Curves are better than flat tris. We eventually need to have a basic primitive. Curved patches at least are more organic. Specially if also displaced by heightmaps. The CG industry hasn't been using them since ever for no reason.
Impact of nVidia Turing RayTracing enhanced GPUs on next-gen consoles *spawn
- Thread starter vipa899
- Start date
- Status
Curves are better than flat tris. We eventually need to have a basic primitive. Curved patches at least are more organic. Specially if also displaced by heightmaps. The CG industry hasn't been using them since ever for no reason.
OK. Personally I would say that is mostly about modelling, really, but then I understand where you’re coming from.
we are e meandering too much on this off-topic now. I gave dynamic tessellation as an example of a hardware feature that was taunted for years and still hasn't become ubiquitous in real time rendering, while in offline it is.
To make my point clear about subdivision surfaces, it's not just about modeling, although it also is that, but the key part is resolving the curve into tris dynamically every frame, just in the right amount necessary to represent the curve perfectly, without sharp edges. No more sharp corners in circular shapes, never anymore. This is barely a detail today given how highpoly meshes already are, but even then, it's not uncommon to see the occasional sharp corner.
We need more info on mesh shaders, but with the concepts of meshlets you can get very grain LOD control over the model with significantly less impact to the CPU.
That’s why I’m sure if tesselation would be fully required. Model it high quality and let the system figure out which meshlets to render ?
That's another viable way to address the issue. It trades memory for performance. You don't have to compute the dynamic subdivision, but you store many dozen LoDs, and even then, there is always the risk of getting too close for even the highest LOD in the chain, but your textures already went to shit at this point anyway...
Last edited:
Tessellation would be a memory saver. Less triangles to store in RAM, storing HOS instead, and less data to move from RAM to GPU (move HOS instead and process in GPU). Similarly processing procedural surface shaders instead of baking them into textures.
Best case example, an SDS sphere is 8 points in a binding cube, whereas for super-duper smooth even up close resolution you'd need god knows how many triangles.
All these considerations need to weigh up the cost of memory versus the cost of real-time processing, to see which is better value for money, as we can't afford to put in the best-of-all-technologies as used by offline renderers because as the performance requirements.
Best case example, an SDS sphere is 8 points in a binding cube, whereas for super-duper smooth even up close resolution you'd need god knows how many triangles.
All these considerations need to weigh up the cost of memory versus the cost of real-time processing, to see which is better value for money, as we can't afford to put in the best-of-all-technologies as used by offline renderers because as the performance requirements.
Actually i think that’s where meshlets are better. I don’t believe you need to tons of meshes for varying LOD.
I need to be careful here because marketing talk
DavidGraham
Veteran
So after trying Hitman 2, I discovered many limitations with their planar reflection implementation, none of them are mentioned in the DF video.
For starters, foliage and grass are not reflected, even if the scene is comprised of dense tall foliage. Also overflow water from sinks and taps is not reflected, so do water splashes from bullets or explosions. Fire, smoke and explosions from grenades or bullet impacts are not reflected as well. It's almost like all transparencies are excluded from reflections altogether.
Those are not really limitations, just optimizations. It is just a second camera spot with lower shading quality/res/lod.
RT isn't perfect, too. It is always a matter of optimization and performance, how much you are willing to invest in a "simple" reflection.
Currently e.g. in BFV there are more reflective surfaces than in real life (never seen such reflective water or mud if someone walks through it), surfaces that reflect way more than they would ever do. Yes it is an early shot at RT and needs more optimization. But overall I really see that big difference when playing, just when standing still and watching for differences.
They should really not invest that much of the RT processing power into reflective surfaces. Correct lighting from many light-sources would be much better (in my opinion).
DavidGraham
Veteran
I kinda agree there, they indeed overdid reflections in the game. Many of them were not truly necessary in a fast game. Some dynamic GI would have been better in my opinion, especially inside buildings, as they are destroyed quite a lot and are lit only by the baked GI solutions even when completely demolished.
Expect similar compromises in RT reflections too; there's nothing intrinsically more efficient or faster about raytracing for drawing reflections. Every object you include in the reflection has a cost, whether you are tracing reflections or rasterising them. Shading results for surfaces reflected via tracing or rasterising will be the same. If tracing grass is too expensive, you'll leave that out. Transparencies are incredibly expensive in RT too (need a secondary ray cast, resulting in multiple recursions, so often times cap with a 'recursion limit' result). Every iteration in tracing is going to need to scale back visual quality to avoid exponential workloads.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Yeah, I was just returning to the subject of comparing the Hitman 2 vs Battlefield V implementations. Looking into BFV, foliage is not excluded, neither do explosions, fire, smoke, water splashes .. etc. The game also has reflections within reflections and dynamic reflections on curved surfaces, which are obviously missing from Hitman 2, lighting and AO is toned down in Hitman 2, bullet decals reflections are missing, none of that is in BFV .. etc.
Last edited:
I think I'm seeing DXR enabled here as well. May also explain the performance. if this is alpha this is pretty good.
Reflections and Shadows
4:30-4:40 edit: nvm, it's SSR
Shadows are have incredible quality. Keep watching from that point and you'll see razor thin shadows from the pipes above. Everything in the game is drawing shadows. All sorts of movement. Very clean.
Examining some more, also think they are running GI and AO through DXR. Harder to prove though.
Reflections and Shadows
4:30-4:40 edit: nvm, it's SSR
Shadows are have incredible quality. Keep watching from that point and you'll see razor thin shadows from the pipes above. Everything in the game is drawing shadows. All sorts of movement. Very clean.
Examining some more, also think they are running GI and AO through DXR. Harder to prove though.
Last edited:
Ike Turner
Veteran
Everything in there looks like regular Frostbite with SSSR + cubemaps and baked GI via Enlighten as usual.
Except that planar reflections need to be rendered for every surface that needs them. If you have several surfaces at different angles/places that need accurate reflections RT is a clear winner in performance.
edit; you are correct.
Last edited:
Well, actually you also must render them with RT. But with RT you just render what is really in the scene. You can really do this with smaller camera angles etc …
But it just depends on the scene. RT is the brute force method.
In RT you only need to render the pixels you need. With rasterization you'd have to render whole views for different surfaces.
Not necessarily. A camera that fits the reflecting surface viewport will only render as many pixels and whatever part of the scene as specified, exactly the same as the main camera. Think racing car rear-view mirrors for historical examples. You don't render the whole scene and then cut out a small part for the reflection.
- Status