CrackongIt works so well.
Almost a YEAR passed, No. of RTX DEMO > No. of actual RTX games.

ATI Radeon 8000, ATI TruForm
Radeon HD 2000, TeraScale
Read into that as you may.

Imo pushing fidelity in games one way or the other is progress, even if it's commercial failure.

TheinsanegamerNRT, meanwhile, is only available from one of the two vendors, only on their high end GPUs, only the top two can do it at all (the 2060 and 2070 RT capabilities are hilariously worthless). Many people think that RT makes the games look worse, not better, and the FPS hit you take is tremendous. I mean, 1080p30? That is pathetic.

1080p30 is what CryTek showed running on Vega 56 and what GTX1080 can do with DXR in Battlefield V. Both of these GPUs have no RT-specific features.

What do you mean by RT making games look worse?
If you mean Metro Exodus and dark corridors/indoor areas, then this is due to rasterization AO/lighting using either fixed background lighting or manually placed light sources that RT solution does not use. Basically art/leveldesign being tailored specifically for the rasterization lighting.

I believe the title of the article is a bit off . As explained in the article Kunos has other priorities and RTX is eating alot of their development ressources ( understandable due to the small size of the studio ) so they prefer to focus on those priorities instead of RTX but it doesn't mean that they will never look at RTX implementation once they are done with those priorities ! Sure it's a shame but as others have said there are plenty of other games with RTX support incoming so yeah whatever .......

And for those saying " BuT bUt RtX JuSt WoRkS " seriously guys ? I mean you surely do realise yourself that this logic is so dumb on so many levels ! Grow Up you are dealing with cutting edge tech here obviously no matter how easy in theory the implementation is , it will take time for developers to adapt depending on their knoweldge/will to adapt , development time/budget etc etc .

londisteIf you mean Metro Exodus and dark corridors/indoor areas, then this is due to rasterization AO/lighting using either fixed background lighting or manually placed light sources that RT solution does not use. Basically art/leveldesign being tailored specifically for the rasterization lighting.

I am afraid this is terribly inaccurate, if you decide on using ray-traced global illumination art design becomes an invariant to large extent, you can't blame art/level design for being tailored for rasterized lighting.

If it turns out your accurately ray traced illumination is detrimental to level design and player experience, though luck, you need to change your game or leave as it is in this sub optimal state. At which point you have to ask yourself, what exactly are you even gaining here ? You use rasterized lightning you need more time to work on it and adjust it to your game level design, you use RT and you face the risk of having to change said level design for a proper experience. It very much doesn't just work, from pretty much every point of view.

A couple of comments above you said RT has the potential to save time, it clearly doesn't do that all the time and the more you look into it the more cracks start to show.

Vya DomusI am afraid this is terribly inaccurate, if you decide on using ray-traced global illumination art design becomes an invariant to large extent, you can't blame art/level design for being tailored for rasterized lighting.

It is not about being detrimental, just different. Lighting is an art question for design, if some place is too dark you'd manually add lights in there. Sometimes there is a constant background lighting level. A lot of this is tricks and manual work, RT is a lot more predictible in how light behaves.

londisteif some place is too dark you'd manually add lights in there.

Which clearly defeats the purpose, you were supposedly going to get accurately ray-traced GI solutions that enhance your experience not manually placed lights that are meant to fix a crappy player experience due to it's use.

How can support for something be "dumped" when it wasn't intended to be supported in the first place?

God what an awful thread title.

Vya DomusWhich clearly defeats the purpose, you were supposedly going to get accurately ray-traced GI solutions that enhance your experience not manually placed lights that are meant to fix a crappy player experience due to it's use.

Way to rip quote out of context. Manually tweaking light sources, including adding additional lights is standard procedure for rasterized lighting. Not only for visible light sources but also to enhance background lighting level and help/emulate GI methods.

If you read up on GI (and other lighting) methods and their evolution over last few years, these are getting more and more RT-like. On one hand, this is out of necessity and on the other hand these are becoming feasible to use thanks to increased GPU power. The current RT push simply moves these over to doing straight-up RT.

londisteManually tweaking light sources, including adding additional lights is standard procedure for rasterized lighting.

Let me spell it out in simplest of terms :

With rasterized lighting and traditional GI you get granular control over lighting to match with your art style and design. With ray-traced solution you don't, not out of the box, you still need to manually tweak lighting or art/level design to get the desired effect. So yes, it can totally be detrimental to design, it does not magically make everything better.

I have played Metro with DXR and at times the lighting simply infers shitty design, it's realistic, yes, but shitty from a gameplay point of view. No matter how you spin it RT does not simply workflow or enhance player experience in an obvious way, it just doesn't.

Nobody has claimed that RT will magically create lighting for your game.
With RT, there is less of the tweaking part, especially on account of technical side of things.

RH92I believe the title of the article is a bit off.

Yeah, no kidding.
It contradicts itself and the quote it tries to comment.

- "Assetto Corsa Competizione Dumps NVIDIA RTX": that's just factually wrong, as the quote clearly says "as of now"
- "the foreseeable future": ah, so the author does know how to read...
- "the game will not receive NVIDIA RTX support": ...but no, we're back to "never" apparently

It's not rocket science. The quote (which is the one thing the article did get right) says "as of now". It also says "If [conditions are met] we will gladly explore the possibility". How the article makes this into "not going to happen" is beyond me.

I'm ok with this. I like Assetto. Know nothing about avantgarde tech to like it.

WhitestarYeah, no kidding.
It contradicts itself and the quote it tries to comment.

- "Assetto Corsa Competizione Dumps NVIDIA RTX": that's just factually wrong, as the quote clearly says "as of now"
- "the foreseeable future": ah, so the author does know how to read...
- "the game will not receive NVIDIA RTX support": ...but no, we're back to "never" apparently

It's not rocket science. The quote (which is the one thing the article did get right) says "as of now". It also says "If [conditions are met] we will gladly explore the possibility". How the article makes this into "not going to happen" is beyond me.

Did you expect anything else from the author?

MephisDid you expect anything else from the author?

I didn't really expect anything, as I don't think I have read anything the author has written before. Or maybe I have, but just didn't remember the name. :)

londisteAny thread on RT will devolve into the same thing - NVidia is evil and Turing GPUs are overpriced. This gets real old real fast.

We should see Neon Noir on GTX cards - and hopefully given DXR implementation on RTX cards - spring-summer of 2020 when CryTek will actually release the feature on CryEngine.

It is a chicken and egg problem. No hardware support - no games. No games - no hardware support. Someone has to be first and Nvidia jumped on that last year. Marketing hoopla is just part of this game.

Marketing may be part of the game but we dont need to act like we believe in it when we dont, do we? At the same time, everyone would be helped given a fair story and a smooth way to ease into a big change.

The situation now is what you get when shit gets rushed and it speaks volumes about the intent and timing of this move. Nvidia had every opportunity to build broad support between Pascal and Turings launch. In fact, as they had this 'in the making for ten years' why isnt everything and everyone eagerly anticipating it long before they dropped the bomb?

Its clear as day whats behind this push, stop fooling yourself. Chicken egg has nothing to do with it. Eggs just need time to hatch instead of dropping them from the nest.

semanticsATI Radeon 8000, ATI TruForm
Radeon HD 2000, TeraScale
Read into that as you may.

Imo pushing fidelity in games one way or the other is progress, even if it's commercial failure.

Please put PhysX in account , too.
It just Wooooorks, right?

londiste1080p30 is what CryTek showed running on Vega 56 and what GTX1080 can do with DXR in Battlefield V. Both of these GPUs have no RT-specific features.

What do you mean by RT making games look worse?
If you mean Metro Exodus and dark corridors/indoor areas, then this is due to rasterization AO/lighting using either fixed background lighting or manually placed light sources that RT solution does not use. Basically art/leveldesign being tailored specifically for the rasterization lighting.

Seriously who gives a damnwhat the reasons are? The fact remains it looks and plays like an afterthought, and last I checked we didnt get a discount for beta testing. We are talking about very costly GPUs here that sell with the perf dollar ratio worse than it was in 2016. Wake up already.

I just feel bad for the developers, scope creep and never enough time....

Apply RTX water to the burned area.

londisteNobody has claimed that RT will magically create lighting for your game.
With RT, there is less of the tweaking part, especially on account of technical side of things.

Well... a certain leather jacket wearing fellow claimed it and couple of times IIRC.

As for tweaking on lighting I don't think DXR really simplifies much... with RT you propaply need to adjust any and all surfaces for light bounce properties otherwise you'll get pretty derpy lighting artifacts.
I think currently nVIDIAs 1st gen RT implementation simply does not have enough horsepower under the hood (without DLSS at least) to drive these hybrid RT games at proper resolutions.

erockerIt's a direct quote from Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang during the reveal of RTX cards.

10 hour meme version:

Great help. I only have 1h 45min of video to watch, looking for a phrase :rockout:

Edit: And while I haven't found the statement just yet, it seems it means what I thought it means: nvidia/comments/9aopb1

bugGreat help. I only have 1h 45min of video to watch, looking for a phrase :rockout:

Dont do it! I watched it live and despite being hyped and buying the product (to be fair, woulda anyway), it was boring af and I still want my time back.

Anyone actually looked to see how many of the games that appeared in the keynote now have support for RTX? There was a grid of a couple of dozen games, and all I remember is ARK was the first one on the list and I was thinking that game needs all the performance help it can get. 1 year on and there is no sign of it anywhere. The real joke is, since the 400 series nvidia drivers came, there has been (still not completely fixed to this day) a crashing issue - typically BSOD. 6 months it took them to put out a patch which only got rid of some of the problems, I believe you still need to play with shadows on low on certain maps to avoid the problem.

At what point do I just say I feel duped? I guess since I would have bought the card anyway, it is what it is. BUT I accepted less than stellar performance gains as part of the die was going to new types of cores which were supposed to be of some benefit. At this point in time I have played 1 RTX game, shadow of the tomb raider, which RT is a bust as the shadows are already great in the base game. DLSS isnt terrible, but since I can stay over 60fps maxed out (*TAA) in 4K without RT which seem pointless, why bother with it?

semanticsATI Radeon 8000, ATI TruForm
Radeon HD 2000, TeraScale
Read into that as you may.

Imo pushing fidelity in games one way or the other is progress, even if it's commercial failure.

Um dude AtiTruForm is tessellation..

AldainUm dude AtiTruForm is tessellation..

EDIT:
The performance hit when enabling RTX is just to great to be worth it with current HW. Maybe when its down to a 5-10% hit, it may be appealing.

bugGreat help. I only have 1h 45min of video to watch, looking for a phrase :rockout:

Edit: And while I haven't found the statement just yet, it seems it means what I thought it means: nvidia/comments/9aopb1

Irony of this story; if you put the ground rules and assets in place for a raster scene it behaves exactly the same way. Many engines run simulations just the same as RT is a simulation. And it does handle the code thats there much more efficiently, as it does not calculate all sorts of crap it wont use (no probing, culling).

Its potato potatoe material, and it all takes work while Nvidia has provided zero proof that workflows magically require fewer man hours for similar results. Just guesstimates induced by a healthy dose of marketing for the next best thing.

Nothing just works, all those things RT does 'on its own' are useless as we lack the horsepower to push it anyway. So you end up spending an equal amount of time fixing all of that.

The only thing you need less off with RT, is talented devs and designers. Raster takes more skill to get right. Not more time. RT is just a lazy package brute forcing it for you and passing the bill to end users.

Ive seen it too often. New ways of working, new algorithms... and yet, every half serious dev squad has a backlog to keep going for years...