?>
GTX0 NewestRepliesHottestMy Active
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds



Let's start with the bad news first: At the moment, it seems to be very difficult to get good performance using RTX for multiple purposes: light bouncing (GI), shadows, and reflections. An indie developer already created Stay In The Light, a procedural dungeon crawler with RTX required in order to play. It does NOT play well on a 1080ti and requires DXR in order to run. The game features randomly generated dungeons that are all lit and shaded properly. Such a game before RTX could not have lighting handled nearly as well, and would not run faster.

The game is currently in early access on Steam. Gameplay footage and articles below:


https://www.pcgamer.com/stay-in-the-light-is-an-indie-game-that-requires-ray-tracing/
There are now 6 total games using DXR, including one that requires it to function. More will be coming as ray-tracing support improves. For now, shadows and reflections seem to be the easiest implementation with GI being very complex and difficult. UE4 still does not have landscape support for RTX, so there are still some big caveats.

In other words, I told you so.

There are 50 Replies
Page:
1 2 ... 4 5 Load all posts
settingsSettings

In other words, I told you so.

You're only saying that because you still don't understand the argument that basically the entire site was making in the last thread, which is that supacool graphics don't automatically translate into newer, better, or more interesting gameplay.

And this is particularly amusing because the game you're talking about is a *perfect* illustration of this concept you seem to struggle with.

The game features randomly generated dungeons that are all lit and shaded properly. Such a game before RTX could not have lighting handled nearly as well, and would not run faster.


It's pretty, literally no one disputes that. But those pretty graphics do absolutely nothing for the gameplay itself. Per a review:

Again, this is Early Access, and there are bugs and other mechanics that seem broken (or at least, I haven't figured them out). You're running—walking, really—around in a dungeon that floats in the sky, picking up treasure and trying to find the exit to the next level, all before some big hairy ogre named Him nabs you. He doesn't like light, in theory, but he also teleports around and often I'll only see a blue sparkle. It's still enough to put me on edge, and I may have yelped a little at the end of the above video when I died. But there's not a lot of game here just yet.

...

The current build of Stay in the Light feels more like a tech demo, but hopefully that changes over time. I've also seen performance bog down pretty hard even with the 2080 Ti, and there's certainly room for more optimizations as the development progresses.

https://www.pcgamer.com/stay-in-the-light-is-an-indie-game-that-requires-ray-tracing/
You're hyping up what amounts to a barebones Amnesia-esque spookem game from 2010. It's extra pretty, but that matters very little if the gameplay is so utterly dull.

Posted June 4th by Count Dooku

If you want to make a fully dynamic game, you basically have to go back to the days of Super Mario Sunshine in terms of lighting. Baking is such a tremendous requirement to modern games for the past two decades you guys don't understand the limitations placed on developers and indies who want to create procedural and more dynamic systems, day/night cycles, etc. Gaming in general used to require TONS of baking just to work right, and it creates a host of issues for developers.

RTX is a one-size-fits-all solution for everything that was impossible before: perfect reflections along non-planar surfaces, without even needing to rendering the scene many times, shadows without rendering many times or artifacts, indirect lighting that doesn't look flat and UGLY, perfect refractions in glass, perfect AA, volumetric effects, etc. And it just works perfectly. Nothing has to be baked in, and it can be toggled on the fly.

So, if you are still OK with Super Mario Sunshine levels of graphics for dynamic games with perfectly flat shadows, good for you. But RTX allows dynamic worlds to be more modern. And it makes situations that would otherwise be impractical (massive forests, thin, detailed shadows, bounce lighting from tiny, emissive surfaces) possible.

This HAS tremendous gameplay potential, and we are on the cusp of greater things. Even if it doesn't happen this generation, an indie dev made a procedural dungeon crawler that looks like it took hours to bake, but it's running in realtime. He can make this dungeon change direction as the game progresses, and change the time of day, and it will still be properly lit.

Edited June 4th by mariomguy

cool grafix my dude

Posted June 4th by Cruinn-Annuin

Also, they should have named that game "Remain in Light". A Talking Heads reference would be the most interesting thing about it.

Posted June 4th by Cruinn-Annuin

It bears repeating, this is straight-up the game generating a world that didn't exist before, setting some lights, then hitting "play" and you get this result. Simulation games, procedural games, games with day/night sequences and moving platforms, games with moving lights, millions of lights, flying through clouds, etc. can now come to life!

Posted June 4th by mariomguy

All games that I don't really play or care about. Which is not to say it's not cool and obviously fans of those genres will appreciate it. But that stuff doesn't really add much to my gaming experience. Not yet, anyway.

Posted June 5th by Jet Presto

Jet, this impacts ALL games. You can have a competitive FPS set on a quickly rotating moon, and all the shadows and day/night effects will follow.

Posted June 5th by mariomguy

Which is not to say it's not cool and obviously fans of those genres will appreciate it.


I mean, I'm a fan of roguelikes and this doesn't effect that genre too much.

Jet, this impacts ALL games.


No, it literally doesn't.

Posted June 5th by Cruinn-Annuin

Baking is such a tremendous requirement to modern games for the past two decades you guys don't understand the limitations placed on developers and indies who want to create procedural and more dynamic systems, day/night cycles, etc.

No one is disputing the value or potential of this technology for developers. Especially not me.

I used to spend a lot of time making source engine maps for HL2/Gmod. Designing the level and detailing it was a lot of fun. I could easily load into the game and check how things looked, if a room needed to be bigger, if the sight lines were correct, etc. Right up until the point where I had to start adding appropriate lighting. Then it turned into a special kind of hell. Add enough lights and it would start taking you an hour or more to render the map, only to find out something didn't look quite right. So while I'm not a capital D developer, I at least understand what you're getting at. The ability to just throw some RTX lights on the map and have the computer do all the work at runtime would have been wonderful.

What we've been saying, over and over, is that from a gameplay perspective this technology isn't offering us much yet. I'm sure in the long run developers will come up with some cool, inventive ideas for it. But right now, as evidenced by the game you posted in your OP, we're getting gameplay from 2010 that looks extra pretty. *That* is the issue, and the reason most of us aren't losing our minds over what amounts to a graphical advance.

So, if you are still OK with Super Mario Sunshine levels of graphics for dynamic games with perfectly flat shadows, good for you.



games with day/night sequences

You keep harping on day/night cycles as if they don't exist or are a new concept. Plenty of games pull them off and look good doing so. ***IT MIGHT BE HELL ON DEVELOPERS TO MAKE THEM WORK*** But they've managed to do it, and in ways that players clearly don't have major issues with. Hell, even Escape from Tarkov's drunken Russian developers have managed to implement passage of time that looks good.

You can have a competitive FPS set on a quickly rotating moon, and all the shadows and day/night effects will follow.

The last thing you'll find me focusing on in a competitive FPS is how convincing the shadows or lighting are. Don't get me wrong, I've taken the time to admire the visual design of a Halo map in the past. But it's not something I pay attention to when I'm in seek-and-destroy mode, and RTX isn't going to change that.

Edited June 5th by Count Dooku

My only input to this thread will be this:

One indie game does not equal an entire industry swapping to make it be required "within a few years". Which is what you claimed last time.

You've also still not demonstrated why it is essential to the future of gaming, you've only shown why it is nice to have.

Therefore you told us nothing we don't already know or agree with. It's nice. It's pretty. So what I still play ancient games that look terrible by today's standards.

Posted June 5th by Moonray

This HAS tremendous gameplay potential


Please give an example of potential gameplay that is not currently already possible.

Edited June 5th by Q
Q
 

I used to spend a lot of time making source engine maps for HL2/Gmod. Designing the level and detailing it was a lot of fun. I could easily load into the game and check how things looked, if a room needed to be bigger, if the sight lines were correct, etc. Right up until the point where I had to start adding appropriate lighting. Then it turned into a special kind of hell. Add enough lights and it would start taking you an hour or more to render the map, only to find out something didn't look quite right. So while I'm not a capital D developer, I at least understand what you're getting at.

EXACTLY.

I'm working on a semi-large open world game. I want it to have proper lighting and shadows, but any change requires baking the entire map, which takes an hour and a half on a Ryzen 7 2700x, 16 threads at max power. Needless to say, big studios invest in render farms to take care of baking, which requires a freaking lot of time to do, and ends up with tons of artifacts that need to be fixed, etc. So you CAN make something look gorgeous, but it's crazy difficult to get there.

If Raytracing can take care of lighting, that opens Pandora's box to all sorts of dynamic effects we couldn't do before. An indie developer can make a procedural game and light it like AAA studios, easily. WYSIWYG.

What we've been saying, over and over, is that from a gameplay perspective this technology isn't offering us much yet.

OK, any game with a day/night sequence can actually be lit properly. Current methods require baking several times over, which would not work for dynamic environments with moving objects, or objects that need to be constructed. Caves with flashlights or torches to navigate can bounce light around in realtime. Imagine shining a light on a bright blue object: it will actually cast blue light all over. Light up torches and they can illuminate parts of the cave. Reflections showing other parts of the map or other parts of the level, like shiny scopes on weapons or literal mirrors, reflections in glass and on cars. People can toggle things to show or hide in the reflections, so you can get some cool secret agent spy gear that actually functions properly. I'm imagining horror games with funhouse mirrors and all sorts of optical illusions from the bent reflections and recursions.

One indie game does not equal an entire industry swapping to make it be required "within a few years". Which is what you claimed last time.

You've also still not demonstrated why it is essential to the future of gaming, you've only shown why it is nice to have.

We've all gotten so used to the band aids, but rasterizing isn't the right way to do everything. Physically based games require reflections on every surface (including Mario Kart 8), but you can't get live reflections from surfaces that aren't on the screen itself: something reflecting behind you would have to fall back to a static reflection, which requires the entire world to be static.

With raytracing, all these problems go away. No matter how much objects move or change, whether you have a changing time of day or you're moving lights all over the screen, you'll get a perfectly lit, shaded, reflected result no matter what. So all the trepidation we've had the last couple decades with dynamic worlds and needing to keep things static goes away.

Posted June 5th by mariomguy

No one is arguing that Ray Tracing won’t offer more realistic graphics that are easier to generate.

However I have yet to see how Ray Tracing opens up tons of gameplay potential.

Posted June 5th by Q
Q
 

Ok, so it sounds a bit like this to me, so obviously correct me if I'm wrong: is the primary benefit of raytracing technology that it will - from a work load perspective - make things easier and less time consuming for the developers?

Posted June 6th by Jet Presto

Hi. Independent game developer here, also currently employed with a company that utilizes Unity.

Ray Tracing will make games much prettier and reflections and lighting will look more realistic than ever before. It will, in the long run, lead to avenues that make lighting and reflections and shadows easier than ever to simulate for developers. In the near future, there will be even better technology than Ray Tracing to simulate realistic lighting.

I hate to write this because I'm not trying to throw kindling on the fire, but Ray Tracing has very little to do with how games will play in the future. It's just a graphical feature that is most DEFINITELY impressive...but doesn't affect the way games are made. At the end of the day, video games are defined by one thing more important than graphics and lighting and reflections:

Game design.

In the past decade, we have seen some of the most gorgeous spectacles of games to release in the industry's history. From Final Fantasy XIII in 2010 (even if you don't like it, you cannot deny the game is beautiful in terms of graphics) to God of War in 2018.

But let us not forget some of the most highly praised games in recent times: Undertale, Stardew Valley, Shovel Knight, and Celeste. What do these games have in common?

They are not made with the latest technology from this decade, yet they have earned several awards and praises from fans and critics alike.

Games like Undertale or Shovel Knight just go to show that excellent game design carries a game, not a graphics engine or software of any kind.

Then there's VR... Which may actually change the way games play. But I'm still not certain yet. I have yet to buy into the whole VR craze myself.

Posted June 6th by Laxan
Laxan
 

I agree with every point Laxan said.

Posted June 6th by Q
Q
 

Ok, so it sounds a bit like this to me, so obviously correct me if I'm wrong: is the primary benefit of raytracing technology that it will - from a work load perspective - make things easier and less time consuming for the developers?

Sort of. It's literally a couple check boxes and you'll have perfect whatever the hell you want: bounce lighting, reflections, shadows, etc. with no extra setup required. People who are more technically oriented (graphics programmer/technical artist) will be able to use it to develop fully integrated shaders for volumetric effects that were previously impossible, like jello and spun glass.

The real kicker is it looks perfect no matter what conditions you run it in. You can make a game like Fortnite with walls collapsing everywhere, day night sequences, spinning planets, and light will actually bounce and behave properly in every single frame. Instead of colors appearing dull and flat, light and color can bounce everywhere and just work. Even lights from very small emitters like particles, candles, and Christmas lights will be considered. Along with everything else, this has the added benefit of allowing hallways to be lit properly with a single light fading out in the distance rather than filling the entire space with a flat, generic light. Raytracing isn't just a lightbulb or effect, it's MEANINGFUL light that works properly. The way you think things should work, that's how it works.

Hi. Independent game developer here, also currently employed with a company that utilizes Unity.

Awesome! What kind of stuff do you do?

It's just a graphical feature that is most DEFINITELY impressive...but doesn't affect the way games are made.

OK, so say you're making a horror game with long hallways and players must find and light torches. They can pick up the torches and set them down anywhere. How would you make that so the light fills the room and bounces into the next one?

The correct answer is you don't! The light has a falloff, but that's it. It casts a stark, hard, black shadow on anything it occludes and doesn't bounce anywhere. Bounce light from movable objects is just not possible! Previous solutions like VXGI required brute force rendering on the most powerful cards and didn't work right with everything. Raytracing actually has specific hardware support, works per-pixel, and it's is a great common solution!

Then there's VR... Which may actually change the way games play. But I'm still not certain yet. I have yet to buy into the whole VR craze myself.

Raytracing is bigger than VR for sure. VR is a very special experience: it's not something that every game can take advantage of. But raytracing can be applied to any project to make it better. Even games like Paper Mario can have perfect shadows that just weren't possible before. It's a complete and total workflow change to something that's simple and elegant. It will take a while to get everything raytraced, but I'm very glad this is the direction we're going in.

Posted June 6th by mariomguy

Raytracing is bigger than VR for sure.


Excuse me?

But raytracing can be applied to any project to make it better.


No, it can't...

Posted June 6th by Cruinn-Annuin

Excuse me?

You will not use VR in most games. However, you WILL see Raytracing in almost all of them, including the ones going on VR.

Posted June 6th by mariomguy

You will not use VR in most games. However, you WILL see Raytracing in almost all of them, including the ones going on VR.


A relatively minor graphical technique improvement is not as big as fundamentally changing the way we experience games.

Posted June 6th by Cruinn-Annuin

Dude... for the first time ever, we're able to render games the same way they do it in movies. No gimmicks, no strings attached. Whatever we want to do, it is now possible.

Posted June 6th by mariomguy

Whatever we want to do, it is now possible.


If it was true that we could now do whatever we want (which it isn't), it would not be because we can now render lighting in a different way.

Posted June 7th by Cruinn-Annuin

If it was true that we could now do whatever we want (which it isn't)

Actually, it is. Even though NVIDIA and Epic launched raytracing with support for reflections, shadows, and experimental GI, the concept of raytracing also allows us to calculate perfect AO, perfect subsurface scattering, perfect volumes, etc. all in realtime.

it would not be because we can now render lighting in a different way.

Light is how you see the world, so improving on that opens doors we didn't imagine possible. Right now we have a procedural dungeon crawler with proper light bouncing that didn't exist and couldn't exist 3 months ago. What's stopping us from having a world based on optical illusions around glass, concave vs. convex lens refractions, and optical illusions with reflections?

Posted June 7th by mariomguy

Actually, it is.


No, it's not. The phrase you're looking for is "we can now do some things with lighting that it was much harder to do before", not "now we can do whatever we want".

Posted June 7th by Cruinn-Annuin

Raytracing is bigger than VR for sure.


VR is very different from Ray Tracing. Also, Ray Tracing could be done with VR games.

Edited June 7th by Q
Q
 

Awesome! What kind of stuff do you do?


I don't work with anything in crazy high tech. It's mostly just indie game work that I am involved with, like old school graphical style games such as Celeste or Undertale. Currently, I am working on a story-driven fantasy action RPG with SNES style graphics. Think Final Fantasy meets The Legend of Zelda. Pirate_Ninja and Jet Presto can confirm that this project exists since they have actually played through a demo of it for testing.

However, while I don't make games with the latest technology, I DO study what's going on in the industry as it's relevant to me as a developer who wants to be taken serious.

And I can promise you.... Ray Tracing is great technology for developers. But it has little to do with how games play. How games are made/developed? Sure. But it's not going to change how games play or feel. That will be left up to innovations and revolution in game design over a graphics engine....

Posted June 7th by Laxan
Laxan
 

No, it's not. The phrase you're looking for is "we can now do some things with lighting that it was much harder to do before", not "now we can do whatever we want".

Absolutely not. Just to get a reflective floor looking right required either rendering the entire game twice, which took a hitch on performance like no other, or a screenspace effect that dissolved into a generic reflection that doesn't line up properly. Basically, it was impossible.

I don't work with anything in crazy high tech.

I mean, you could've just admitted it doesn't mean anything for YOU. But for ME I can finally make the game I've been wanting to make for a long time, and show it in the way it was meant to be shown. Unless you have a magical solution for bounce lighting in dynamic and procedural worlds with changing time of day that I don't know about, raytracing is the actual answer.

Posted June 7th by mariomguy

Well, that's sort of the point, isn't it? This technology gives YOU the opportunity to finally make the game you want to make that is somehow not possible today with the current tech. Laxan kinda already *has* been making the game he wanted to make using current tech available, and it's no less of a game than the one you want to make with raytracing. Because the point is that what matters to a game being fun or not or good or not is the overall game design. We've seen gimmicky gameplay elements using new tech before (ya know, for all the things I don't like about the first Uncharted, I'm not sure I can hate having to tilt the controller to balance walking over beams enough), and it didn't make the games better.

So what I was kind of saying in the previous thread about this was that for me - as a player - raytracing doesn't really mean all that much. I am more interested in game design, which itself stems out of a game's design philosophy. You don't need awesome new tech for all that to work. If the game philosophy is centered around utilizing modern tech and the game design is cohesive and good, then yes. Hurrah for raytracing! But it is not *needed* to make a game good.

Posted June 8th by Jet Presto

Absolutely not. Just to get a reflective floor looking right required either rendering the entire game twice, which took a hitch on performance like no other, or a screenspace effect that dissolved into a generic reflection that doesn't line up properly. Basically, it was impossible.


In other words, it is now much easier to achieve a lighting effect, exactly as I fucking said.

This still doesn't magically unlock the ability to do literally anything with a video game. It makes it much easier to do some lighting stuff.

I really hope that you realize that a lot of instances where people take exception to what you say is not because they don't understand what something is or what something means, it's because you completely misrepresent what is happening and make ridiculous statements that have far-flung implications beyond your specific application in the moment...and then double down on it instead of giving even an inch in the process of explaining your statements. This is one of those times.

Posted June 8th by Cruinn-Annuin

We keep running around in circles. I explain all the things that are now possible with raytracing, and you all say "well that only changes the way games look."

Yeah. So did 3D change the way games look. SimCity and RCT were made in 2D. Sonic 3D Blast was made in 2D. There were tons of games experimenting with 3D ideas before we were able to draw polygons. Still, 3D made things easier, and opened doors that were previously shuttered.

It's obvious people here don't understand all the doors raytracing opens for fully dynamic games, and what any of that means for gameplay. I'm really tired of constantly repeating myself. Even opening the thread with a game that proves how effective raytracing is at solving these problems in a dynamic and procedural world, you guys don't have any imagination to see where this tech can go. And you'll take the opinion of someone who creates games like Undertale over me and countless devs. If you want every game to look and play like they did 30 years ago, fine. Raytracing won't help you. But the tech would allow me to create an open-world game with changing time of day and proper bounce lighting.

Posted June 8th by mariomguy

Even opening the thread with a game that proves how effective raytracing is at solving these problems in a dynamic and procedural world, you guys don't have any imagination to see where this tech can go.

We've established how existing lighting techniques can cause problems... for developers. But you haven't even tried to demonstrate that there's a 'problem' from the point of view of consumers that needs to be solved.

The game you posted uses procedural generation and RTX to look pretty. That's neat, bravo. But we've got tons of games that use procedural generation and also look good with current lighting techniques. When I'm playing Bloodborne's randomly generated chalice dungeons, I've never stopped and said "Wow, this pre-baked lighting sure does suck! It's ruining the game for me!" I don't even notice it because it's already very good, which is why as a player I'm not overly excited for RTX as some kind of revolution in how I experience games. If you added RTX to Bloodborne, it would look slightly better if I stopped to notice it, but the overall impact on my experience with the game is going to be close to 0.

Edited June 8th by Count Dooku

Yeah. So did 3D change the way games look.

You cannot seriously be arguing that the transition from 2D to 3D only changed how games looked, mariom.

Posted June 8th by The Bandit

When I'm playing Bloodborne's randomly generated chalice dungeons, I've never stopped and said "Wow, this pre-baked lighting sure does suck!"

There are like 5 things wrong with this sentence. Nothing procedurally generated can be pre-baked. There is no bounce lighting in Bloodborne, just direct lighting and fog. You literally can't see anything too far away because of this.

You cannot seriously be arguing that the transition from 2D to 3D only changed how games looked, mariom.

Well, it just made certain effects easier. See? I can be stupid, too.

Up until now we couldn't have real reflections because they were too difficult to run. If anything, you may have gotten a water reflection or a flat mirror. But now we can actually have proper realtime reflections the right way on every surface, whether it's flat or not. I'd love to see a concept shooter where you're able to rotate mirrors to see other parts of the map. Raytracing allows us to do stuff like this.

Posted June 8th by mariomguy

Nothing procedurally generated can be pre-baked. There is no bounce lighting in Bloodborne, just direct lighting and fog. You literally can't see anything too far away because of this.

As interesting as your technical mastery of the subject is, it doesn't change the central point. Bloodborne's procedurally generated content looks good and the lighting doesn't detract from the gameplay in any way. The inclusion of "bounce lighting" or realtime reflections wouldn't improve the gameplay experience in any meaningful way. So your contention that RTX is some amazing development for procedurally generated content is questionable at best.

Posted June 8th by Count Dooku

I can be stupid, too.


I'm pretty sure you were just born that way.

Posted June 8th by Moonray

Well, it just made certain effects easier. See? I can be stupid, too.

Why can't you ever just admit that you're wrong? 3D is not comparable to raytracing. 3D fundamentally changed how games are played. You have not provided a single example of how raytracing fundamentally changes gameplay. Even this:

I'd love to see a concept shooter where you're able to rotate mirrors to see other parts of the map.

can be compared to Splitgate, an FPS that combines Halo and Portal. You can use portals to see other parts of the map, giving you unique lines of sight. While it's not a mirror, the gameplay aspect of what you just described is possible with current technology.

It's okay that you over exaggerated how amazing this is in your excitement. If you weren't so pigheaded I would actually feel sorry for you, because I suspect it's a little crushing to have everyone tell you this thing that you're so hyped for isn't the greatest thing ever. But instead you just double down and ignore everyone's posts.

Posted June 8th by The Bandit

If you're tired of repeating yourself, then maybe think about admitting when you're wrong. Stop acting simultaneously stupid and condescending. Maybe also actually try writing like you're having a conversation with people instead of preparing over-hyped ad copy to oversell whatever it is that you're excited about today.

Edited June 8th by Cruinn-Annuin

As interesting as your technical mastery of the subject is, it doesn't change the central point. Bloodborne's procedurally generated content looks good and the lighting doesn't detract from the gameplay in any way.

OK, but you understand what the devs had to do in order to make it work, right? The light can't reach far enough, so the distance has very very unusually bright fog. They're using graphical limitations to dictate the style. Not everyone can just do this.

You have not provided a single example of how raytracing fundamentally changes gameplay.

Procedural games where levels are spawned randomly and any game with a day/night sequence can now be done on the fly. Previously, anything dynamic couldn't have GI light baked in: you had to fill the entire world with a generic basic light so you can see everything. Stay In The Light demonstrates a procedural environment where you can still have dark corridors. This was not possible before. And changing time of day suffers the same consequences: no bounce light because the light is always moving, and nothing can be calculated.

My open world has a cave lit almost entirely by bounced, indirect lighting. Unfortunately, I can't get this cave lit properly with a changing time of day, so the sun is constantly in the afternoon hours. There is no right way to fix this problem seamlessly without raytracing. Otherwise, I have to either put a cave entrance and change the light setup for the cave, or try and adjust it on the fly which means either the outdoors area or the cave will look glitched up.

So your contention that RTX is some amazing development for procedurally generated content is questionable at best.

FYI all modern games use baking. Even Battlefield V bakes things. RTX-only games are going to be the procedural ones relying on raytracing 100% to handle lighting. That's the only way for dynamic projects to be lit properly.

You can use portals to see other parts of the map, giving you unique lines of sight.

OK, Portals have been around even in Quake III Arena. But reflections with recursions, perfect refractions from glass, rendering stuff that's not actually on the screen with something more complicated than a flat screen/capture, that stuff is new. Using mirrors reliably for a gameplay element was impossible before because reflections weren't good enough. But now that they are, everything in the world with a sharp enough reflection will act like a perfect mirror, and you can use that as a gameplay mechanic.

But instead you just double down and ignore everyone's posts.

Because I'm RIGHT. This DOES open new doors for plenty of new game mechanics and it even fixes problems I've been struggling to solve for years. Look at what people are saying: "Well, I don't care. Undertale was a great game." Like, WOW. If you want a 3D game with procedural dungeons that isn't a long black hallway, you need raytracing for that! If you're OK with the long dark hallway, that's great for you. But not every project can cut corners the way Bloodborne did and just use copious amounts of fog to hide the limitation that light can't reach that far.

Posted June 8th by mariomguy

You are literally wrong about everything that I called you on, but you just ignore what you actually said while you go on to say something more technical because that lets you be condescending to me. You appear to be completely ignorant of the fact that I actually pay attention to rhetoric and am completely capable of tearing you apart when you make blatantly overblown claims, regardless of what you or I know about the technology.

Posted June 8th by Cruinn-Annuin

OK, since you obviously heard and understand my issues, how can I make a player walk from a brightly lit world into a dark cave, lit only by bounce light, AND have a day/night sequence where baking is not possible?

Posted June 8th by mariomguy

Using mirrors reliably for a gameplay element was impossible before because reflections weren't good enough. But now that they are, everything in the world with a sharp enough reflection will act like a perfect mirror, and you can use that as a gameplay mechanic.

I knew you would respond like this- essentially explaining what mirrors are, as if it's relevant at all to anything I said, as if I didn't understand your point about how the technology can improves mirrors in games, as if this explanation addresses anything I said in any meaningful way- and I deliberately didn't inb4 it because it's fucking hilarious. Thank you for continuing to be so predictable.

I see no reason to respond to the bulk of your post. I think every one on the entire planet understands how lighting does not equal gameplay except for you, and I really, honestly feel a bit sorry for you. Like the tone of this paragraph:

Procedural games where levels are spawned randomly and any game with a day/night sequence can now be done on the fly.

is just sad, as if you're concisely answering my question when you haven't even come close to doing so. Talking to you really reminds me of talking to my grandmother after she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.

Posted June 9th by The Bandit

OK, since you obviously heard and understand my issues


And you obviously have not heard or understood mine. Try thinking and talking about what people are actually challenging you about, not just what you want to say in order to sound more knowledgeable.

Posted June 9th by Cruinn-Annuin

In the effort to inject some actual content into this discussion, here's a game that some people actually care about: Quake 2, now with raytracing.



It looks good.

Posted June 9th by Cruinn-Annuin

Simulation games, procedural games, games with day/night sequences and moving platforms, games with moving lights, millions of lights, flying through clouds, etc. can now come to life!


I've been playing games with lights for years. I'm somewhat of an expert at it. Flashlights, car headlights, lamps, lanterns, torches. Even functional switches that turn lights on and off by the press of a button. So don't you come in here telling me about fancy lights and how my lights are trash.

Posted June 9th by Vandy

I've been playing games with lights for years. I'm somewhat of an expert at it. Flashlights, car headlights, lamps, lanterns, torches. Even functional switches that turn lights on and off by the press of a button. So don't you come in here telling me about fancy lights and how my lights are trash.

In Halo, you might've noticed the game took a performance hit turning on the flashlight. That's because in those days everything was forward shaded: the flashlight was another light source that had to be hardcoded into the full material of everything it touched. Deferred rendering allows hundreds of light sources where the complexity is only focused around the light source. But it still increases complexity and it has to be drawn in, which takes time.

If we are able to light scenes using raytracing, we could have a literal infinite number of lights. You can light a room with a Christmas tree, a long flourescent bulb from the kitchen, and several lamps all in realtime. That wasn't done in software just yet, but the doors are now open for this.

Also, the biggest reason you don't realize this stuff is because game devs have been deliberately avoiding situations like this and have been masking it for ages. Bloodborne has very dark hallways that descend into a bright fog, rather than showing bounce light reaching and stretching further. Instead of moving the sun, it's easier to just change the color for day/night. I think this is what GTA V does. Super Mario Sunshine took it a step further: the water wasn't even lit! But when you actually have shadows rising and falling throughout the day and light bouncing and reflecting and behaving the way it should, you won't have certain areas just stuck in shadow permanently, you wouldn't have dull, flat lighting in shadows, and everything will just work. This means dynamic environments can just work.

This was the dream: dynamic environments just work. Currently, there is no solution otherwise that doesn't have massive drawbacks.

Posted June 9th by mariomguy

In Halo, you might've noticed the game took a performance hit turning on the flashlight.


I literally never noticed a performance hit when turning on the flashlight and I played Halo for hundreds upon hundreds of hours. It was one of the games that I loved during the depths of the most isolated and obsessive part of my life. I played individual encounters (including ones in dark corridors where I turned on my flashlight) hundreds of times.

Posted June 9th by Cruinn-Annuin

I've never noticed it with the flashlight, but the frame rate definitely drops during the invisible air strikes.

Posted June 9th by The Bandit

I've never noticed it with the flashlight, but the frame rate definitely drops during the invisible air strikes.




Posted June 9th by Cruinn-Annuin

In Halo, you might've noticed the game took a performance hit turning on the flashlight. That's because in those days everything was forward shaded:


You would’ve only noticed this if your video card was shitty. Any decent early 2000’s video card would handle halo and its flashlight just fine. I know as I ran the game on a Nvidia GeForce TI4200 with no problems.

Even the original Xbox handled Halo with its flashlight just fine.

Edited June 9th by Q
Q
 
Load next page Load rest of pages
Reply to: Raytracing Pt. 2 - Stay In The Light
Enter your message here

Site Rules | Complaints Process | Give Feedback Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on