's implementation past graphical feature releases have seen similar severe performance hits, they usually depreciate on the same hardware over time as drivers and game engines get better at coping with the feature.

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

the latest and greatest is only a must for some people, there is still a lot of gamers on CS:GO. I mean, when you look to a game and go wow this is gorgeous it counts, but it isn't everything.

And don't forget when you see steam statistics most used gpu are the 1050's and a lot of people just uses intel igpus. You can get a loot out of a good game even if it looks outdated.

 

everybody i know says they would prefer to turn rtx off playing B5 and get framerate over fire reflections on some dude's eyes

 

kind of the crysis back in the day, it was amazing tech but come on...

I agree. Won't stop the industry putting 100 million into a game when Nuclear Throne has better gameplay. XD

[Brooksie359]

10 hours ago, asus killer said:

I am sick of hearing this argument repeated, the fastest gpu. So i guess everyone was rocking a titan untill now? And if he apply the same argument to the cpu's everyone was paring it with a 7980xe? 

When did pricing vs performance became irrelevant? 

 

The other argument i guess we should just start the old "the human eye cant see more than 60fps anyway" again

I never said it wasn't a bad value. I was just saying that you can't call it a bad gpu because it is still objectively a good gpu just sold at a price that many would find is bad. It would be like if someone said a McLaren p1 is a bad car because it cost alot. It is objectively a nice car it just costs alot. You want to call it a crap value then by all means do so but if you think it is a bad gpu then you would be wrong.

[Brooksie359]

10 hours ago, asus killer said:

I am sick of hearing this argument repeated, the fastest gpu. So i guess everyone was rocking a titan untill now? And if he apply the same argument to the cpu's everyone was paring it with a 7980xe? 

When did pricing vs performance became irrelevant? 

 

The other argument i guess we should just start the old "the human eye cant see more than 60fps anyway" again

Also nobody ever called the titan card bad just overpriced. The later ti series made them a much worse value but still nice performing cards all the same. 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, TechyBen said:

I could easily watch black and white films... but I doubt I'd convince many others. So while we don't need, or in the majority (as you mention, with motion) don't realise the effects and quality, it will in general be noticed.

The difference on a 30 inch monitor for 4k and 1440p is far less than black and white vs colour though. You don't actively have to look for the difference to notice, once you pass the point of having to actively do something, taking you away from the task you're actually doing, increasing that thing won't go noticed. You can either play the game or analyze the image but you can't do both, unless we're talking significant differences.

 

We will be able to notice larger effects like HDR or well implemented Ray Tracing which is my exact point, we have options that we can notice far more than just simply upping the resolution to 4K and doing nothing else to the game. If the character model is the same then upping the output resolution isn't going to have large effect of the visual quality of that character, if you double the quality of that character model it'll look better across every resolution.

[pas008]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Have you actually tried what I said to do? Actually move the image around the screen and see it become less clear. Or focus on a word on the screen then move your head around.

 

The article is not wrong, the math and information is true, for static images only.

 

This can be deeply flawed if you're not comparing equivalent quality panels with equivalent input processors on the monitor. That's exactly why a $100 1080p screen looks and performs worse than a $400 1080p screen.

 

But do you notice while playing a full screen game, with lots of movement. Situation matters you know, we are talking about games here not CAD design, looking at photos or reading text.

 

Because at no point did I say it's not possible to notice the difference, the point is you will not while playing and concentrating on the game.

 

Edit:

Plus your missing the point I actually made, 4K is a complete resource waste in improving visual quality over other options we have. 4K doesn't actually make the game look better, like I said original Doom at 4k still looks garbage.

i clearly see the difference in many things on this

watching on 4k tv

 

 

[daimonie]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm not sure anyone outside of Nvidia actually knows, I haven't seen any detailed white papers on RT cores.

 

Edit:

@daimonie Scratch that, looks like Nvidia does have a decent enough white paper.

 

https://www.nvidia.com/content/dam/en-zz/Solutions/design-visualization/technologies/turing-architecture/NVIDIA-Turing-Architecture-Whitepaper.pdf

Wanted to get back to you on this

 

As you said, the Tensor cores are meant to do D = AB +C  matrix operations. (p15, 16 and Fig. 8 ).

 

For RT Cores, I'll quote some stuff:
 

"Due to its processing intensive nature, ray tracing has not been used in games for any significant rendering tasks. Instead, games that require 30 to 90+ frame/second animations have relied on fast, GPU-accelerated rasterization rendering techniques for years, at the expense of fully realistic looking scenes". p25

 

"While ray tracing can produce much more realistic imagery than rasterization, it is also computationally intensive. We have found that the best approach is hybrid rendering, a combination of ray tracing and rasterization. With this approach, rasterization is used where it is most effective, and ray tracing is used where it provides the most visual benefit vs rasterization, such as rendering reflections, refractions, and shadows. Figure 16 Shows the hybrid rendering pipeline."

 

"Developers can also use material property thresholds to determine areas to perform ray tracing in a scene. One technique might be to specify that only surfaces with a certain reflectivity level, say 70%, would trigger whether ray tracing should be used on that surface to generate secondary rays." 

 

"Do not expect hundreds of rays cast per pixel in real-time. In fact, far fewer rays are needed per pixel when using Turing RT Core acceleration in combination with advanced denoising filtering techniques."

 

"The RT Core includes two specialized units. The first unit does bounding box tests, and the second unit does ray-triangle intersection tests."

 

After reading about BVH search, I'm actually surprised.This is a technique I'm slightly familiar with from computational physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octree). The 'winner' of our Computational Course was someone that used this technique to do a real-time openGL simulation of Andromeda and the milky-way colliding.. We all had done similar calculations at the start of the course, and the number of particles he had (using OcTree) was staggering. Also relevant is the difference between these methods (https://computergraphics.stackexchange.com/questions/7828/difference-between-bvh-and-octree-k-d-trees).

 

To make the comparison: In an N particle simulation, you would make N* (N-1) / 2 calculations (pairwise) for each interaction. With the OcTree algorithm, you would be already aware of what particles are sufficiently far away to be negligible. You would still include them, but quite often you would start calculating "a galaxy" rather than "a large cloud of stars", which improved performance. So these algorithms are about reducing overhead.

 

As I understand it from page 32, the SM launches a ray probe, after which the RT core will traverse the BVH tree and ray-triangle tests, returning hit (no hit) to the SM. At which point the SM knows whether or not it has to calculate anything. I imagine the process like:

• Probe: Will I hit something?
• RT core: Yes, you hit a cup
• SM calculates reflection
• Probe from reflection on cup: Will I hit something?
• RT core: Yes, you hit an inkpot
• SM calculates reflection
• Probe: Will I hit something?
• RT Core: Yes, you hit a light source
• SM: K, cool

It's not calculating the path of a ray (It is straight, unless massive gravitational influence), but calculating what it will hit that is the problem. And that's what this is custom designed for.  

 

So what's the difference? Well, RT Cores are very different from Tensor cores. One thing is the size on the die.

 

A tensor core is a small unit able to do a simple mathematical operation really, really fast.

 

An RT core is able to massively reduce overhead in ray-tracing really, really fast. 

 

 

 

 

 

[asus killer]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I never said it wasn't a bad value. I was just saying that you can't call it a bad gpu because it is still objectively a good gpu just sold at a price that many would find is bad. It would be like if someone said a McLaren p1 is a bad car because it cost alot. It is objectively a nice car it just costs alot. You want to call it a crap value then by all means do so but if you think it is a bad gpu then you would be wrong.

I never mentioned bad anywhere. Just i dont agree with the its fastest its the best solution. That in tech is not always the case

[TechyBen]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

The difference on a 30 inch monitor for 4k and 1440p is far less than black and white vs colour though. You don't actively have to look for the difference to notice, once you pass the point of having to actively do something, taking you away from the task you're actually doing, increasing that thing won't go noticed. You can either play the game or analyze the image but you can't do both, unless we're talking significant differences.

 

We will be able to notice larger effects like HDR or well implemented Ray Tracing which is my exact point, we have options that we can notice far more than just simply upping the resolution to 4K and doing nothing else to the game. If the character model is the same then upping the output resolution isn't going to have large effect of the visual quality of that character, if you double the quality of that character model it'll look better across every resolution.

I agree. Especially on the fidelity of character models and textures. Though I'd argue at this point it's animations, not textures or models that do it (watch some old 2d disney and those with nice animation just pop more than a photorealistic but wooden animation). I'm just going off 1080p vs 4k, as not much video (motion) content in 1440p. Gaming yes, you can scale to any factor. But as content is 1080 -> 4K, skipping 1440p seems reasonable at this point for compatibility.

 

I'm more 4k forever, leave it at it... thank 1440p is enough, you cannot improve ever. Its like 4k is the last 1% of fidelity, and while it's probably not worth it, for that last 1% to say "that's it, it's over, stop with the resolution wars!!!" I'm willing to concede. We throw a dart at the dart board and just all agree on 1 "max resolution", and 4k is more supported content wise than 1440p. Though... I don't know how poor downscalling would look. That could work for PC/games console (though IMO still prefer native res for text/aliasing).

 

When I was working in a store, the 1080p vs 4k difference was in the alising (for video, same applies for games though, see above youtube video). You can have oversampling, but very few bother with this, and it may not look as crisp. But in video, I personally noticed, things like hair, feather and grass were crisp and clear and no strobe effect when in motion. Where as 1080p had some artifacting/strobing and was more blurred in motion. So yeah, not much difference, but some improvement that is nice for certain content/games.

 

Same with raytracing. The next Simcity (clone) or puzzle game to have ALL THE RAYS will look awesome, and not have to worry about other compute/competitive gameplay.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, TechyBen said:

That could work for PC/games console (though IMO still prefer native res for text/aliasing).

That's where you could use game render resolution setting and output display setting so you can have the correct native display output. Pretty sure more games are getting that ability now.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, pas008 said:

i clearly see the difference in many things on this

Well of course you can, so can I. But you're looking for the difference . I however when playing a game, play the game.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, daimonie said:

"Developers can also use material property thresholds to determine areas to perform ray tracing in a scene. One technique might be to specify that only surfaces with a certain reflectivity level, say 70%, would trigger whether ray tracing should be used on that surface to generate secondary rays." 

Sounds like BF5 messed that up a bit if too much is getting reflections applied to it.

 

3 hours ago, daimonie said:

So what's the difference? Well, RT Cores are very different from Tensor cores. One thing is the size on the die.

A lot of the time you have to be careful with the die image presentations and what they depict vs reality. The RT cores may in fact not take up as much as shown nor may even be segmented off like what is shown. Considering the SMs are in blocks and contain the different cores with in them I find it unlikely the die is actually arranged as shown, otherwise the L1 and L2 caches are completely across the other side of the die and that would be dumb. The proportion of the die area might be accurate though, 1/4 for RT cores.

[xAcid9]

 

[Carclis]

12 hours ago, CarlBar said:

A) First and least importantly. BFV's implementation is super buggy with RTX somtimes not doing stuff it should and somtimes doing stuff it shouldn't. This also raises questions as to weather where seeing true performance. So your not really getting the full RTX reflections improvement you should be seeing.

This could very well be true. However ray tracing was presented to us as something that "just works" so we would be led to believe that this is a typical implementation. Mind you this problem of implementing or not implementing effects outside of intended conditions is not exclusive to just the ray tracing technology.

 

12 hours ago, CarlBar said:

B) BFV is far from the best game to show off RTX reflections in, it's just too dirty, water aside there aren't a lot of high reflectivity surfaces around for reflections to appear on, (and water appears to be where most of BFV's bugs are as it happens), so you don't get a lot of situations where it's even all that relevant. A cleaner more sci-fi or fantasy style game is likely to see a much bigger jump in quality IMO because there will be more places for the reflections to show up and show their stuff.

I think the dirty environment is actually ideal in that case because you then get reflections in a lot of cases that our current "cheating" methods would not produce a good effect. Furthermore the dirtier environment means you would have less reflective surfaces and in theory incur less of a performance hit. So, performance wise BFV might actually be a lot easier to run than other implementations, especially when you consider that reflections are the only effect.

 

12 hours ago, CarlBar said:

C) BFV is an AAA*** title. The developers put an enormous amount of effort and time, (and thus money), into getting the normal reflections as good as possibble. Not every game can afford to do that, for them RTX offers a much more 1 stop solution to getting high quality reflections. Thats not a trivial factor for games on smaller budgets than BFV.

For the future, sure. I can tell you that is not going to stick right now though. There isn't gong to be a studio out there passing up on rasterisation just to work on ray tracing tech just because it's easier to implement. Right now it's just another thing to develop time and resources to which is clearly not something trivial since Dice have been working on it for months now.

 

12 hours ago, CarlBar said:

D) Reflections isn't the only thing Ray tracing can do or the only new feature on the cards. RT can do lighting and/or shadows too and we have no idea how thats going to look in actual playable gameplay yet, ditto for DLSS. The potential to implement 3 different types of effects using a 1 stop solution also plays back into point C, weather it's a genuine timesaver compared to high quality reflections may be up for debate, but cutting 3 seperate workloads down to 1 is almost certain to amount to major cost and time savings.

I have no doubt that this will be the case. The issue is that we're only seeing one of these effects at a time and the impact on performance is colossal. It would be nice to have something like this tech to reduce the overhead for smaller developers but I don't see it happening in the near future or it having any effect on the poor condition of the industry (cost savings will just go to the publishers).

 

12 hours ago, CarlBar said:

E) This is early day's. Forgetting questions abut the competency fo BFV's implementation past graphical feature releases have seen similar severe performance hits, they usually depreciate on the same hardware over time as drivers and game engines get better at coping with the feature.

I agree with this but I'm also well aware that each individual ray tracing feature has a performance hit similar to other graphical feature releases. For that reason I'm not expecting ray tracing to do much over the next couple of years, which is why I'm so critical of the RTX products. They're charging through the nose for something that will never take off, at least for it's useful product life and by the time  it does the hardware will be far better equipped for it. I'm still excited to see where the technology goes for sure, but right now it's not all that dissimilar to Intel claiming they have the worlds first 5Ghz CPU when in reality you will never see 5Ghz, and if you do you're not benefiting at all.

[Brooksie359]

9 hours ago, asus killer said:

I never mentioned bad anywhere. Just i dont agree with the its fastest its the best solution. That in tech is not always the case

When not taking into account price it is the best. That was pointing out calling it a crap graphics card is wrong because it is objectively the best graphics card on the market as in it has the best performance. I then said it just wasn't the best value. The context of what I said clear was talking about the best gpu if price isn't a factor. I also said consumer to clarify that we aren't talking about enterprise gpus as well. Anyways you kinda agreed with what I was saying so I am unsure why you would argue with it in the first place. 

[xAcid9]

Quote

 

One of the optimisations that is built into the BVHs are our use of “overlapped” compute – multiple compute shaders running in parallel. This is not the same thing as async compute or simultaneous compute. It just means you can run multiple compute shaders in parallel. However, there is an implicit barrier injected by the driver that prevents these shaders running in parallel when we record our command lists in parallel for BVH building. This will be fixed in the future and we can expect quite a bit of performance here since it removes sync points and wait-for-idles on the GPU.

 

We also plan on running BVH building using simultaneous compute during the G-Buffer generation phase, allowing ray tracing to start much earlier in the frame, and the G-Buffer pass. Nsight traces shows that this can be a big benefit. This will be done in the future.

Another optimisation we have in the pipe and that almost made launch was a hybrid ray trace/ray march system. This hybrid ray marcher creates a mip map on the entire depth buffer using a MIN filter. This means that every level takes the closest depth in 2×2 regions and keeps going all the way to the lowest mip map. Because this uses a so-called min filter, you know you can skip an entire region on the screen while traversing.

 

With this, ray binning then accelerates the hybrid ray traverser tremendously because rays are fetched from the same pixels down the same mip map thereby having super efficient cache utilisation. If your ray gets stuck behind objects as you find in classic screen-space reflections, this system then promotes the ray to become a ray trace/world space ray and continue from the failure point. We also get quality wins here as decals and grass strands will now be in reflections.

 

We have optimised the denoiser as well so it runs faster and we are also working on optimisations for our compute passes and filters that run throughout the ray tracing implementation.

 

Sauce: https://wccftech.com/dice-ray-tracing-optimizations-bfv/

[CarlBar]

5 hours ago, Carclis said:

This could very well be true. However ray tracing was presented to us as something that "just works" so we would be led to believe that this is a typical implementation. Mind you this problem of implementing or not implementing effects outside of intended conditions is not exclusive to just the ray tracing technology.

 

I think the dirty environment is actually ideal in that case because you then get reflections in a lot of cases that our current "cheating" methods would not produce a good effect. Furthermore the dirtier environment means you would have less reflective surfaces and in theory incur less of a performance hit. So, performance wise BFV might actually be a lot easier to run than other implementations, especially when you consider that reflections are the only effect.

 

For the future, sure. I can tell you that is not going to stick right now though. There isn't gong to be a studio out there passing up on rasterisation just to work on ray tracing tech just because it's easier to implement. Right now it's just another thing to develop time and resources to which is clearly not something trivial since Dice have been working on it for months now.

 

I have no doubt that this will be the case. The issue is that we're only seeing one of these effects at a time and the impact on performance is colossal. It would be nice to have something like this tech to reduce the overhead for smaller developers but I don't see it happening in the near future or it having any effect on the poor condition of the industry (cost savings will just go to the publishers).

 

I agree with this but I'm also well aware that each individual ray tracing feature has a performance hit similar to other graphical feature releases. For that reason I'm not expecting ray tracing to do much over the next couple of years, which is why I'm so critical of the RTX products. They're charging through the nose for something that will never take off, at least for it's useful product life and by the time  it does the hardware will be far better equipped for it. I'm still excited to see where the technology goes for sure, but right now it's not all that dissimilar to Intel claiming they have the worlds first 5Ghz CPU when in reality you will never see 5Ghz, and if you do you're not benefiting at all.

 

My pc is broke atm so doing this from phone. Will get back to you with a full reply once it's working again. Short version, because of how RTX works the performance hit of doing more than one effect scales more slowly than initial cost for one effect. 

 

Also the thing with RTX is that reflections with it work best in a does new stuff sense when the reflections are most clear and aligned vertically. BFV's mostly water reflections only reflect limited stuff and everything else is much too subtle.

[TechyBen]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

That's where you could use game render resolution setting and output display setting so you can have the correct native display output. Pretty sure more games are getting that ability now.

Yeah, you COULD do the hud at 4k and the game//3d content at 1440p (on a 4k panel so you still get 4k video etc). I don't see anyone supporting it though. So I'd prefer everyone just to choose 4k to stop market segmentation. If cinema went 1440p I'd agree with you. But I guess it was just easier for them to double up everything (camer + processing + editing + projection + recordings/bluray).

 

So now we doubled, let's just stick with it, and forget 8k as much as we forget "72 speaker surround sound" or whatever black art is being pushed in the audio sphere...