I don't understand what are they doing in hardware that couldn't be done in a compute shader.
I want to see micropolygons because I don't think square soda cans are very realistic, nor sparse crowds or flat surfaces where
they should be bumpy or hairy, or buildings that you can't see inside or are underdetailed and so on.
I will admit that shadows are a good reason to RTRT but reflections I don't really notice that much when they're wrong (though I haven't played games in a long time, broken computer). A good use for low count RT would be AI/Physics/spatial Audio I think.
Don't pluck a hard drive straight out of the dock without letting it spin down first... they make a really unpleasant whirrrrrrrrgggggggnnnnnnn noise.
Have you like not played a video game since like 1998 or something? That is just not a problem in any sort of modern AAA game.
Also Turing actually adds some kind of new "mesh shading" step to the rendering pipeline, to basically replace the tesselator and geometry shader steps with something much more flexible. I haven't dug into it much but if there's any real substance to it, this would sate your micropolygons obsession.
A wide SIMD-type ALU is almost the worst possible architecture for doing raytracing. The shader cores are optimized for doing FMACs of a bunch of data in parallel; ray tracing is a lot of compares and branches that don't work well at all in that kind of core, since they implement it by taking both paths, and storing a mask of which lanes need to get which results. Nvidia did a comparison of a compute-shader version and a RT core version and it was a 10x difference, and for once I actually don't feel like that's bullshit.
GPUs are not as polygon-focused as they used to be and are now much more focused on compute shaders. IIRC the Radeon HD 4970 is still better at FP64 compute than any modern card?
It's been like a year I think? and even then my computer was pretty obsolete, but been keeping up more or less. For example the
world in the cyberpunk 2077 or Battlefield RTX demo is detailed but it still looks off in a way not explained by the inaccurate
rasterized lighting. Thats a vague sounding statement but I can't really think of anything else besides 'geometry is lacking detail'.
The branching thing makes sense, would these cores be able to be used for physics/collision detection? That could help a bit
though probably won't get anywhere close to the "Adaptive tearing and cracking of thin sheets" paper although anything is better
than stiff objects.
Jesus fuck.
Polycount is overrated, photo-real rendering looks that way due to the interaction of light, not the polygon density. It's the reason modern games look so good (BRDF and measured PBR surfaces), not necessarily that we have a ton more polygons.
You can make a scene in a photon-mapper that looks almost real much quicker than one in a raster rendering pipeline.
You can't skimp on polygon count if you want realistic silhouettes, who'd prefer alpha/textured trees and grass over
actual polys that you can animate and light much better. Even non-photorealistic rendering looks off at the current polygon
sizes.
Though doesn't raytracing and physics use very similar/the same data structures for accelerating processing?, might as well
move to raytracing at that point. All that branchiness and random accesses seem unavoidable.
Since every single ray can go where it pleases any time, you'd need to have a copy of the scene for every pixel which sounds
like an unlikely thing to happen.
Polycount also has significant diminishing returns at the point we're at. Better lighting is going to go a longer way towards making games look better, that and just more clutter and objects.
Anything recent where devs talk about where they use up their CPU and GPU frame budgets?
So I was having lots of ordering issues on Corsair's store last week. Someone from the team told me it should be resolved and I can re-buy what I needed.
Now I'll be buying so much stuff.
it would be like $30? unless you used usb to sata converters
I am convinced you haven't played any current-gen games on current-gen hardware. Or if you have, you're completely wrong on where you're assigning the blame for graphical defects.
Having done more reading, it appears that the ray-tracing cores are completely fixed-function, although Nvidia refuses to describe it in great detail. You feed them a ray and a scene definition, they spit back an array of hits, it's up to the shader to decide what to do with that data. So I don't think it will work with physics - and if it does, it definitely won't be exposed as a fully-programmable element, it'll just get rolled into PhysX.
That is not how raytracing works or has ever worked.
PS: can please you stop putting forced line breaks in your posts? Makes it really annoying to read.
I mean, to get a card and a 3x 5.25" to 4x 3.5" converter that's any good I'm spending about 100 bucks, which is also what an N40L costs
We talking about games?
Nobody played the BFV beta. Right?
are you being serious rn or are you just fucking with us
I stopped playing Battlefield games after BF3. I might grab BF1 if it's ever on a steep sale but I wouldn't be surprised if I just never play a Battlefield game again.
BF4 was the high-point of modern-era BF games IMO.
Movement, shooting, balance, all were pretty much perfect just prior/during/after the DICE LA adoption.
BF1 was probably a great game (I didn't play it, WWI doesn't do anything for me).
BFV is probably going to be amazing, but with how much hate is being hurled at at for having women in it, I don't know if it'll be a widespread success. BFV is really treading some new ground for modern Battlefield games.
I'm a weird, strange person who plays Battlefield primarily singleplayer. Look at my Steam account, you see that 584 hours I've logged in Battlefield 2? Entirely solo. Never even joined a lobby. Most of it was in a mod that lets you play versus bots on the full-sized maps.
I disliked BF3 because it took the exact same plot from BC2, drained it of all humor and wit, and swapped the nouns around so instead of racing to keep an EMP out of the hands of the Russians, you were racing to keep a nuke out of the hands of the Iranians, which might have been less obvious had they not literally used the same model for the MacGuffin. That was a deliberately cheesy, exaggerated plot for a comedic not-quite-parody of modern military fiction... playing it straight is like trying to remake Young Frankenstein as a serious, moody medical drama. That story made me lose all faith in the writers... and the fucking air-fighter section made me write off the game designers as well. I'm only faintly interested in BF1 because I've heard one or two of the singleplayer storylines weren't actually shit. Plus I may or may not have watched far too many documentaries on WW1 firearms lately.
I actually approve of BFV adding female character models. It's certainly accurate at least on the Russian front, and if I wanted super-obsessive historical realism, I'd be playing ARMA.
BC2 was awesome - open world 64 person battles running good enough with nice enough destructabilty on a big enough map.
BF3 was so-and-so. I played the SP and a bit of co-op and it was more of a city combat with lesser maps IMO.
BF1 was great. I only played the open beta, but it ran great for me on my pc and I thought about buying it for 5€ last weekend (or whenever it was) but I didn't do it as I don't have much time to game with my PC and my school laptop is pretty bad.
If you really ask, I'd rather play BF1942 and be cool with that. Plenty of weapons, big maps and big battles, where you might do something meaningful but you mostly just dick around and hope something happens.
WW2 ArmA when?
I also have to remind the Wirth's law, due to which I don't really play new games, even when they look like last gen games. Where I really noticed it was Dirt 3 and Dirt Rally. One ran at 60+fps max settings on my 1280x1024 x2 + 1680x1080 triple screens just fine, other has to be low, slightly mid for that on the same setup and barely reaches 60fps.
I wish we could get a game like red orchestra just set a bit more on the european side, red orchestra 2 was fun, but (imo) it had only a few good maps, it looked like mud was plastered over everything and the tanks were a little underwhelming (especially tank vs tank combat). There is a game on steam that might be what I'm looking for (Post scriptum) but it's early access atm and it really doesn't run well
Right, so I'm considering a GPU upgrade now that I've got a pair of 1440p freesync monitors, would a reasonably priced Vega 64 be a good idea? If not, then I may as well grab a 1080Ti when they drop in price a bit (if they do)
If you can handle the heat and power, the Vega 64 is an okay choice at MSRP.
The 1080 Ti, all day.
BC2 only supported 32 players, was a big scandal (at the time) because of that.
BC2 gets heavily whitewashed these days it seems, at launch a LOT of people were angry that they weren't getting the "full fat" "Battlefield" experience, it was a real departure.
I even think BC2 wasn't particularly great, it had huge netcode issues, really bad console-port style movement, and numerous balancing issues. I mean at least it was a Battlefield game on PC at the time, but it was far from the "real" thing PC players wanted.
Eventually DICE teased BF3, and everyone from the BF2 community was super excited, but BF3 ended up being a weird hybrid (RIP mods, battlerecorder, etc), and not particularly full-featured, but it was better than BC2 and BC2 was pretty forgotten.
Then BF4 came along, with an absolute flop of a launch, but was totally playable 6~ months into release, and by 12~months was by far the best modern Battlefield.
Lucky for me power isn't really a problem at all, got a pretty good 750w EVGA PSU atm. Heat wise I know that Vega is a bit of a hot bastard, depending on that I might throw a water block on.
ATM the pricing for 1080tis are totally fucked in the arse down here, I can't really justify the 300-400 dollar increase for a bit more performance unless NVIDIA drop down the pricing a bit.
Get a nice Powercolor or Sapphire Vega 64, OC the HBM2 to 1000-1100, drop the max clocks to 1500 and undervolt. Basically most problems solved.
The idea of undervolting and getting more performance boggles my mind.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.