1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Review: Metro Exodus: PC graphics performance analysis

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Feb 13, 2019.

  1. Undying

    Undying Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,751
    Likes Received:
    1,478
    GPU:
    Aorus RX580 XTR 8GB
    It can barely run it at 1080p/60fps. Original titan would not run exodus, maybe low settings 1080p with and no where near 60fps. Same goes for other flagship cards on that list.
     
  2. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,627
    Likes Received:
    898
    GPU:
    -
    Objectively, they are not more detailed. There is the same amount of detail, the only difference is the way the light bounces off and interacts with the environment. Ofcourse this is going to change what is "viewed", which is what you're calling detailed. It'd be like going to the lake and saying you prefer a cloudy day with very little light because there's more "detail" in the water, because you can see further into the water, due to not having a reflection of your environment that is so bright caused by a the sun.

    Or at better to understand example, polarized glasses when it deals with the same situation as above. If you've never used polarized glasses near water then you probably don't understand, but here's an example:

    [​IMG]

    Same detail in both sides of the screen, one just has less reflection interference.

    Now you can like or not like that, which is understandable, that's the whole reason people buy polarized glasses for fishing, but simple fact is you're going to have to get use to it, as not only is it the only way for games to get close to photo realistic graphics, but sometime in the future, who knows how long, ray tracing won't be an option anymore, as developers will move way from having to place countless fake lights everywhere and go with the cheaper and better originating light sources. Again, who knows how long this'll take, i personally expect 10 years, but it will happen.


    I cave dive quite often, and yes you're right about a little light going a long way, but it's kind of counter productive too depending on what you're doing. The less light you give yourself, the more your eyes get use to the dark and you can see more, the more light you give yourself, the less your eyes adjust, and you get almost a pure black ring around where your light is shining. As to sunlight, it's generally a very, bright light, preventing your eyes from adjusting, so "some" light coming in directly may make everything else look much darker, then just residual light. but obviously it also greatly depends on the environment. For instance, direct light going into a barn with very dark walls, but not from many angles (say example one "beam" of light) will make your eyes adjust to a very dark barn and it'll be hard to see in, whereas if the barn was painted pure white inside you'd likely be able to see everything. And if it's not just one source of light, but multiple "beams" of light, it'll all depend on where those beams go to. Again though, same situation but with no direct beams of light, just residual from the sky, and you're almost certainly going to be able to see better in that very dark barnyard.

    This is why it DOES look realistic. I'm not saying that tweaking of raytracing can't happen, or developers using the correct types of materials to have a correct reflection isn't on the developers to do correctly, they still have to do this to make it look correct and realistic, but this is not a "fault" of ray tracing, it is a fault of developers. For instance if a developer has a cloth type material, that'd look different from a smooth wood material, but if they gave an entire wall the texture of wood but from the games point of view it was a cloth material, that wouldn't look right as how much light would be absorbed and reflected would not be correct, but even with those DEVELOPER issues, i have yet to see a ray tracing example in any game that has not been MORE realistic then non-ray traced. Sure, it may have not been 100% realistic due to those issues, but that doesn't magically make the non-raytraced example somehow more realistic, it's still less realistic. And this isn't an opinion.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2019
    jura11 likes this.
  3. anxious_f0x

    anxious_f0x Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    268
    GPU:
    RTX 2080Ti SLi
    Well 13 hours in and it’s probably the most beautiful looking game I’ve seen in a while, screenshots and YouTube videos simply don’t do ray tracing justice, it’s not until you’re moving around the environment yourself that it really comes to life.
     
    Maddness and Xtreme1979 like this.
  4. Xtreme1979

    Xtreme1979 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    26
    GPU:
    ROG Strix RTX 2070
    The difference between DXR & conventional rasterization is brilliant imo. You know what they say about opinions though. I feel if AMD offered a DXR equivalent everyone would be raving, both teams.
     
    anxious_f0x and Maddness like this.

  5. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    I am sorry, but your post is one big strawman. RTX image is not worse due to polarization of light (which it does not even calculate). It is worse because some areas lose contrast to point that geometry is no longer distinct.
    Other big problem is their "almost no light bounce", that's why they present you with practically black room even while Sun shines through two big windows.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  6. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,341
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti
    First one is weird, second two look relatively fine to me idk. Do they do any bounces with the current RTX implementations? I know DXR supports it.
     
  7. tensai28

    tensai28 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,416
    Likes Received:
    365
    GPU:
    2080ti MSI X TRIO
    Interesting to think about but what if PC games were more expensive than their console counterparts? Maybe developers would put more effort into it (or maybe not)? Obviously that isn't a popular solution and could potentially drive more people to piracy and/or holding off for sales but possibly could be for the better. It is kind of bs that when we pay so much more for hardware, we get the lower quality software. It seems a common practice to release underoptimized buggy games and patch them slowly while they release and try to sell dlcs.
     
    BlackZero likes this.
  8. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    That 2nd image is definitely creeping me out. From DXR-OFF it is clear that hole is perfectly rounded and that lower part (image location) of surface does not have much snow. But then DXR-ON takes that smooth surface, adds some very weird mud/grain/noise to point that it does not even appear circular. (It no longer looks like hole in the ground, but tunnel in the wall with a lot of sediment. And even then it is weird.)

    As for bounces. Light casting for AO/GI needs exactly that. And yes, they do bounces as can be seen on 1st picture, but insufficiently to the point that things get too dark.
    If I was to do GI, I would keep 5 separate copies and merge them every frame.
    - 1st ~ 4th with main and usually almost static light sources interacting with static geometry.
    - > this one updates at 1/4th of ray count and and keeps last 4 copies
    - > merging those copies creates same GI result as do slow moving lights in static environment
    - > no bounces here
    - 5th composed from dynamic objects and light sources and "projections" of dynamic objects
    - > done on regular rate and intensity
    (This will result in almost same visual quality as in Exodus at quite lower computational cost.)

    Then you take those 5 results and merge them into "GI basic state" and go for light bounce.
    - As there is still not enough computational power, one takes sorted list of lightness of scene based on intensity and does casting from preferably lighter points on random
    - > let's say that 20% of brightest areas cast 80% of rays to their surrounding
    - > and 80% of darker areas cast only 20% of rays
    (Or similar distribution which prefers strong contributors over weak ones.)

    It could be probably separated even more. And static light in static environment could be done at 1/10th of rate.
    And here is trick... adding information about light source which did hit given object allows for accurate merging of multiple buffers as you know that actual shadow of dynamic object from static light should overwrite static scene data.
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  9. Backstabak

    Backstabak Master Guru

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    150
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 970
    Seems to me that there is a problem with the surface definition. Both in roughness and the reflection coefficient. It would also seem that they do not calculate polarization, which therefore means that there is no splinting of the rays and the changes in ray amplitude and phase are also neglected, although ray scattering should still be possible. It would even make sense, as calculating polarization makes the computation several times longer.

    All in all, it's probably the issue of money and compute power. If those surfaces were properly defined, there would be more scattered rays and it would require more power to calculate everything. Properly modeling the surface would also take significantly longer. I think it is a right way to move forward to better visuals, but right now it's just too expensive to develop and there is really no hardware that can handle it.
     
    airbud7 and BlackZero like this.
  10. BlackZero

    BlackZero Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,880
    Likes Received:
    469
    GPU:
    RX Vega
    I suppose it's a case of 10x more effort for 10x less money. Of course, letting AMD/Nvidia handle any additional features is the only alternative, especially given that consoles are driven by their hardware. So, yeah, a proper balancing act, if their ever was one.

    Oh, and, no, I don't think they should charge us extra. :D

    I have been saying this for years.

    I mean, it's not like we're emulating actual natural physics here, and we can all imagine how much power that needs
     
    airbud7 likes this.

  11. Turanis

    Turanis Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,422
    Likes Received:
    155
    GPU:
    Gigabyte RX500
  12. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    Accurate Physics is not an issue for each separate object. You can include even wind friction affected by object shape (like real wings on airplane).
    Issue is in number and distances in between objects against their speed. With increased number of objects, decreased distances and increased object speed, you have to do many more collision checks.
    It is kind of like raytracing. Main issue is to hit what should be hit.
     
    airbud7 likes this.
  13. BlackZero

    BlackZero Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,880
    Likes Received:
    469
    GPU:
    RX Vega
    Perhaps you mean the doppler effect?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

    In any case, here's the original paper, circa 1980.

    Whitted, T. (1980). An improved illumination model for shaded display. ACM 23(6), 343-349.
    https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358882
     
  14. Rich_Guy

    Rich_Guy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,264
    Likes Received:
    433
    GPU:
    MSI 2070S X-Trio
    :D
     
  15. HWgeek

    HWgeek Master Guru

    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    314
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 6200 Turbo Fotce @500/600 8x1p
    Metro Dev: Ray Tracing Is Doable via Compute Even on Next-Gen Consoles, RT Cores Aren’t the Only Way

    https://wccftech.com/metro-dev-ray-tracing-doable-compute/
    So IMO looks like NV knew that next gen Console could support DXR so they tried to launch RTX cards this year to be first to market and gain sales before the consoles are out with DXR and take high volume RTX GPU sales from NV?
    P.S- if fast memory with low latency is so important to DXR- maybe next gen consoles will use HBM2?
     

  16. Maddness

    Maddness Master Guru

    Messages:
    945
    Likes Received:
    211
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 2080Ti FTW
    Hopefully next gen consoles and Navi can do Ray Tracing. After seeing it in action in Metro, I'm excited to see more of this.
     
  17. Backstabak

    Backstabak Master Guru

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    150
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 970
    Well, non-sequential RT is pretty much physics, but what I mean is that i.e. now you have various papers coming that study how much light will be reflected (and scattered, diffracted) from various surface for VLC purposes. So, if you use RT you would have to define each surface in regards to these properties, and then run trace on it. Many of these materials would be unknown now and it would be up to the devs to define them and just try how it works. Plus as I've said, the non-sequential RT is just massively slower than sequential and for proper scene they would still need to account for polarization which makes it even slower.

    All in all, it's just not worth it/possible at the moment. It will probably improve, it's just too expensive now.
     
  18. BlackZero

    BlackZero Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,880
    Likes Received:
    469
    GPU:
    RX Vega
    Yes, I suppose some kind of allowances would have to be made.

    However, simply creating some kind of reflectance scale for surfaces, and having the developer check it off should be sufficient?
     
  19. Backstabak

    Backstabak Master Guru

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    150
    GPU:
    MSI GTX 970
    It depends, as you also need to consider surface roughness. I.e. if you have a mate surface, than the scattering (diffusion) is different than from a glossy one. It's not an unsolvable problem, I just don't think that RT implementation is going to be that easier than the existing techniques, at least for the moment.
     
  20. BlackZero

    BlackZero Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,880
    Likes Received:
    469
    GPU:
    RX Vega
    The paper I linked to has amassed nearly 3000 citations in the last 40 odd years.

    So, like any complex problem, a logical approach will be in place, with the fundamentals locked down, and ensuing branches being individually and meticulously examined.The science is likely not going to be the problem, but the implementation of a vast and demanding new regime for developers is an other matter.

    As for the computational power required, we may never have enough if we go far enough in to recreating natural phenomena. However, what we can do is to ensure, like the earlier example, the fundamentals are in place.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
    Backstabak likes this.

Share This Page