Should full scene RT be abandoned? *spawn

Nesh

Double Agent
Legend
I ve been reading about Mega Geometry and how RT works and I get the impression that in certain scenarios RT is pointless and may either be producing worse results and/or have more performance hit than necessary.

I understand that RT reflections are necessary on huge surfaces, uneven surfaces and reflections within reflections. But occasionally we have selected use of RT in the environments with the common mirror and puddles. Many games have ugly noisy reflections and/or performance hits just to show these while everything else is matte or have high roughness value thus do not use or need RT.

What's the point? RT already uses a BVH structure to calculate reflections which is intensive. Many games produce the worst mirror reflections ever that take time to update and he reflections show lower detail because the BVH is lower just to have RT ticked. Only a portion of the environment is often displayed too. As in the case of AW2 on PS5 Pro, distance and detail of RT reflections on puddles are ugly as fuck. As such often reflections look disgustingly uglier than the fake methods used to replicate them during the PS2/XBOX/DC/GC era. See MGS2.

Silent Hill 2 Remake for example doesn't even have reflections on small mirrors during gameplay.

In such cases instead of having to use an already intensive processing BVH structure they could have just as well have partial replicated models for some mirrors and puddles and have them "mirrored". Since they are duplications of the same models and don't have to calculate tracing on an already a BVH representation of the environment, there is less strain on VRAM and processing. You just do it directly by having it directly on the "reflective" area.

Until GPUs are powerful enough to apply globally tracing of every surface (path tracing?), current implementations of RT is just ruining than improving in many many games
 
I ve been reading about Mega Geometry and how RT works and I get the impression that in certain scenarios RT is pointless and may either be producing worse results and/or have more performance hit than necessary.
It's not about that. In certain very dense geometry situations, if you use ray tracing the performance drop will be large if ray tracing is used 1:1 compared to geometry. You can use lower dense geometry in the BVH and get slightly worse RT quality but you don't drop as much in performance.

However, the end result is far higher in visual quality compared to non RT solutions.

This is mostly about shadows though in relation to Nanite. Reflections and global illumination didn't suffer as much.

Mega Geometry aims to fix that and make the performance drop not as severe, so you can use the dense geometry in the BVH.

But occasionally we have selected use of RT in the environments with the common mirror and puddles
Non ray traced reflections are either screen space or planar, neither work on curved surfaces, both costs lots of performance if done with high resolution.

Screen space in particular are horrible, they don't support mirrors as they can't handle off screen objects, they suffer from disocclusion artifacts, and disappear partially/completely with camera movement.
 
It's not about that. In certain very dense geometry situations, if you use ray tracing the performance drop will be large if ray tracing is used 1:1 compared to geometry. You can use lower dense geometry in the BVH and get slightly worse RT quality but you don't drop as much in performance.

However, the end result is far higher in visual quality compared to non RT solutions.

This is mostly about shadows though in relation to Nanite. Reflections and global illumination didn't suffer as much.

Mega Geometry aims to fix that and make the performance drop not as severe, so you can use the dense geometry in the BVH.


Non ray traced reflections are either screen space or planar, neither work on curved surfaces, both costs lots of performance if done with high resolution.

Screen space in particular are horrible, they don't support mirrors as they can't handle off screen objects, they suffer from disocclusion artifacts, and disappear partially/completely with camera movement.
I didn't suggest planar or screen space reflections. I made a specific case of flat reflective surfaces such us mirrors and puddles. For that it is less intensive and produce far better results to use mirrored geometry than rely on ugly results such as screen space reflections, or low geometry BVH or use performance intensive RT solutions
 
I didn't suggest planar or screen space reflections. I made a specific case of flat reflective surfaces such us mirrors and puddles. For that it is less intensive and produce far better results to use mirrored geometry than rely on ugly results such as screen space reflections, or low geometry BVH or use performance intensive RT solutions

Mirrors and puddles are planar surfaces. It’s not cheaper to rasterize the scene multiple times if there are lots of those on screen at once. It’s just not scalable.
 
Mirrors and puddles are planar surfaces. It’s not cheaper to rasterize the scene multiple times if there are lots of those on screen at once. It’s just not scalable.
It depends on the size of the reflection and area. You don't always need a duplication of the whole environment at the same detail to produce cheaper and better results.
 
It depends on the size of the reflection and area. You don't always need a duplication of the whole environment at the same detail to produce cheaper and better results.

The thing is that you can't be sure before hand whether that's enough. Obviously if you put some limits on the scene you can do something like that, such as limiting the engine to just draw at most one mirror at a time. If in all your scenes you only have at most one mirror per room, that'd probably be ok, but for some it can be too limiting.
The same goes for outdoor water surfaces. It can be even more difficult to limit one pool per viewpoint. Generally it's better (and cheaper) to just use a technique which works in all situations, rather than having some arbitrary limitations.
 
Generally it's better (and cheaper) to just use a technique which works in all situations, rather than having some arbitrary limitations.

People often say “well this and that game had cube maps or mirror reflections and looked great”. However those are not scalable solutions that can be applied in a general way to any content. That’s one of the benefits of RT. It is inherently scalable and generic. The only way to convince some folks is to go back in time and ask them to create a raster version of a game built around RT. We’re constantly going to get rose tinted nostalgia during the transition period.
 
Generally it's better (and cheaper) to just use a technique which works in all situations, rather than having some arbitrary limitations
the performance should increase accordingly, and it's going to take a lot of time. The rumours about the RTX 60XX have started...

For the first time EVER, the rumour mill surrounding the next-gen GPU lineup isn’t kicking off with the usual “2× performance” claims. Frankly, given the current trajectory of silicon scaling and power efficiency bottlenecks, I have no clue what to expect in two years 🤣🤣.

If AMD and Intel want to disrupt NVIDIA’s dominance, they can introduce a competitive architecture with a compelling perf-per-watt metric. This means not just raw rasterization gains but also efficiency-focused advancements that allow them to match NVIDIA’s performance while keeping power draw in check.

To summarize, the next major GPU iteration—expected in two years—will feature a modest 10% uplift in rasterization performance and a 20% boost in RT capabilities. VRAM capacity should increase (probably for Founders Edition SKUs), alongside an updated DLSS iteration and Frame Generation refinements. The transition to a 3nm fabrication node should theoretically improve power efficiency, but it may also be the limiting factor behind the relatively minor 10% rasterization gain due to clock-scaling constraints and diminishing returns in architectural optimizations.

 
Back
Top