At least with Minecraft I could see a difference 🙂 I'm still not convinced the ray traced light is currently seen at the end of the rastorised tunnel.

Andy Watson:

At least with Minecraft I could see a difference 🙂 I'm still not convinced the ray traced light is currently seen at the end of the rastorised tunnel.

Some scenes have 1% difference, others you can clearly see shadows are totally different. Is it worth buying a thousand euro GPU for it? Of course not. We came a long way in graphics but unfortunately we lost the story, playability and polished key factors. Nowadays I tend to shift to small games that have older looking graphics but are more fun and engaging.

Silva:

Some scenes have 1% difference, others you can clearly see shadows are totally different. Is it worth buying a thousand euro GPU for it? Of course not. We came a long way in graphics but unfortunately we lost the story, playability and polished key factors. Nowadays I tend to shift to small games that have older looking graphics but are more fun and engaging.

You can see the difference when a stationary image and it quickly changes back and fourth between the two, neither which happens when you are playing a game. It reminds me of the time when it was the difference between ATi and nVida for Anti aliasing quality. Websites such as Beyon3d and Anandtech would should a 400% blow up of a tree in Half Life 2 so you could see it was better with AMD ( it was !) but when playing the game you would not notice it. Ray tracing should be for doing effects you cannot do with rasterisation or do effects that blow you away with the realism. Currently it does not do that. If it was "free" then fine, but as it has a huge cost at the moment fps wise I think the hardware needs to catch up. I agree with your comment on the game content rather than the graphics.

Silva:

We came a long way in graphics but unfortunately we lost the story, playability and polished key factors. Nowadays I tend to shift to small games that have older looking graphics but are more fun and engaging.

It's sad that we hardly seem to get both... I hope the upcoming games of CP2077 and Bloodlines 2 make up for that, at least to some extent. But I have to add, graphically intense and beautiful games in terms of mindblowing 3D improvements have usually been shooters, mostly. Like COD, BF and the likes. They never had such "in depth" gameplay and immersion to them anyway, as say, building your own story in an RPG.

Andy Watson:

You can see the difference when a stationary image and it quickly changes back and fourth between the two, neither which happens when you are playing a game. It reminds me of the time when it was the difference between ATi and nVida for Anti aliasing quality. Websites such as Beyon3d and Anandtech would should a 400% blow up of a tree in Half Life 2 so you could see it was better with AMD ( it was !) but when playing the game you would not notice it. Ray tracing should be for doing effects you cannot do with rasterisation or do effects that blow you away with the realism. Currently it does not do that. If it was "free" then fine, but as it has a huge cost at the moment fps wise I think the hardware needs to catch up. I agree with your comment on the game content rather than the graphics.

@schmidtbag - Lol see? This is why they focus on reflections in most games.

Denial:

@schmidtbag - Lol see? This is why they focus on reflections in most games.

I get that. I don't totally agree though - like I said, there are demos with very obvious differences, even without showing side-by-side comparisons. The differences are harder to notice in screenshots of dark gloomy scenes, which ironically, seems to be the most common scenario for RTX demos. Look at scenes using bright light sources and colorful objects and the benefits of RTX become very apparent. All that being said, I agree that reflective surfaces are the only way to really show off RTX in these dark gloomy games, but, if Nvidia really wants people to understand the benefit of RTX, there are better examples out there.

schmidtbag:

I get that. I don't totally agree though - like I said, there are demos with very obvious differences, even without showing side-by-side comparisons. The differences are harder to notice in screenshots of dark gloomy scenes, which ironically, seems to be the most common scenario for RTX demos. Look at scenes using bright light sources and colorful objects and the benefits of RTX become very apparent. All that being said, I agree that reflective surfaces are the only way to really show off RTX in these dark gloomy games, but, if Nvidia really wants people to understand the benefit of RTX, there are better examples out there.

But then you do a demo like the Minecraft one and people say "everything looks like shiny plastic". I dunno, it looks like we'll simply have to wait until people shut up about it when it becomes the norm. I'm growing tired of explaining the same thing a million times.

Ricardo:

But then you do a demo like the Minecraft one and people say "everything looks like shiny plastic". I dunno, it looks like we'll simply have to wait until people shut up about it when it becomes the norm. I'm growing tired of explaining the same thing a million times.

In a lot of cases, it seems a lot of people just don't understand what raytracing is good for, and as a result, they don't know where to look. Or, they see the results and don't understand why it's so computationally expensive, thereby discrediting the feature. That, again, is Nvida's fault for not educating. They just assume people know what it is and what it's good for. I remember the same sort of issue came up with ambient occlusion. It means absolutely nothing to most people. In a lot of scenes, it's hard for such people to notice it at all. But once you tell people what it is and where to look for it, it becomes distractingly noticeable when it's off, and scenes look a lot worse without it. And that's why I have such a gripe about RTX puddles - games have had realistic looking reflections for years. With RTX on, the puddles are just simply different, but don't necessarily look better. So, I don't blame people for thinking it's not impressive, because even though the differences are obvious, they're not worth the performance loss. But raytracing can do things that nothing else was able to do. Like AO, it's subtle, but once you know where to look, you can't help but notice it.

Good Job DX-R. Like in scene at 0:25. DX-R OFF: person in the middle casts shadow from sharp and strong primary light as it would in real world. DX-R ON: shadow described above is completely gone as if it was destroyed by ambient light. But it is scene where sharp shadow actually makes sense, because luminosity of primary light is like 100 times higher than ambience and reflected light from this primary source. Same applies to 0:10, 0:14~0:15, 0:37, 0:41, 0:43, ... Basically issue is in idea that there is some strong ambient light that destroys static shadows from very strong primary light source, but magically this strong ambience does have absolutely no effect on areas around and leave them impressively dark... If they recreated scene at 0:37, they would be like... F*, we did F*-up. Then there is that other big offender which can be noticed in many scenes. Best seen at 0:10. DX-R ON: Tires and cable-spool are clearly visible and reflect light from primary source which is actually blocked by wall and tires/spool themselves... DX-R OFF: Everything is all right... Hell, even plant on the wall suddenly manages to self-shadow. I think this is definition of visual accuracy downgrade.

This is Activision we are talking about, so the bare basic min so they can jump on the RT bandwagon to seem like they are adding more value to their already cut into pieces games. lol

Fox2232:

Good Job DX-R. Like in scene at 0:25. DX-R OFF: person in the middle casts shadow from sharp and strong primary light as it would in real world. DX-R ON: shadow described above is completely gone as if it was destroyed by ambient light. But it is scene where sharp shadow actually makes sense, because luminosity of primary light is like 100 times higher than ambience and reflected light from this primary source. Same applies to 0:10, 0:14~0:15, 0:37, 0:41, 0:43, ... Basically issue is in idea that there is some strong ambient light that destroys static shadows from very strong primary light source, but magically this strong ambience does have absolutely no effect on areas around and leave them impressively dark... If they recreated scene at 0:37, they would be like... F*, we did F*-up. Then there is that other big offender which can be noticed in many scenes. Best seen at 0:10. DX-R ON: Tires and cable-spool are clearly visible and reflect light from primary source which is actually blocked by wall and tires/spool themselves... DX-R OFF: Everything is all right... Hell, even plant on the wall suddenly manages to self-shadow. I think this is definition of visual accuracy downgrade.

That bush at 0:10 looks like a downgrade with RTX on

Is it me or RTX on has crushed black and more aliasing?

Ricardo:

But then you do a demo like the Minecraft one and people say "everything looks like shiny plastic". I dunno, it looks like we'll simply have to wait until people shut up about it when it becomes the norm. I'm growing tired of explaining the same thing a million times.

It's probably because one of the appeal of Minecraft is it's lego style 8 bits pixelated gfx. It really is not a good game to showcase RTX imo. I mean honestly the ray tracing Minecraft doesn't look like Minecraft at all and well when you put it against the best looking shaders oriented games out there it simply can't compete.

Seriously not impressed with that. The only difference I saw was all the character shadows disappeared completely with RTX on! Starting to wonder if there is any point in spending all the effort on raytracing for games, unless they can get to the point where there's no performance difference.

RTX definitely looks better, even though certain things don't look quite right yet. Some parts of the video was nearly like stencil shadows vs RT lol (big difference). Anyway, this is a COD thread and I could've put money on it that no-one was going to be impressed, but, then you see the same people over and over comment the same crap on every RTX thread, which just makes it even more meh.