Agree, but with RTX on an a single bounce it is still much to dark, and AO makes this even worse. Overall surely RTX looks MUCH better. But it does not make it realisic, just less bad to me. In such a bright scene with snow everything should be pretty bright.
I compare them figure out DXRs best application. Even if GI is most important for me personally, it is not impressive to regular people i think.
I guess without getting too vested here like yourself, I would assume that you’re mind would recognize it at being more correct.
It's not a matter of opinion. Quake has only one bounce, Minecraft has infinite bounces.
... same we complain for Metro. GI is really not grateful to sell
... same we complain for Metro. GI is really not grateful to sell
But TTC can do this indoors as well, with moving area lights. And it has reflections for proper metal. It is is not restricted to voxels as you can see. It only uses them for GI. (which has issues, but skylight only is a much larger issue than some leaks!)
Killer apps are always possible, independent of hardware progress.
I say probes would give similar GI quality because i would be disappointed from Metro not looking better than previous GI approaches with lesser hardware requirements.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Whether you like the sparse art-style or not, the visuals were clearly 'next-gen' in approach. The lighting and shading were world's apart from every other game.
This comment suggests you've no real interest in technology. TTC was a technological marvel with the most beautiful lighting of any game yet that I know of.
Probes give very low detail results. DXR in Metro is already far better. Not only does it handle dynamic objects, it also supports occlusion. Indirect shadows, oh yeah. They could have even pushed for more bounces and effects but the spoiled-brat, 4k-60fps crowd would have whined about the game not being "optimized".
The good stuff starts at 14:00. It's light night and day.
Tech demos and actual games are different things. Obviously the first will look better than the second. And of course different arguments will be made to different audiences. Some people were saying how devs could fake the effect so I addressed it from a developer's point of view. Previously I've also made the argument you're making also, about the new experiences it brings to consumers.I say probes would give similar GI quality because i would be disappointed from Metro not looking better than previous GI approaches with lesser hardware requirements.
If i would consider to upgrade GPU, i would expect significantly better visuals than ever before, after seeing Star Wars.
It's very difficult. Current games can show very impressive trailers, so NV had to show something like Star Wars to beat this.
But the few games do not look thaaat good, so likely people decide to wait with the upgrade until more games show, or until HW becomes cheaper.
At the same time people may even decide not to buy the games, because they want to wait until they have the HW to enjoy all features.
Gamedevs so also have a difficult decision if RTX is worth it or not, even if UE4 and Unity make it easy.
It will take some time...
But the promise of dynamic lighting is not to save work on probe placement or baking time. That's really a bad argument gamers do not want to hear.
The proper argument is the opportunity for new level design, or even new options for gameplay.
And that's exactly what's not possible until everyone has the hardware.
It is also a bad argument for developers, because they save no work by adding RTX support - it's just more of it.
And they know complexity is not going to decrease while performance is finite.
NV might consider to buy a game studio... but secretly, to prevent another stupid shitstorm
The ground reflections are definitely plannar. But I think everything else still relies on their voxel representation of the scene.
