When shadow/lighting blob literally pops into your face at 4 meter distance from viewport, you know it is raytracing done well.
Who cares? What does that have to do with it being "real" raytracing or not? I can set a falloff distance in Vray, does that make it not real raytracing? When I watch Jurassic park and the long neck looking dinos at the start of the movie look like absolute garbage by today's standards, don't even cast self shadows, do I sit there and go "lol not raytracing!!" "Before Industrial Light and Magic we had Ray Tracing, now we have shame, sham, whim, wham "HYBRID Ray Tracing" no I don't because that argument is dumb. Is anyone prior to Nvidia sitting there saying "Pixar a sham for doing Hybrid Rendering" - no one is. No one cares. The only reason why you'd care is if you had some weird personal vendetta against the company. Plus he constantly does this crap where he makes these asinine posts just rife with completely fabricated nonsense. He just completely makes stuff up, never addresses the correct info and constantly repeats it.
4 meters. Light that makes that pop-in happen is not even physically able to shine below itself. It's a freaking candle inside lantern. If that's what we call raytracing now, then @waltc3 is absolutely right. Similar to 1:00 time stamp: RT Shader OFF => Trees have moving branches ; RT Shader ON => Trees have static branches Does this look better at places? Yes. Does it look worse at places? Yes. Do I want people to call raytracing something that does not do object intersections (hit check) correctly? No. Is it worth fps drops to 30 as shown at later part of video? Never.
Judging by some of the shots it looks like he's using JK's Town mod which add way too many clutter to towns and villages and pretty much kills the framerate by itself 9900k 1080ti with JK's town my fps go from 90-120 (vsync limited) to 43 in 1080p already...this video is in 4K >< I doubt this is playable he must have 15fps if not less if anyone is interested unless you maybe have zero retextures installed the majority of the town enhancement mods halve or more your framerate, except arthmoor's villages all in one but it makes small changes on a few mini-villages, expanded town and cities seems the more acceptable to me (I tried all the nexus town remakes last week) in terms of fps and look (bigger villages but true to vanilla design) still unplayable unless you have an enthusiast rig (or accept to play at 25fps) thanks for the news/info I'll try this one as I'm always looking for a better realistic shader/enb if it's fake great it means I'll lose less fps lol (apparently getting it outside of their patreon isn't a problem, you'd have to be crazy to pay for those there are hundreds of free ones)
It doesn't matter whether it looks better or worse. It doesn't matter that it's either buggy (keep in mind this is some random guy force injecting RT into a portion of a game with other mods clearly installed), or intentionally ignoring objects. Is there some piece of code in there shooting rays out and intersecting with objects in order to simulate some component of light? Then that piece is raytracing. You keep trying to set this arbitrary "total image quality line" that it must pass to be considered raytraced but it's not relevant. I can render a scene with vray and disable caustics on objects, it's still raytracing. I can render a scene with one bounce, two bounces, 100 bounces, regardless it's raytracing. I can render a scene and have final gather on or off, with different falloff measures for different objects, hell I can turn GI off and render the scene in VRAY and still get a raytraced image. Is it an accurate image? No. Is it ray traced? Yes. RT on stops branches from moving? Still raytracing. Code not doing object intersections correctly due to bug or other issue? Still raytracing because the code is designed to use rays and intersect objects, is doing it on some of them, but for either a bug or intentional is not doing it on others. Falloff distance 4 meters everything else is raster? In that 4 meters it's raytraced. Does it look good? No. But it's still raytracing. Raytracing says nothing about the final quality of the image or how accurate it is. It just says "we used this technique of firing photons out, either from the light source or camera, then find where they intersect with some object, any object, not all objects and use that data to render some component of light" that's it. We've come to expect raytraced images to look good because typically they do - but coming from someone who experimented in 3DS Max for years, lived in a dorm full of 3D art majors, there are tons of examples of shitty 3D art raytraced in inaccurate garbage ways but nonetheless still raytraced.
Most of these arguments go like this (and you can literally look at every thread relating to RT to see this); 1) If it looks good and runs like crap, then it sucks. 2) If it looks ok and runs poorly, then it sucks. 3) If it looks good/ok and needs RTX, then it sucks to the max. Add 4a. 4) If it looks good and runs poorly, but, on AMD, then its acceptable. Add 4b. 4a) Proceed to bash Nvidia. 4b) Look at how good this is and it doesn't need RTX. Add 4a. Failing all of the above refer to 5. 5) Don't need RT, frame-rate is better/best/more important/king. After exhausting 1 to 5, refer to 6. 6) It's not real RT. After 6 is used, refer to 1-5 again. Rinse and repeat for every RT thread, each time adding a little more technical jargon to hide bias. I can't wait to see the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare thread when they showcase RT lol. It'll be the same s***, different day.
The announcement thread is now live. https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-to-receive-rtx-support.427033/ Waiting for the actual showcase thread.
