Wtf are you talking about? As far as you understand the game only has RT because of Nvidia? Where are you getting this from? What are you expecting Vulkan or DXR 1.1 to bring to the table, exactly?
Wtf are you talking about? As far as you understand the game only has RT because of Nvidia? Where are you getting this from? What are you expecting Vulkan or DXR 1.1 to bring to the table, exactly?
BillSpencer
Regular
The last gen consoles were at least able to have some basic ray tracing:
if last generation consoles are able to have it then it is not really a next-gen feature
Same for realtime global illumination, this was done first in realtime on PS4 like 6 years ago:
Same for realtime global illumination, this was done first in realtime on PS4 like 6 years ago:
Without RT, the game looks very good. Even the PS5 version wasnt that bad, easily up there with last gens great lookers, and thats based on the PS4 version, in BC mode if i understand correctly.
What people also need to see is that its all done in a big living city, with lots of things going on in a huge open world, with outskirt areas etc. Its always going to be looking worse then a model in FIFA21. As a overall package, it looks really outlandish.
Yes theres a reason it looks like a PS3 game
BillSpencer
Regular
Yes theres a reason it looks like a PS3 game
There are PS3 games with global illumination:
So GI is not a really last gen feature, it's a last-last gen feature
BillSpencer
Regular
Also the example of the guy in the taxi is very misleading as it is a bug in the regular version; when you get in the car the lighting is correct.
It is like cherry picking the worst case scenarios of the non-RT lighting
edit: upon reviewing the DF again, the beginning does show the non-RT version as being correct
It is like cherry picking the worst case scenarios of the non-RT lighting
edit: upon reviewing the DF again, the beginning does show the non-RT version as being correct
Lol, wasn't the whole point in this thread that better lighting can make a substantial difference? That's precisely why TTC does NOT look like a PS3 game, despite the simplistic graphics.Yes theres a reason it looks like a PS3 game
Thing is, CP2077 doesnt really have 'simplistic graphics' to begin with (without RT).
BillSpencer
Regular
well, regarding CP2077 "theres a reason it looks like a
", as a matter of fact; CP2077 is a PS4 gameNope. Its a pc game, ported to consoles. Its one of the reasons it runs like dogshit, and finally pulled from the platform alltogether. If it was a PS4 game it wouldnt run at 15fps and look substantially worse compared to the main pc version. It also doesnt look like a PS4 or ps3 game, maybe on PS4 yes
was it really running that poorly on ps4? 15fps? I watched some youtube videos and it seemed a bit sluggish but nothing that bad.
I haven't had a chance to really dig into it but the game seems pretty good and runs fine on my 5700xt I turned on the dynamic resolution thing and it looks fine runs 60fps on ultra, i set the min res to 60% iirc and you can tell when it drops but its not that big of a deal.
anyway, its def a system hog, but got some good depth.
I haven't had a chance to really dig into it but the game seems pretty good and runs fine on my 5700xt I turned on the dynamic resolution thing and it looks fine runs 60fps on ultra, i set the min res to 60% iirc and you can tell when it drops but its not that big of a deal.
anyway, its def a system hog, but got some good depth.
Again, lol. You reply talking about CP but my comment was a direct reply to your comment regarding TTC exclusively, so you're barking at the wrong tree, buddy.
Panino Manino
Newcomer
Nvidia partnered with them too put their version of RT in the game first.
Cyberpunk isn't a "RT game", is a "RTX game".
If they really wanted to make their game as good as possible they should have worked on a version that would work on all RT enabled hardware.
Still, I don't understand what people really see so next gen in this game, removing the RT differential it fails to meet expectations even for the past gen.
I disagree a bit without the lighting this is a good looking game but not the best in the class, The city or car looks great but character model or animation are less impressive for example. For the moment I wait the game with the full package, the one where everything will be impressive, geometry, hair, character model, shading, lighting, animation. It can be called the borderline cheap offline rendering game*. Geometry improves lighting too because polygons can cast shadows and the rendering is less flat. DS character model are less impressive than Spiderman MM and FIFa 21 hair is the top of the top better physics than Spiderman. I want a game with the hair of FIFA21, the character model of Spiderman MM, at least the geometry of DS , the lighting of CyberPunk 2077 or a very good compromise and I think it will be possible when devs will let down PS4 and XB1.
And like I say again I think it will be a PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X|S only game not a cross gen game and probably a Frosbite game or Embark studio game.
Linear or open world change nothing a GPU can render what is inside the RAM with a SSD able to change all the rendering RAM in 1 to 2 seconds, the streaming is not a limit. With a fast enough storage if you have a realtime GI system like DS it is possible to do the same game as an open world. The limit of current open world details compared to linear games is not the GPU but the streaming system.
Triangles based Raytracing is not mandatory out of reflection, there is good compromise and DS have a realtime GI compromise. It would have been interesting to see if they can do RT reflection.
*low quality offline rendering not compared to hollywood production.
Last edited:
Nvidia’s RTX marketing has really fucked with people’s heads. There is no Nvidia version of RT. RTX branding is somewhat relevant for DLSS but it’s purely a thin marketing veneer over DXR and VulkanRT when it comes to raytracing.
I agree, there’s a lot about CP that’s not next gen. The NPC models and animations for one thing. Also while the city has a lot of clutter it’s not really high quality clutter. I expect games that embrace mesh shaders and/or Nanite will really set the bar for this generation.
I think out of the image quality, we are on the verge of games borderline low quality offline rendering movie. Game asset can look as good as the Ark 2 trailer. I speak only of asset quality not the lighting, image quality and other in engine stuff.
But I hope we will see better waterfall than the ark2 trailer.
Last edited:
While not a real game for sure, it was still more than a classic non interactive tech demo, that UE5 demo was played by someone who had control other the character and the camera, the demo used AI for the bats, physics for the character, water, destruction, even dynamic animations for the climbing part, it's all said in the video of the demo.
It's running in the same conditions as a game like say tomb raider, just that it's a small portion so they could crank up the detail and use a lot of data.
That is one of the reasons why I think we see people being a bit "the grapes are sour" about raytracing...in their mind it is an NVIDIA feature...and not like is really is a Microsoft API.
That and console bias.
It is the same every single generation, consoles running at lower I.Q./Resolution/FPS/settings but some people "cannot see" the difference (yet some of those even fail A/B tests), which is fine by me.
Then they should keep gaming on a console and save money.
But others people have no problem seeing the GLARING differences, this is from a video posted in this very thread:
Even if it is a scaled down GIF, I have no problems seeing the differences.
Almost no one has said their is no difference/RTX on isn't better. We just don't all consider the final visual result a generational improvement. I'm not sure why people think this is all an anti NVidia bias.That is one of the reasons why I think we see people being a bit "the grapes are sour" about raytracing...in their mind it is an NVIDIA feature...and not like is really is a Microsoft API.
That and console bias.
It is the same every single generation, consoles running at lower I.Q./Resolution/FPS/settings but some people "cannot see" the difference (yet some of those even fail A/B tests), which is fine by me.
Then they should keep gaming on a console and save money.
But others people have no problem seeing the GLARING differences, this is from a video posted in this very thread:
Even if it is a scaled down GIF, I have no problems seeing the differences.
If the difference between Cyberpunk ultra and ultra+RT was equivalent to the level of visual improvement achieved in Sony 1st party PS5 exclusive games do you think peoples views would really change?
Something I consider an example of generational improvement.
Last edited:
I don't expect people that consider lower resolution / lower FPS / lower image quality / lower settings "equal" to alter their minds one bit.
But I am not speaking to them but the the passive readers so they avoid getting suckered in by fallacies.
I don't fight windmills, but I find this launch funny.
The Witcher 3 was scaled down to accommodate the lesser performing consoles...and people on PC (CDPR's biggest customer segment) complained and expressed disappointment.
CDPR apologized and wowed that this would not happen in CP2077.
And they kept their words.
And that revealed just how MUCH consoles are holding back games using a different approach (designed for consoles, just increase resolution/FPS on the PC)
CDPR are trying to scale the game DOWN to the consoles (not holdning back progress) and it is obviously a very hard thing to do.
But it kinda broke the marketing of consoles as "next gen"...and now we have ruffled feathers, the grapes are sour and broken e-peen in a certain crowd.
Marketing vs. reality
Similar threads
