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

Shaky Cam Video - Battlefield 5 Ray Tracing Demos from NVIDIA RTX Editors event

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Aug 22, 2018.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,296
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
  2. Jespi

    Jespi Member

    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    6
    GPU:
    8GB
    Turn on the fckn FPS counter please. I sense NVIDIA is hiding two things. Potentional raw power of Turing. And fps drop with RT on.
     
  3. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,296
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    How about being a little more patient, wait for the final game to be released as well as the reviews?
     
    Maddness and blitz72 like this.
  4. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,023
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    Weird. At 1st I thought that Raytraced images show distortion caused by gun covering large potion of FoV as rays are traced from camera's origin. But then I realized that clean image has additional reflections.

    Transparency, reflection and refraction effects are definitely much better with raytracing. But why it was so broken without it? That's not normal.
     

  5. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,010
    Likes Received:
    1,027
    GPU:
    HIS R9 290
    I must admit, that looks very nice. Unlike most demos of RTX where I'm like "this could easily be accomplished without an entire API" this actually has a noticeable and practical impact. Too bad it's an EA game though; I won't be buying it.
     
  6. Amx85

    Amx85 Master Guru

    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    MSI R7-260X2GD5/OC
    new tech looks better if you ruin old techs, Nvidia always do that, they limit old tech potential to make new look better

    Greetings
     
  7. GlennB

    GlennB Member Guru

    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    48
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vega 56 EK
    Because they require diffucult programming to get it to work properly. Most companies use their budget to do other stuff than raytracing.
     
  8. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,591
    Likes Received:
    451
    GPU:
    RTX 2070 Strix
    Newbies are allowed to be rude. Because they don't care. That's how they roll :D

    How is it broken?
    The guy from DICE has said that non-RTX game is benefiting from all the most recent technologies.
     
  9. slick3

    slick3 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,701
    Likes Received:
    138
    GPU:
    ROG STRIX GTX 1070
    Ehh... Battlefield 5.

    I will sadly skip. I tried to get into BF1 so many times now. I keep reinstalling, but sadly the pace of the game is too fast for me. Run, gun, die... run, gun, die! BFBC2 got it right :(
     
  10. spectatorx

    spectatorx Master Guru

    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    76
    GPU:
    Radeon R9 380 4GB
    That's exactly what they did on releasing 9xx series and adding new "aa method" called MFAA. For some reason once they introduced driver with this method on forums people started complaining about more aliasing in games overall. Basically definition of MFAA is to enhance effects of MSAA. Coincidence? More like nvidia intentionally broke image quality and "fixed" it with artificial aa method MFAA.
     

  11. Crazy Serb

    Crazy Serb Member Guru

    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    5
    GPU:
    270X Hawk 1200-1302
    Video clearly shows how much effort they put in graphics without raytracing. When he is moving gun above water at 2:50 makes it obvious. And something tells me that AA is lower with raytracing on, because they do not want to show all of that ghosting from AA (I thought frostbyte had better AA implementation then UE, I guess I was wrong).

    While I am sure raytracing will increase visual quality, this is not a good way to show improvements...
     
  12. Ziggymac

    Ziggymac Member Guru

    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    35
    GPU:
    Asus 970 Strix SLi
    Yes, I get it, it looks nice.

    ...But I'm sure as hell not paying $1100 for it.
     
  13. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,023
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    Haven't you noticed that reflection on watery surfaces (ground) had some kind of blur in areas below gun magazine. Right at vertical line where magazine ends, reflections are just fine.
    And inner circle of iron sights was blurry too?
    Actually that proper rendering was raytraced, standard rendering had bugs.
     
  14. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,296
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    Just played BF5 RTX on a build released today, I played it at the NVIDIA event. Butter smooth perf at least at 1920x1080. It does look really good to be brutally honest. Time will tell of course, but I felt impressed.
     
  15. MaCk0y

    MaCk0y Master Guru

    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    128
    GPU:
    RX 580 Red Devil
    I came here for some shaky cam videos but they were perfectly fine. Disappointed. :( Now I am anticipating some vertical videos of a big screen. :p
     
    Noisiv likes this.

  16. PolishRenegade

    PolishRenegade Member

    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    RTX 2070
    As a game dev... RTX is absolutely great news.

    Slap some PBR shaders, put on an area light and vlam, 90% of the job is done. This is absolutely incredible and will revolutionize the industry in the next 5 years. Games that required teams of 200 artists will now only need half. No longer will hundreds of dev-hours be spent adjusting the light here, or removing a reflection there to increase performance or changing the level design to cheat a "mood" or making a specific shader for faking AO... imagine that!

    You have to understand, that to accomplish the level of detail ray tracing gives you but with traditional techniques you will need 5x the GPU power. So at one point, we will reach an inflexion point where it's more efficient (& less costly) to have ray tracing vs using the old methods for an equivalent rendering quality.

    Yeah, NVIDIA really rocked it. Your normal gamer might not have realized it yet but this is really groundbreaking stuff.
     
    Stormyandcold, Maddness and Noisiv like this.
  17. cliffgamerz

    cliffgamerz Master Guru

    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX 660 2GB
    To be honest Skipping the 1st Gen would be better than spending twice the amount of performance and value for money 2nd gen might bring, Usually dont expect many good games with true Ray tracing to hit anytime soon as current consoles dont support it till next gen hits, so yeah i will be skipping for two reasons, one for money (still costly due to mining) worried about performance when true Ray tracing games hit the market which would not be good to sell the RTX 2070 or 2080 due to limited performance when 2nd gen true cards hit the market.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2018
  18. PolishRenegade

    PolishRenegade Member

    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    7
    GPU:
    RTX 2070
    You have to remember that this is the "brute-force" implementation of RTX with barely any optimization. They don't even cull the ray properly (as per the video). So what you can do now with how-ever many Gigarays (... makes be chuckle every time), will certainly be able to do with less rays in the future, especially with Deep-learning algorithms. That's why NVIDIA put emphasis on the drivers delivering significant changes to the way rendering is processes versus previous non-Deep Learning GPUs.

    Obviously we'll see how it goes but that is some pretty darn exciting stuff to be sure!
     
  19. H83

    H83 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,635
    Likes Received:
    342
    GPU:
    Asus ROG Strix GTX1070
    I was thinking the same. The RT effects are much better and more noticeable than i was expecting but at the same time the games looks much darker and worse without RT like half the lighting sources were off or something, weird stuff...


    So they showed the game at 1080p again. The fact Nvidia is always showing/highlighting games at 1080p seems to indicate the that enabling RT means a considerable performance hit. And when we consider that the buyers of this card are owners of 4K 144Hz screens who want/need all the performance available to run games at those settings there´s a good chance many will not use RT because of the performance hit. This smells like Physix at least for now... Hope i´m wrong.
     
  20. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,023
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    GPU:
    -NDA +AW@240Hz
    Actually number of required rays increases with task you give them. Have dry surfaces only and 2~3 rays per pixel may be enough with advanced clearing methods.
    Add reflections and refractions and you need 6 for basic and 12 for good looking effect as you need another bounce from reflected/refracted surface.

    That's still quite OK on 1080p as that's 24,88M rays per frame. And on 75fps that's 1866M rays per second. Then it is not mandatory to get raytraced information at full resolution. But on higher resolutions like 1440p/4K, one could possibly notice that raytraced IQ is not sufficient.

    Secondly, raytracing can be done in old fashion from decades ago which delivers higher IQ anyway. Split scene on 8x8 blocks. Do your number of rays per that block.
    Split each block to 4 4x4 blocks. Do raytracing for those blocks and include weight of 8x8 block at 25%.
    Split 4x4 blocks to 2x2 blocks and repeat with 25% weight of higher size block.
    Repeat till you are at 1x1 matrix.

    And final pixel consists from information based on all those 4 levels of processing progressively giving lower weight to higher level. This method has 27.778% computational overhead. But has good advantage in having something at hand in time procedure computes that next more detailed pass would increase rendering time beyond desirable and data can be uses as is.

    Basically final pixel is weight combination of each pass in following ratio:
    1x1 matrix weight: 75%
    2x2 matrix weight: 18.75%
    4x4 matrix weight: 4.69%
    8x8 matrix weight: 1.56%
    And it takes about same percentage of computational time, so it is pretty fair method.

    You have statistical information on time each pass takes. And can easily predict next pass time. You can dynamically adjust number of rays to deliver highest quality in available time per frame.
    Let's say you run 8 rays per block. When you finished 2x2 matrix and know that no way in hell you can do full 1x1 matrix. But you can do 1/2 of 1x1 matrix in mesh (top left pixel of 2x2 and bottom right pixel of 2x2). This requires (1+4+16+32) * 8 = 424 rays per 8x8 block.
    In next pass it runs only 5 rays per block and it requires (1+4+16+64) * 5 = 425 rays per 8x8 block and even 1x1 pass is complete. Or in heavy situations, you can go for more rays in certain blocks, but stop at 2x2 matrix.

    Level of raytraced depth of each matrix can be determined by change threshold between upper and lower matrix.
    Let's say you had certain color result on 4x4 matrix. Then 4 times 2x2 matrix were computed. And one of those 2x2 matrixes was within 2% of HSL from information in 4x4 matrix. Chances are that there is not much to be gained from calculating 1x1 there. While other 2x2 matrix shown 20% difference in HSL, good idea to calculate details there.
    This is especially good idea if you go into 0,5x0,5 matrix (subpixel level). Because then edges of objects can use additional samples while benefit for something flat may be tiny.
     
    PolishRenegade likes this.

Share This Page