ASUS STRIX X570-E Gaming review
EK Classic RGB P240 review
Promo: VIP-SCDKey Games and Windows 10 / Office
Synology DS620slim Gigabit NAS Review
Fractal Design Vector RS review
Corsair iCUE 465X review
be quiet! Pure Base 500 review
Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Swiftech H240 X3 AIO review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
3DMark Dandia - Real-time Raytracing Video
So if you might have overlooked it yesterday in the onslaught of all our content, we had a bit of an exclusive to show you. We have the first preliminary Ray tracing enabled 3DMark Dandia from UL (formerly Futuremark), this 3DMark tech demo shows real-time ray tracing in action which they plan to release later this year. The demo will run on any hardware with drivers that support the Microsoft DirectX Ray Tracing API. The purpose of this demo is to show practical, real-time applications of the Microsoft DirectX Ray Tracing API. The demo does not contain all the ray tracing effects that will be present in the final benchmark, nor is it fully optimized. The demo is based on a work in progress.
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990X 32-core Waves Hello from 3DMark Database - 06/28/2018 08:51 AM
So much stuff posted on CPUs lately, lol. Threadripper 2990X is up and coming, yesterday a German retailer leaked the official name and it's very attractive price. Today a 3DMark benchmark has surfa...
FutureMark shows first footage 3DMark DirectX 12 (video) - 12/14/2015 10:12 AM
With DirectX available on Windows 10 it's just a matter of time before everybody jump onto it. Not just the hardware and games, the test software's will adapt as well. Futuremark has been hard at wo...
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8872
Joined: 2004-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 8872
Joined: 2004-05-10
#5586940 Posted on: 09/20/2018 11:04 AM
Looks awesome. Cant wait for 3rd gen RTX cards to be able to run it right at 4k.
Looks awesome. Cant wait for 3rd gen RTX cards to be able to run it right at 4k.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35914
Joined: 2000-02-22
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35914
Joined: 2000-02-22
#5586973 Posted on: 09/20/2018 12:20 PM
Beautiful and thank you Hilbert.
What FPS was that running at? Source says its 2K?
I hope AMD and Intel (maybe... Raja waiting for you) can bring something to the table soon as well.
Could not check that just yet. DX-R overlays are not working. it was very smooth though, indeed @ 2560x1440.
Beautiful and thank you Hilbert.
What FPS was that running at? Source says its 2K?
I hope AMD and Intel (maybe... Raja waiting for you) can bring something to the table soon as well.
Could not check that just yet. DX-R overlays are not working. it was very smooth though, indeed @ 2560x1440.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9690
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9690
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5586977 Posted on: 09/20/2018 12:38 PM
Beautiful and thank you Hilbert.
What FPS was that running at? Source says its 2K?
I hope AMD and Intel (maybe... Raja waiting for you) can bring something to the table soon as well.
I fail to see that beauty. I see some awfully blurred reflection.
Rendering it at 720p, then 1080p, then 1440p and 4K. Running Diff filter to highlight improvements in fidelity and you will see it mostly at edges of geometry.
I do remember Hilbert marveling over one of BF games on 4K in comparison to 1080p/1440p as textures and shaders added huge amount of details to cloth and other surfaces.
Having this on 4K will have very unpleasant problem. You'll see regular shader code on non-reflective surfaces at wonderful details. And then those out of place blurry reflections.
Beautiful and thank you Hilbert.
What FPS was that running at? Source says its 2K?
I hope AMD and Intel (maybe... Raja waiting for you) can bring something to the table soon as well.
I fail to see that beauty. I see some awfully blurred reflection.
Rendering it at 720p, then 1080p, then 1440p and 4K. Running Diff filter to highlight improvements in fidelity and you will see it mostly at edges of geometry.
I do remember Hilbert marveling over one of BF games on 4K in comparison to 1080p/1440p as textures and shaders added huge amount of details to cloth and other surfaces.
Having this on 4K will have very unpleasant problem. You'll see regular shader code on non-reflective surfaces at wonderful details. And then those out of place blurry reflections.
RavenMaster
Senior Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: 2009-08-19
Senior Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: 2009-08-19
#5587007 Posted on: 09/20/2018 01:47 PM
Did a double take there for a second. I thought i was watching the Normandy coming in to dock with the Citadel
Did a double take there for a second. I thought i was watching the Normandy coming in to dock with the Citadel
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8758
Joined: 2006-10-29
Senior Member
Posts: 8758
Joined: 2006-10-29
#5587098 Posted on: 09/20/2018 05:44 PM
Awesome looking Demo , thanks for sharing it Boss
Awesome looking Demo , thanks for sharing it Boss
StewieTech
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2538
Joined: 2012-02-06
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2538
Joined: 2012-02-06
#5587117 Posted on: 09/20/2018 06:00 PM
Looks OK i guess. Dont know what the fuss is all about. This technology is still in its infancy it seems.
Looks OK i guess. Dont know what the fuss is all about. This technology is still in its infancy it seems.
illrigger
Senior Member
Posts: 133
Joined: 2017-02-16
Senior Member
Posts: 133
Joined: 2017-02-16
#5587172 Posted on: 09/20/2018 07:27 PM
The fuss is that it's using RayTracing.
Reflections and light projection on games today are "fake". They're painted on the objects based on pre-configured maps. That's why when you look into a puddle in a game, it's doesn't show the sky that you see if you look up - it's just showing a generic picture that is mapped on the puddle as a refection. Lights that shine on things aren't actually shining on them, either - they are painted on the objects to give the illusion that it's shining on them. Shadows that cross between the "source" and the object are just maps that are painted on the object as well.
All of this works well, but it requires a LOT of extra effort to make it look right, and in even the best games it has limitations that you can see if you look for them.
Raytracing actually has a light source, and all of the above effects are "real". It's a bit backwards, but you take the viewpoint of the player (the camera) and trace a line (called a ray, hence the name) from that to a given surface, then to the light source. It calculates what the effect that the light would have on the surface based on what that ray hits on the way, takes into account the surface properties of the light and the surface, and then renders what the effects would be. If the light is bright and the surface reactive, you will get a light that not only accurately shows shadows and reflections, the surface itself can influence the other surfaces around them - a shiny red car might cast a red light of its own on the ground, or a blue tinted window would make the light that passes through it shine blue on the objects on the other side, for example. Do this several hundred thousand times a second, and that's what you are seeing in this video - accurate, real-time lights and reflections, with reflective and translucent objects influencing the objects around them as they would in the real world.
If you want to see what kind of processing this stuff needs, go grab Daz3D and mess around with the iRay engine built into it. To do a single raytraced frame with the current GPUs can take an hour or more at even a modest resolution and a single light source. This is why Pixar and the like need massive render farms to do this. A dedicated high speed raytracing hardware engine could literally change the way the world works, with the things you see in movies as special effects being able to be rendered in real time in the world around us. This is a HUGE deal.
Looks OK i guess. Dont know what the fuss is all about. This technology is still in its infancy it seems.
The fuss is that it's using RayTracing.
Reflections and light projection on games today are "fake". They're painted on the objects based on pre-configured maps. That's why when you look into a puddle in a game, it's doesn't show the sky that you see if you look up - it's just showing a generic picture that is mapped on the puddle as a refection. Lights that shine on things aren't actually shining on them, either - they are painted on the objects to give the illusion that it's shining on them. Shadows that cross between the "source" and the object are just maps that are painted on the object as well.
All of this works well, but it requires a LOT of extra effort to make it look right, and in even the best games it has limitations that you can see if you look for them.
Raytracing actually has a light source, and all of the above effects are "real". It's a bit backwards, but you take the viewpoint of the player (the camera) and trace a line (called a ray, hence the name) from that to a given surface, then to the light source. It calculates what the effect that the light would have on the surface based on what that ray hits on the way, takes into account the surface properties of the light and the surface, and then renders what the effects would be. If the light is bright and the surface reactive, you will get a light that not only accurately shows shadows and reflections, the surface itself can influence the other surfaces around them - a shiny red car might cast a red light of its own on the ground, or a blue tinted window would make the light that passes through it shine blue on the objects on the other side, for example. Do this several hundred thousand times a second, and that's what you are seeing in this video - accurate, real-time lights and reflections, with reflective and translucent objects influencing the objects around them as they would in the real world.
If you want to see what kind of processing this stuff needs, go grab Daz3D and mess around with the iRay engine built into it. To do a single raytraced frame with the current GPUs can take an hour or more at even a modest resolution and a single light source. This is why Pixar and the like need massive render farms to do this. A dedicated high speed raytracing hardware engine could literally change the way the world works, with the things you see in movies as special effects being able to be rendered in real time in the world around us. This is a HUGE deal.
StewieTech
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2538
Joined: 2012-02-06
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2538
Joined: 2012-02-06
#5587176 Posted on: 09/20/2018 07:29 PM
^^yeah sounds interesting and revolutionary. Too bad we have to go bankrupt to experience it lol
^^yeah sounds interesting and revolutionary. Too bad we have to go bankrupt to experience it lol
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5587179 Posted on: 09/20/2018 07:31 PM
I bet you were really fun when someone invented the wheel too.
I bet you were really fun when someone invented the wheel too.
Caesar
Senior Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 2015-06-18
Senior Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 2015-06-18
#5587216 Posted on: 09/20/2018 08:46 PM
Reflection only occurs if a material or object or entity is GLOSSY.
Reflection only occurs if a material or object or entity is GLOSSY.
BReal85
Senior Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 2016-10-25
Senior Member
Posts: 321
Joined: 2016-10-25
#5587439 Posted on: 09/21/2018 10:07 AM
Finally, RTX owners can see something on their GPUs.
The fuss is that it's using RayTracing.
Reflections and light projection on games today are "fake". They're painted on the objects based on pre-configured maps. That's why when you look into a puddle in a game, it's doesn't show the sky that you see if you look up - it's just showing a generic picture that is mapped on the puddle as a refection. Lights that shine on things aren't actually shining on them, either - they are painted on the objects to give the illusion that it's shining on them. Shadows that cross between the "source" and the object are just maps that are painted on the object as well.
All of this works well, but it requires a LOT of extra effort to make it look right, and in even the best games it has limitations that you can see if you look for them.
Raytracing actually has a light source, and all of the above effects are "real". It's a bit backwards, but you take the viewpoint of the player (the camera) and trace a line (called a ray, hence the name) from that to a given surface, then to the light source. It calculates what the effect that the light would have on the surface based on what that ray hits on the way, takes into account the surface properties of the light and the surface, and then renders what the effects would be. If the light is bright and the surface reactive, you will get a light that not only accurately shows shadows and reflections, the surface itself can influence the other surfaces around them - a shiny red car might cast a red light of its own on the ground, or a blue tinted window would make the light that passes through it shine blue on the objects on the other side, for example. Do this several hundred thousand times a second, and that's what you are seeing in this video - accurate, real-time lights and reflections, with reflective and translucent objects influencing the objects around them as they would in the real world.
If you want to see what kind of processing this stuff needs, go grab Daz3D and mess around with the iRay engine built into it. To do a single raytraced frame with the current GPUs can take an hour or more at even a modest resolution and a single light source. This is why Pixar and the like need massive render farms to do this. A dedicated high speed raytracing hardware engine could literally change the way the world works, with the things you see in movies as special effects being able to be rendered in real time in the world around us. This is a HUGE deal.
And you think about this while playing games? Never ever came to my mind. However, dowel-level AI or bugged body parts through textures bother me.
Finally, RTX owners can see something on their GPUs.
The fuss is that it's using RayTracing.
Reflections and light projection on games today are "fake". They're painted on the objects based on pre-configured maps. That's why when you look into a puddle in a game, it's doesn't show the sky that you see if you look up - it's just showing a generic picture that is mapped on the puddle as a refection. Lights that shine on things aren't actually shining on them, either - they are painted on the objects to give the illusion that it's shining on them. Shadows that cross between the "source" and the object are just maps that are painted on the object as well.
All of this works well, but it requires a LOT of extra effort to make it look right, and in even the best games it has limitations that you can see if you look for them.
Raytracing actually has a light source, and all of the above effects are "real". It's a bit backwards, but you take the viewpoint of the player (the camera) and trace a line (called a ray, hence the name) from that to a given surface, then to the light source. It calculates what the effect that the light would have on the surface based on what that ray hits on the way, takes into account the surface properties of the light and the surface, and then renders what the effects would be. If the light is bright and the surface reactive, you will get a light that not only accurately shows shadows and reflections, the surface itself can influence the other surfaces around them - a shiny red car might cast a red light of its own on the ground, or a blue tinted window would make the light that passes through it shine blue on the objects on the other side, for example. Do this several hundred thousand times a second, and that's what you are seeing in this video - accurate, real-time lights and reflections, with reflective and translucent objects influencing the objects around them as they would in the real world.
If you want to see what kind of processing this stuff needs, go grab Daz3D and mess around with the iRay engine built into it. To do a single raytraced frame with the current GPUs can take an hour or more at even a modest resolution and a single light source. This is why Pixar and the like need massive render farms to do this. A dedicated high speed raytracing hardware engine could literally change the way the world works, with the things you see in movies as special effects being able to be rendered in real time in the world around us. This is a HUGE deal.
And you think about this while playing games? Never ever came to my mind. However, dowel-level AI or bugged body parts through textures bother me.
Andrew LB
Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: 2012-05-22
Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: 2012-05-22
#5587441 Posted on: 09/21/2018 10:11 AM
There are two types of light reflection. Specular and Diffuse. Just about everything reflects light and it doesn't necessarily have to be 'glossy'. Only Specular reflections require a smooth dense surface. Surfaces like your skin, the matte finish on my Logitech G903, or the highly porous surface of high quality clay ink jet paper are great examples of a Diffuse reflection of light. The former creates a reflection where you can see the object emitting the light, the latter does not.
Reflection only occurs if a material or object or entity is GLOSSY.
There are two types of light reflection. Specular and Diffuse. Just about everything reflects light and it doesn't necessarily have to be 'glossy'. Only Specular reflections require a smooth dense surface. Surfaces like your skin, the matte finish on my Logitech G903, or the highly porous surface of high quality clay ink jet paper are great examples of a Diffuse reflection of light. The former creates a reflection where you can see the object emitting the light, the latter does not.
Andrew LB
Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: 2012-05-22
Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: 2012-05-22
#5587443 Posted on: 09/21/2018 10:14 AM
Finally, RTX owners can see something on their GPUs.
And you think about this while playing games? Never ever came to my mind. However, dowel-level AI or bugged body parts through textures bother me.
Thinking about it has nothing to do with it. The fact is, raytracing looks absolutely amazing and is the future of gaming graphics. I bet when the first 3d rendered games came out, you were like "just a gimmick. ill stick with my sprites". Because thats the mentality being portrayed by the raytracing 'resist' crowd. lol.
edit/
The thing is, if AMD was the first to market this type of technology, you all would be hailing it as a monumental achievement. And you know what? I'd be in agreement with you.
Finally, RTX owners can see something on their GPUs.
And you think about this while playing games? Never ever came to my mind. However, dowel-level AI or bugged body parts through textures bother me.
Thinking about it has nothing to do with it. The fact is, raytracing looks absolutely amazing and is the future of gaming graphics. I bet when the first 3d rendered games came out, you were like "just a gimmick. ill stick with my sprites". Because thats the mentality being portrayed by the raytracing 'resist' crowd. lol.
edit/
The thing is, if AMD was the first to market this type of technology, you all would be hailing it as a monumental achievement. And you know what? I'd be in agreement with you.
Dragam1337
Senior Member
Posts: 1267
Joined: 2017-11-23
Senior Member
Posts: 1267
Joined: 2017-11-23
#5587464 Posted on: 09/21/2018 11:31 AM
Thinking about it has nothing to do with it. The fact is, raytracing looks absolutely amazing and is the future of gaming graphics. I bet when the first 3d rendered games came out, you were like "just a gimmick. ill stick with my sprites". Because thats the mentality being portrayed by the raytracing 'resist' crowd. lol.
edit/
The thing is, if AMD was the first to market this type of technology, you all would be hailing it as a monumental achievement. And you know what? I'd be in agreement with you.
What looks amazing is 100% subjective. I for one am not at all impressed by it... more accurate reflections, yeah wow... if raytracing came without any drawbacks, then sure, i'd use it, but it comes with considerable drawbacks. A gpu that could otherwise easily pull 4k 60 fps, has to reduce res to 1440p to get 30+ fps. That is a tradeoff i would personally never make.
Thinking about it has nothing to do with it. The fact is, raytracing looks absolutely amazing and is the future of gaming graphics. I bet when the first 3d rendered games came out, you were like "just a gimmick. ill stick with my sprites". Because thats the mentality being portrayed by the raytracing 'resist' crowd. lol.
edit/
The thing is, if AMD was the first to market this type of technology, you all would be hailing it as a monumental achievement. And you know what? I'd be in agreement with you.
What looks amazing is 100% subjective. I for one am not at all impressed by it... more accurate reflections, yeah wow... if raytracing came without any drawbacks, then sure, i'd use it, but it comes with considerable drawbacks. A gpu that could otherwise easily pull 4k 60 fps, has to reduce res to 1440p to get 30+ fps. That is a tradeoff i would personally never make.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1461
Joined: 2011-01-05
Beautiful and thank you Hilbert.
What FPS was that running at? Source says its 2K?
I hope AMD and Intel (maybe... Raja waiting for you) can bring something to the table soon as well.