Raytracing in ED for everyone!

I wonder if NVIDIA have actually jumped the gun on this one? - if raytracing in underwhelming now then consumers may get the idea that it isn't much of an advantage and it'll die the death of "no demand".

Thinking about it - it may be one of those technologies that requires a pretty-much exclusive approach to be much of an advantage. At the moment I'm sure some design decisions would be taken because they make a scene easier to render using current lighting techniques - the advantages of ray tracing only really becoming significant once it's adoption becomes wide enough that it can drive designs. But will it ever get that wide if it's as expensive and under-whelming as it seems right now?

Maybe. In time.
 
Nvidia allow raytracing on non-RTX cards in the first place to sell RTX cards. They are smart enough to not open it up to cards that would be down to a slideshow, but with cards without RTX cores it won't be enjoyable regardless. It's a marketing effort to get more people to buy the hideously overprized RTX cards.

Quite possibly they can't produce them cheaper yet, but market acceptance is low at 1000 or 1500 € per card. Add to that the backflow of older cards after crypto mining collapsed.

Still it's basically a good thing that new tech gets introduced. 3D graphics have been rendered the same way for decades now, the hardware just got faster and faster, so you could make the triangles smaller and slap more shaders on, as well as particle effects.

Maybe the next generation of RTX cards will finally be worth the upgrade, both in price and in performance. Then maybe more games will start to support it.
 
I don't think they will, at least any time soon.
A much more relevant upgrade would be to implement NVIDIAs Simultaneous Multi Projection toolset. Many of us play on multiple monitors or ultrawide displays, with the ugly stretch on the side of our screen. This is a beautiful game, there's software available to correct a glaring problem rendering it on set-ups that could really benefit from using it and FD don't seem even remotely interested.
Unless and until ray tracing becomes the industry standard, don't expect FD to waste any time on it...
 
I am not sure if raytracing has a future. So far the comparisions I've seen are all very underwhelming, sometimes I can't even see a difference. Which is not good for a feature that costs so much performance. I've heard that the next console generation comes with raytracing support so I could be wrong there.
The same could have been said about the first hardware accelerated 3D games. The difference between Descent or MechWarrior 2 with 3D acceleration was a texture layer and occasionally a few more polygons, both of which were done in other incarnations of similar games without any 3D acceleration at all. The last time I played a 3D game that even included a software renderer was probably back in the late 90s. Even word processors are 3D accelerated now.

It's simply a matter of performance. The effect underwhelming now, because RT performance is still underwhelming. There has to be provisions for a rasterized fallback, so nothing can really depend on the raytraced elements, which must be used sparingly anyway, to maintain acceptable performance. This will not always be the case.

Dedicated RT hardware probably isn't much of a solution in today's market, but better ways to use more general purpose shaders for the purpose of ray/path tracing most certainly does.

Anyway, if you've ever paid attention to ED's shadows, it would be clear that there was enormous room for improvement, and that even a basic RT implementation could do wonders (though this is hardly the only way they could be improved). Of course, I still don't expect it to happen for this game.

I wonder if NVIDIA have actually jumped the gun on this one? - if raytracing in underwhelming now then consumers may get the idea that it isn't much of an advantage and it'll die the death of "no demand".
They had no real choice with the timing.

They found themselves in the rare position where they had such an advantage over the competition (AMD currently, but soon to include AMD and Intel) that they could afford to blow a third of the transistor budget of some of their parts on hardware that would be essentially unused in traditional titles, while still retaining performance leadership in those titles.

If they had waited and found themselves in a more competitive high-end market, devoting that many transitions to RT would have be disastrous.

Even if their dedicated hadware approach doesn't go mainstream, it's already been a useful marketing too, and has already influenced the rest of the graphics ecosystem.
 
Last edited:
I dont think it would work in elite. Raytracing works really well (when it's done right) and elite isn't gpu heavy anyway so performance could be acceptable. However, elite has a lot of volumetric effects, fog etc, and that is extremely difficult to render quickly with raytracing. Also it would take a lot of effort to implement and there are other priorities that the dev team should focus on.

Also, nvidia never expected rtx to work on gtx cards. The reason they added support was to show how much better the new cards are. So don't judge rtx by your gtx performance
"Other priorities..." 🙃
nVidia knew raytracing would work on Pascal cards. And I bet, balls to bone, that we could get better performance, but nVidia is intentionally gimping ray tracing performance.

As for Volumetric effects, those can be moderated.

I ran the Star Wars demo on my 1080ti (overclocked) and I was getting a decent 15-20 fps performance. I could totally tolerate 20 FPS while playing Elite: Dangerous (exploration) if raytracing were implemented.
 
It might be worthwhile for FDev to make the full render screen capture function more customizable, and some of these specialized graphics options could apply to that.
 
I didn't buy an RTX card for its raytracing. I bought it for its VirtuaLink.

But seeing as I do now have that capability, can anyone recommend a good game to show off this new raytracing ability?
 
If you haven't got any ray tracing enabled games you can try the game demos mentioned in this article:

I tried them on my 1080ti. It's bad, but not terrible. At 1920x1200 I was getting 15 to 20 fps, which is pretty impressive if you think about it.

If nvidia wants raytracing to catch on they need to lower the price of the 20xx series cards dramatically and provide incentives for developers to implement RTX.

They'll take a loss, but with risk comes reward.
 
"Other priorities..." 🙃
nVidia knew raytracing would work on Pascal cards. And I bet, balls to bone, that we could get better performance, but nVidia is intentionally gimping ray tracing performance.

As for Volumetric effects, those can be moderated.

I ran the Star Wars demo on my 1080ti (overclocked) and I was getting a decent 15-20 fps performance. I could totally tolerate 20 FPS while playing Elite: Dangerous (exploration) if raytracing were implemented.
What's so difficult to understand? Rtx cards are specifically designed to run raytracing, this is why the gtx cards are almost as fast at most things but struggle with raytracing. If you have ever used programs like blender you'll understand that raytracing is slow as s**t to run.

Also, if by 'moderate volumetrics' you mean use less of it. The game would look worse with raytracing but no volumetrics, imagine an asteroid field with no mist
 
What's so difficult to understand? Rtx cards are specifically designed to run raytracing, this is why the gtx cards are almost as fast at most things but struggle with raytracing. If you have ever used programs like blender you'll understand that raytracing is slow as s**t to run.

Also, if by 'moderate volumetrics' you mean use less of it. The game would look worse with raytracing but no volumetrics, imagine an asteroid field with no mist
And why would we need fog in asteroid fields now?
 
I'm playing around with raytracing in Unreal Editor 4.22 and I'm getting 110 fps with simple models. It can be done, people.

RTX, of course, you can dump in as much detail as the card can handle, but for Pascal cards and raytracing, limit the detail so there's acceptable performace.
 
Some fak
Most visually impressive games now that don't use raytracing use pre-baked lighting which is significantly less intensive and almost as good at the cost of being severely limited with how dynamic you can make your light sources. You only really see a difference in games like the new Metro that want to use multiple dynamic light sources, a day/night cycle while still looking visually impressive.

But even without it you can still get pretty looking games with dynamic light sources, just not to the level that raytracing allows. Maybe it'll be worth it in another 10 years like all new fancy graphics tech.
Some fake lighting looks really good but it is really limited and only works when you have a forced defined path.
In VR for instance it can really show up any cheats which are done for a 2D screen.
Raytracing in games IS the future it just may not be here for another generation. This is quite normal, lots of new rendering techniques etc are little more than for geek value in the 1st generation of implementation anisotropic filtering is an obvious example but it is ubiquitous now
 
FD needs to start looking into, and testing, ray tracing in their engine. It is not going away. Case in point, it is rumored the new Navi 10 and Navi 20 cards will include ray tracing.
 
Top Bottom