for 1080p with rtx2070 I recommend native resolution and dropping rtx to high instead of playing with dlss on.there's no miracles.making it quite good and consistent at 1440p upscaled from 960p is already more than I expected on turing launch.
This is pretty much what at do @ 1080 on my 2060. I kinda prefer high anyway... ultra can be too exaggerated for me at times. Really no issues save for one part of the second level, which is probably more LOD/visibility optimization related than anything... it's right when you first get there... I lose about 15 frames in one spot where from where you're looking is pretty much the whole world, with you elevated above pretty much everything but the cliffs behind you, which are close to the back corner of the map. So I think it's not accounting for what can and can't be seen from that point very well and trying to draw much more than it needs to. You have zero chance of getting to seeing all of that much lower-elevation stuff from there, but for some reason it is ready for you to zip right over to where you can.
There was a spot in the main storyline of the first world, too. It had to do with how they applied the RTX in the entrance to the terminal. At some point an update changed it... you could really see a difference in the lighting, and the frame rates stayed consistent. Still looked great... just ran a lot better.
That's another thing to consider... with RT being so new in games, there is no precedent for how to optimize it. I hope that as hardware improves, so will techniques for implementing RT more efficiently. Imagine the things we could be seeing if that was the case! DLSS, I kind of see as a stopgap solution until hardware and devs catch-up. It was a way to get it out there to more people, so they could see what it was all about and pick up some momentum. It definitely worked on me. People were pretty harsh on this strategy back then, not wanting to pay for something they didn't buy into and truly just had no means to fathom, but looking back I think it was a good call... gave devs more incentive to use it and more people a way to at least see what it actually does and realize that it isn't just an impossibly expensive parlor trick. They had to know it was a hard sell. I like to think that a game built from the ground up for RT, run on more mature hardware, would blow our current concepts of what makes a game look good out of the water and shoot that threshold for plausibility way up. Games that are widely regarded for graphical presentation now could be looking real old within the next few years. But we probably wouldn't even be looking at that possibility seriously if not for that leap of faith opening the door on something completely beyond anyone's previous reality. I'm not a huge fan of nvidia for a lot of reasons, but I think we're only beginning to see what RTX has already brought to the table. They did a good thing hacking that mess together, even if it really was kind of a sad mess at first
Honestly though, Ultra/RTX/DLSS at 1080p isn't bad, either. Some of the touches added for ultra make a pretty big difference in many places... enough that I don't mind compromising a little clarity. One thing I really wished for was the ability to control all of the things the presets do separately. For such a performance-heavy game, being able to configure each hard-hitting option to your liking can be important. I feel like each preset adds/removes at least a few things I would want to change myself to get where I want to be with good performance. It feels like it's never quite making the compromises I want it to. Leave the presets for people who don't care, but I don't get why they dumbed it down so much for what is kind of a state of the art game, graphically.
Maybe I'm getting spoiled... in Skyrim I've gotten used to being able to change everything the ini has the power to. And then going into ENB and tweaking every aspect of the rendering system that it can hook into, which is quite a lot of things.
I'm definitely influenced by how it was at launch, but DLSS at 1080p is viable for me. It has come a long way. I remember how terrible it was before it built up data... now it's mostly okay, but has trouble with moire patterns when it comes to fine vertical edges next to each other. I think a little reshade FXAA and fine sharpening would probably bring it close to being unnoticeable. But then, I play control upscaled without DLSS and think that looks fine, so...
It really is a beautiful game, no matter how you run it. The assets themselves and the atmosphere are what make it IMO. I don't expect the sharpest images from a game that uses TAA in the first place lol. Plus all of the darkness is pretty forgiving of minor artifacts. It doesn't really need to look 'clean' to convey everything it has to offer, imo.
But to me that says that maybe the things people typically think matter never mattered all that much and those things were simply making up for other aspects of the image that simply weren't possible to envision. A game with consistently good level design, truly unique and fleshed-out assets, and highly plausible, polished lighting clearly wins-out over a kit-assembled game with pristine clarity and all of the things people are more used to looking for. I don't know how to put it... when you see metro with GI (and I mean really SEE it, not just looking at video or screenshots - you're not going to be immersed in a game you aren't actually playing,) you realize you're looking at something different... something hard to gauge. You just know that it's sucking you in on an intuitive level. The best way I can think to put it is you see things and the immediate reaction is "Ohh... THIS is how this was supposed to look! Why haven't I seen this before?" It's an epiphany. If you then go back and play other games, even with really good, well-thought-out 'fake' lighting, something is then missing. It's like it's not as convincing as you used to think it was, even if it still looks about as good.
So I totally agree with what you said about the GI. It's really, really compelling stuff. Seeing it in metro is when I realized that video game graphics are about to change a whole lot. Completely different level of refinement. I was one of the naysayers once, too. I bought my RTX card just because at the time the 2060 was a good option on 'normal' 1080p performance alone. There really wasn't a better way to spend $350 dollars on a GPU at the time. But I feel like you can't play that game through with the GI on and truly believe there is nothing to it. There has been nothing like it. It is a very powerful tool for devs to have. I really hope that nvidia cooks up something good with the RTX 3000 series. Some of the fancy things they've come up with in the past, I could always do without, but once you see a few good games with these RT methods used well, it stops feeling optional and more like something you want every game to have, whenever possible. It's hard for me to play metro or control without RTX now, to the point where I am willing to sacrifice a little clarity or frametime consistency just to have it. Which I think says something about the visual impact it has.
, like i would care pay for another cpu, nice try 
, well like i care i still havent finishied my yakuza gameplay, will stick with it hehe
