It looks like fortnite to me, not much better. It is nowhere near anything Metro is doing, or any other modern AA game.
Next gen lighting technologies - voxelised, traced, and everything else *spawn*
- Thread starter Scott_Arm
- Start date
It looks like fortnite to me, not much better. It is nowhere near anything Metro is doing, or any other modern AA game.
We know, but... recently i tried to talk with some 'gamers' about why they are so mad about Metro moved to Steam. You know, the 'toxic' sort of gamers. Any kind of argumentation is totally pointless.
I may be more pessimistic than necessary after this. Hopefully not all of them are that toxic (and dump).
Yeah, looks much better than dev video / screenshots and other games i've seen before.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Some DF comparisons:
Of those, some of the non-RTX examples are just really bad. For example, compare the blown-out desert interior to Uncharted 4 (sorry my examples are all PS4 but that's the platform I know. I've requested people present PC games to compare...)
The complete lack of any secondary lighting effects just shows Metro isn't even trying in that scene, and it's not like RTX is a necessary enabler to make it look good. RTX may make it better, but it shouldn't be that much better without a jolly good explanation.
SWBF could be a good example of PC shot, what is possible. It has great use of lightprobes and baked lighting.
Kingdom Come Deliverance is a good looking game too I beleive...
I'd say the bottom Metro pic has quality is beyond normal rendering given the body's shadow, but that can't be said of all the cases where we see RTX in action. The look of RTX in Metro isn't anything particular beyond what we've seen in other games, unless those scenes are 100% dynamic. Can you move those barrels around, for example? The non-RTX visuals are at times ghastly in Metro, but that can be said of many games. Uncharted 4 has some dreadful faked lighting in places that plain breaks. I guess that's something RT should eventually solve, when the minimum quality still looks good.
The complete lack of any secondary lighting effects just shows Metro isn't even trying in that scene, and it's not like RTX is a necessary enabler to make it look good. RTX may make it better, but it shouldn't be that much better without a jolly good explanation.
SWBF could be a good example of PC shot, what is possible. It has great use of lightprobes and baked lighting.
Kingdom Come Deliverance is a good looking game too I beleive...
I'd say the bottom Metro pic has quality is beyond normal rendering given the body's shadow, but that can't be said of all the cases where we see RTX in action. The look of RTX in Metro isn't anything particular beyond what we've seen in other games, unless those scenes are 100% dynamic. Can you move those barrels around, for example? The non-RTX visuals are at times ghastly in Metro, but that can be said of many games. Uncharted 4 has some dreadful faked lighting in places that plain breaks. I guess that's something RT should eventually solve, when the minimum quality still looks good.
^^ don't those games use baked lighting? The point in metro beyond the fidelity is that it has the requirements of needing a day night cycle.
With regards to kingdom come - I love the SVOGI in that game, but it has its own limitations too of course regarding scalability, how interiors and how dynamic objects are handled. For example, the portuculous to that door right there is actually not lit iand casting shadows ndirectly with the svogi, but a common trick of putting a shadow casting directional light there. They ended up not using the SOVGI portal system added in later CE V versions, probably because the manual artist set up time is a pain.
Metro is totally trying, it just has the disadvantage of having a day night cycle. Baking your lighting will make areas in complete shadow way better looking at the cost of dynamism.
With regards to kingdom come - I love the SVOGI in that game, but it has its own limitations too of course regarding scalability, how interiors and how dynamic objects are handled. For example, the portuculous to that door right there is actually not lit iand casting shadows ndirectly with the svogi, but a common trick of putting a shadow casting directional light there. They ended up not using the SOVGI portal system added in later CE V versions, probably because the manual artist set up time is a pain.
When is it a good time to start talking about the missuse of the word "rasterized" RTX has ushered?
What is rasterized lighting? It's shader based. In a deferred renderer. Rasterization (in 3d graphics) is the process of drawing projected polygons to the screen. It's about getting vertice coords and painting pixels inside their bounds. There is no rasterization done there. It's just pixel shaders processing texels. Rasterization was over as soon as the Gbuffer was built.
They should be calling it "traditional lighting" vs. "RT lighting". Or maybe "image based lighting" since Metro's traditional rederer most certainly uses light probes for ambient light which is a flavor of image based lighting. But the use of the word "rasterization" is just so dumb because the RTX version IS ALSO RASTERIZED. In fact it uses rasterization just as much. All the RT is done after the Gbuffer is already drawn, which was done so through God damned rasterization.
Some salesperson got this idea to separate the world between "Rasterized" and "Ray-traced" from offline CGI world and nobody who actually knew any better said anything, they went along. Well I'm saying it now. CGI Ray tracing did do away with rasterization altogether because they solve the whole rendering problem through ray tracing. RTX is not doing that. We are in hybrid territory. Primary visibility STILL IS RASTERIZED. Let's please use clear language people. It has been driving me nuts.
We can always rely on a new gaming technology to bring along with it, new misuses of language.
What is rasterized lighting? It's shader based. In a deferred renderer. Rasterization (in 3d graphics) is the process of drawing projected polygons to the screen. It's about getting vertice coords and painting pixels inside their bounds. There is no rasterization done there. It's just pixel shaders processing texels. Rasterization was over as soon as the Gbuffer was built.
They should be calling it "traditional lighting" vs. "RT lighting". Or maybe "image based lighting" since Metro's traditional rederer most certainly uses light probes for ambient light which is a flavor of image based lighting. But the use of the word "rasterization" is just so dumb because the RTX version IS ALSO RASTERIZED. In fact it uses rasterization just as much. All the RT is done after the Gbuffer is already drawn, which was done so through God damned rasterization.
Some salesperson got this idea to separate the world between "Rasterized" and "Ray-traced" from offline CGI world and nobody who actually knew any better said anything, they went along. Well I'm saying it now. CGI Ray tracing did do away with rasterization altogether because they solve the whole rendering problem through ray tracing. RTX is not doing that. We are in hybrid territory. Primary visibility STILL IS RASTERIZED. Let's please use clear language people. It has been driving me nuts.
We can always rely on a new gaming technology to bring along with it, new misuses of language.
Ike Turner
Veteran
You are saying this as if baking lighting prevents dynamic day night cycles which is factually not true as Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Forza Horizon, The Division and countless other games use baked light probes or volumes and for the most part don't look as bad as Metro with RTX Off. Nobody AFAICS is saying that RTX On looks bad. But the "default" RTX Off lightning (which is what 98% of the players are going to experience) looks exceptionally bad for a 2019 AAA game in some of these examples (sorry I haven't bought the game and haven't watched lots of gameplay videos yet so I4m basing my opinion on what has been shown here).
I agree we would do better calling it traditional. It might be easier to label it as such, but we I can’t call SVOGI and SDF rasterized lighting. And Since RTX and DXR are still hybridizations of rasterizing with ray traced elements it only makes sense to call traditional lighting, traditional lighting.
I'm aware this examples aren't comparable for a whole host of reasons. However, Metro being an open world game with TOD doesn't mean graphics have to look that bad when RTX is off. There are plenty of other examples out there but it'll require those who play more games than me to find them.
I'm not saying these games are raytracing's equal. I'm just showing that the ON/OFF examples posted for Metro are very misleading regards what games without raytracing can achieve. We had this also with the promo materials for raytracing when first announced. The 'no tracing' examples were really weak versus the best possible.
Raytracing has the potential for photo-realistic visuals. It shouldn't need the comparisons to be doctored, like those ghastly before and after images where the model is photographed looking dour against a grey backdrop in the 'before' photo and smiling with make-up and colourful clothes against a bright background in the 'after' photo. "See the difference our Eye Plucker makes!" It makes so little difference they have to fabricate differences. We should be comparing best in class comparisons, plus situations that RT solves, like inconsistent lighting.
BFV's raytracing is quite obvious, especially in motion versus the visual artefacts that screen-space reflections have. Metro's improvements are definitely muted by comparison. That's not denial but the personal opinions of those who feel that way. Although Metro in motion could be notably better than these stills.
That's because the public conversation is always led by marketeers and journalists instead of engineers.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Yes you can, with a well placed grenade.
Tha's true. For the purposes of this thread, what are the framerate impacts of RTX?
They looked pretty significant when I skimmed the reviews.
I just wish I could expect better of Digital Foundry of all places, but even they can often be technically ill informed.That's because the public conversation is always led by marketeers and journalists instead of engineers.
They certainly do, PS4 games have long been surpassed technically.
Yes, i assume people here knew that. A game like BFV, Tomb Raider, Atomic Heart, or Metro Exodus fully path ray traced is further away, we probably will see that around 2020/2021 in Turings successor or Navis successor, if even that, perhapsa year or two after that.
Regarding those shots, SWBF shot looks much better then those UC4 shots.
Then link to these games. It's the best of non-raytraced games that should be compared against, which of course will be on PC.
The only comparisons that should be made here are between games and Metro/other raytraced games. People should also qualify what they mean by 'better'. Considering the completely different materials, I don't know how anyone could classify one as better outright. Both are presented here to compare against Metro's non-raytraced lighting solution.
And dont even come close to the ray traced games.
Thats a rather nice demonstration of a well engineered implementation. Is that tomb raider also showing? The shadowing is on another level.
Another rather impressive gameplay. Very decent performance again.
Oh ok, well then i agree its better to find some pc game screenshots of non-ray traced games as they have the better lighting, shadowing, and even more important but not always visible in screens, framerate, native resolutions, tearing, noise etc.
While i agree that without DXR, Metro doesnt have the best lighting solution, granted SWBF does a better job. Though, when those games have DXR enabled, they are clearly much stronger in the real time GI, shadowing, or reflections then any other game on the market. Atomic heart, Tomb Raider will also follow, i think those first time ever games supporting DXR are very impressive for what it is, i side with DF on that.
Someone already has done a playthrough of Q2 RT, on nightmare mode! Pretty decent performance for the first ever fully ray traced game. Cause its a playthrough one can watch the whole game if you dont own ray tracing hardware yet.
Well well well! Leave it to DF to finally produce a video that actually shows off the effect in Metro better than anyone else I’ve tried so far. Yes it’s still subtle in places, but in other places it is indeed extremely impressive, next to the non-RTX version of the game which I must admit looks like the devs made no effort whatsoever.
So my conclusion is:
1. Yes, it can look friggin amazing - especially in motion. But it can also look the same as the non-RTX scenes in very specific, limited parts of the game.
2. There are quite a few non-RTX games with lighting solutions that look much, much better than the non-RTX version of Metro.
3. Yes, those games will have taken a lot more effort to ‘look right’ than the somewhat lacking non-RTX version of Metro, and probably the RTX version too, as it’s clear that the system kind of ‘just works’.
4. Nothing ‘just works’.
5. Thanks DF for simultaneously capturing the right bits and explaining what we’re seeing in a way no one else has been able to.
So my conclusion is:
1. Yes, it can look friggin amazing - especially in motion. But it can also look the same as the non-RTX scenes in very specific, limited parts of the game.
2. There are quite a few non-RTX games with lighting solutions that look much, much better than the non-RTX version of Metro.
3. Yes, those games will have taken a lot more effort to ‘look right’ than the somewhat lacking non-RTX version of Metro, and probably the RTX version too, as it’s clear that the system kind of ‘just works’.
4. Nothing ‘just works’.
5. Thanks DF for simultaneously capturing the right bits and explaining what we’re seeing in a way no one else has been able to.
Similar threads
