News Nvidia reveals detailed ray tracing differences, promotes DLSS 3 for Indiana Jones and the Great Circle

[Admin]

The notoriously-demanding Indiana Jones and the Great Circle gets an official graphics breakdown.

Nvidia reveals detailed ray tracing differences, promotes DLSS 3 for Indiana Jones and the Great Circle : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

hot take: the difference isnt worth such higher demands.

 

[Pierce2623]

Those are not “large” differences. You have to have a side by side to even notice. I wouldn’t notice if compared the settings back to back on my PC. Sorry but crippling frame rate for marginally more realistic lighting isn’t what I consider “advancement”.

 

[Neilbob]

Probably highly subjective, but I rather prefer the look of 'Full Ray Tracing Off'. The 'Ray Tracing On' half of those example screenshots look sort of washed out to me.

The fact I'll never play this game surely makes my opinion more important? Yes, I think so.

 

[emike09]

I'm absolutely loving what path tracing can do here. In a pitch-black tomb, illuminated only by my torch, it changes where I decide to set the torch down to work a puzzle, so I have the best lighting for a given scenario. The way that light dynamically fills the room brings me joy. Interior lighting is glorious to behold, and it's always changing based on your position or how you manipulate the world.

We're one step closer to film-grade graphics, and I thought we were still one or two GPU generations down the line before seeing this. Granted I'm on a 4090, so in a sense that's technically still true. The real-time rendered cinematics, at times, are almost indistinguishable from film, partially made possible by the incredible motion capture used here. And all of this at 60+ fps consistently without shader or transversal stutter that has been plaguing gaming (thanks UE).

ID Tech 7 seems to have some pretty amazing tech to offer, with only a single major game release and what I'd call and engine proof-of-concept game (Doom Eternal). Very excited to see what other developments come from this engine.

 

[txfeinbergs]

At least one person here gets it!

 

[thestryker]

I feel like Path Tracing is truly the new "can it run Crysis" because the implementations (all 3 of them) have been very impressive. The problems of course being that it's not widespread and the hardware required to run it realistically is a 4090. I think in 2-3 years we'll start to see more path tracing as the hardware becomes more readily available and software crutches become even better.

I think the move with this game to require hardware RT is smart and makes sense for any game that is supposed to be a graphics showcase. This should allow for certain parts of rendering to just look better in general along with being simpler to implement.

 

[heffeque]

We're one step closer to film-grade graphics

Yet there are games that are 5 years old or more (such as "Red Redemption 2", "Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice", "The Last of Us", "A Plague Tale: Innocence", "Death Stranding"...) that look and feel much better than what's shown on that Indiana Jones video.

 

[atomicWAR]

While you need a 4090/copious amounts of VRAM to run this at 4K at higher frame rates, it looks gorgeous. There are some kinks that need working out. HDR with frame gen being broken is chief among them imo. Granted simply adding Nvidia latest DLLs to the game folder will fix the problem, mostly as it bugs out if you alt tab out and requires a game reboot. But I think to have a game that requires ray tracing will start to push the needle in the right direction on better lighting/reflections/etc so by the time the next gen consoles drop we could start seeing path tracing as the new normal in most games. I am FINALLY getting excited for RTX hardware results in games. Only took three generations...

 

[emike09]

Yet there are games that are 5 years old or more (such as "Red Redemption 2", "Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice", "The Last of Us", "A Plague Tale: Innocence", "Death Stranding"...) that look and feel much better than what's shown on that Indiana Jones video.

To be fair, you can't compare YT videos to something you played in person on the same hardware. It's never the same.

Big fan of RDR2 and Hellblade. Politely have to disagree that Death Stranding can stand next to any of these other three titles. RDR2 is all baked lighting. It looks great, years ahead of its time, but it's not real-time and requires the devs to provide solutions for all dynamic lighting scenarios.

Hellblade is gorgeous for sure. I spent more time in photo mode than playing the story. But Hellblade is limited by Lumen with the scope of RTGI, mostly by performance. I get 50% better performance in IJ in comparison, and that's with a dramatically more detailed and richer world. Play IJ with path tracing and tell me what you actually think then 😛

 

[edzieba]

On the note of reflections first, the game requiring RT as a baseline should mean that RT reflections are present either way.

By default ("RTX off") the game will use lower resolution RTGI as its only illumination pipeline, but will use screen-space reflections.

Yet there are games that are 5 years old or more (such as "Red Redemption 2", "Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice", "The Last of Us", "A Plague Tale: Innocence", "Death Stranding"...) that look and feel much better than what's shown on that Indiana Jones video.

In screenshots. Once you are actually in a game environment and able to move the camera - and able t move light sources - the difference between real-time ray-traced lighting and precomputed lighting is immediate and obvious.

 

[Notton]

I like the full ray tracing look. It looks realistic compared to the laser cut, crisp transitions between light and shadow.
If you think the RTX/off looks better, that just means the devs did a good job with the graphics, atmosphere and scene lighting.

But I'd rather not pay $2000 on a graphics card to get that look in games.

 

[ohio_buckeye]

To me rtx is a meh feature. As in not needed and who cares. Ray tracing etc is cook looking in some scenarios but honestly the first screenshot it took a minute for me to pick out differences. I think the performance hit for the small visual uplift is likely not worth the trade off in many cases as games have started looking good the past few years. Examples for me are rdr2, assassins creed 3 remastered, the pirates game they did, as well as the uncharted games, particularly the later ones. There are some later games that look better I suppose, but these were ones I remember and still play at times.

 

[kyzarvs]

I'm absolutely loving what path tracing can do here. In a pitch-black tomb, illuminated only by my torch, it changes where I decide to set the torch down to work a puzzle, so I have the best lighting for a given scenario. The way that light dynamically fills the room brings me joy. Interior lighting is glorious to behold, and it's always changing based on your position or how you manipulate the world.

We're one step closer to film-grade graphics, and I thought we were still one or two GPU generations down the line before seeing this. Granted I'm on a 4090, so in a sense that's technically still true. The real-time rendered cinematics, at times, are almost indistinguishable from film, partially made possible by the incredible motion capture used here. And all of this at 60+ fps consistently without shader or transversal stutter that has been plaguing gaming (thanks UE).

ID Tech 7 seems to have some pretty amazing tech to offer, with only a single major game release and what I'd call and engine proof-of-concept game (Doom Eternal). Very excited to see what other developments come from this engine.

Carried lights have been a thing for 20 years or more?

I get that it's a Crysis-like moment in gaming, but I wasn't that bothered then either. If I have to start using frame generation or upscaling then I'm more than happy to wait for the hardware to catch-up, just like I did with Crysis. The game will be cheaper to buy then too!

 

[SingleMaltScotch]

How can people not see the difference between path RT off vs. on and also say, "I prefer those jagged shadows,"? Go outside and see if shadows look like ones with RT off.

I'm streaming this through GeForce NOW Ultimate, so not even a native install, on my OLED TV and while I was in the opening scene just standing around in the jungle, my wife came down and asked what movie I was watching. She's a gamer too, though a bit more casual/retro, and she couldn't tell the difference at first. That's how realistic lighting and shadows are with this stuff! Cinematic quality.

Without path RT, she would have noticed immediately.

 

[AngelusF]

The lighting may be cinematic quality, but the characters still move like robots.

 

[heffeque]

My comment wasn't specifically about the lighting. Obviously the lighting is better with RTX.
What I'm referring to is the general look&feel (character movements, faces, art-style, things that aren't supposed to look like plastic don't look like plastic, etc.)

 

[ManDaddio]

Path Tracing looks great when it's implemented in a game that is properly tweak for it.

If baked lighting or old lighting stays on when PT is enabled it can break the beauty.

It won't look as good. There will be anomalies.

And then you have other issues like bad textures or something which again will break the beauty of path tracing.

Lastly, there is the bias people have of thinking baked lighting is proper when it's not.

It's like drinking grape soda all your life and never eating grapes.
When you finally get around to eating the real grapes they won't taste better than grape soda.
You might say grape soda is what grapes should taste like.
That might not be the best analogy but you get my point.

If you thought traditional lighting in games was how light is supposed to look you won't like PT.

You'll have to get used to not seeing bad lightning to appreciate the more correct lighting.

When NVIDIA started pushing RT I looked at all the industries that used it and saw the differences and why artists prefer RT. And why it makes CGI movies for example so much better looking.

I lost my bias quick having knowledge.

It wasn't NVIDIA that made me like it. It was my love for nice looking graphics which I've had ever since playing Atari 2600 for the first time.

Before that though it was the Arcade in the Mall.

 

[emike09]

Path Tracing looks great when it's implemented in a game that is properly tweak for it.

If baked lighting or old lighting stays on when PT is enabled it can break the beauty.

It won't look as good. There will be anomalies.

And then you have other issues like bad textures or something which again will break the beauty of path tracing.

Lastly, there is the bias people have of thinking baked lighting is proper when it's not.

It's like drinking grape soda all your life and never eating grapes.
When you finally get around to eating the real grapes they won't taste better than grape soda.
You might say grape soda is what grapes should taste like.
That might not be the best analogy but you get my point.

If you thought traditional lighting in games was how light is supposed to look you won't like PT.

You'll have to get used to not seeing bad lightning to appreciate the more correct lighting.

When NVIDIA started pushing RT I looked at all the industries that used it and saw the differences and why artists prefer RT. And why it makes CGI movies for example so much better looking.

I lost my bias quick having knowledge.

It wasn't NVIDIA that made me like it. It was my love for nice looking graphics which I've had ever since playing Atari 2600 for the first time.

Before that though it was the Arcade in the Mall.

Elegantly said. As we evolve into path tracing technology, we're making compromises based off the hardware available, and engines are becoming bloated and overburdened, but it is the future. Raster had a terrible past when it began, but it's evolved beautifully. It's time for a new form of rendering.

 

[AkroZ]

Elegantly said. As we evolve into path tracing technology, we're making compromises based off the hardware available, and engines are becoming bloated and overburdened, but it is the future. Raster had a terrible past when it began, but it's evolved beautifully. It's time for a new form of rendering.

"Full ray tracing" is a misnommer, those games use rasterization for rendering. Global illumination, ambient occlusion, ... , are raster techniques. It's in fact not ray tracing but ray casting, they cast rays to give better informations to those illumination techniques.
I don't think the coming RTX 5090 will be able to render a game with ray tracing above 40 fps on 4K resolution.

 

[ManDaddio]

"Full ray tracing" is a misnommer, those games use rasterization for rendering. Global illumination, ambient occlusion, ... , are raster techniques. It's in fact not ray tracing but ray casting, they cast rays to give better informations to those illumination techniques.
I don't think the coming RTX 5090 will be able to render a game with ray tracing above 40 fps on 4K resolution.

When people talk about Ray tracing today and it's performance I don't think people understand terms like full high definition which would be 1080p. Even though it doesn't look as good today because we're used to higher resolutions now it's still an awful lot of pixels.
4K is just an insane amount of pixels. And 8k is way more crazy.
People who do a lot of video editing know this.