Everyone talks about raytraced light. But no one talks about raytraced sound. Just imagine how good it would be having sound bounce off walls convincingly and finally with real time delay and reverb!
Yee! We could have had this ages ago with even wave-based simulations, which is more accurate to real-life btw. But for some reason no one adopts these realistic sound models... Even though they're decades old.
yes i would like in overwatch -now i got monosounds from the middle of the monitor - stero seems network related , you dont need it if the game engine desides that -which is almost always
@@ronnielenroberts6136 If the PS5 supports hardware-accelerated raytracing -- which it is rumoured to -- yep. The difference is primarily in how the rays themselves interact with the scene, but it's still the same fundamental thing, it's still shooting rays around the scene, and *that* is what RTX and other technologies do. They don't really accelerate the raytracing itself, they accelerate the underlying rays.
You can do lazers really easily, it's just a single ray, raytracing is hard because you have use a lot of rays to get details and soft lighting (global illumination)
@@ironraccoon3536 I too have 2080ti. And I too installed quake RTX. Cool thing is cool, but really, It was not enjoyable enough to go beyound 1st level. Source and Half-life 2, for example have already decent lightning map. Unless there is fully destructible world - there is like no need to sacrifice resolution.
Agreed. Personally, I found Fallout New Vegas to be textured and lighted absolutely hideously. I bet it would look much better with disabled textures and some ray tracing.
I usually tend to have lower end cards and I often just turn off all lighting and shadow effects for fps gains. To be honest, when I got my hands on beefier GPU, I could turn them on, but like 95% of games just look bad with them on. And this has been true since at least early 2000s. One day I just started to think what in game makes the most meaningful visual impact and for it's textures and resolution. Pretty much everything else including polygon count hardly matters and I wouldn't trade fps for those effects. I know that this is a bit retrospective, but I used to play Far Cry on FX 5200. It ran on 800x600 resolution and around 30 fps. Later I got ATi X800 Pro. It made a noticeable difference, but honestly I expected much more from it. I even got X800 XT PE and that upgrade made nearly 0 difference.
Minecraft ptgi kinda comes close, minimalistic textures and lets path tracing do all the work showing its full potential without clashing too much with textures
Jokes aside, exactly this was all the rage on the Amiga in the mid 90's. Especially since there was productive raytracing software all over the place with programs like Maxon Cinema 4, Reflections. Real3D, LightWave 3D etc. Amiga magazines (in germany) had competitions about spectacular raytraced scenes. Well with my unaccelerated Amiga 1200 that I used productively way into the '00s and Real3D just 20 hours was nothing for bigger scene. Higher resolutions and complex scenes could take days without more processing power. So most of the scenes were indeed untextured spheres, squares, tubes and cones with highly reflective surfaces.
i remember the Amiga juggling demo in 320x240 it could render roughly one Frame in one about 1 Hour. Ray-Tracing truly is the Holy gale of computer graphics, 22 Frames a second in 4k with a "complex" game as quake 2 is insanely fast.
I also experienced that when I first started to appreciate good graphics, that I also started to just notice how realistic real life is. Especially when I first found out about Ray tracing. Everytime I see "ambient occlusion", reflections or very complex lighting in real life it just makes me appreciate how beautiful real life can be. It made me really start to take a lot more pictures. edit: ( sorry if the writing of my sentences sounds a bit weird. I was really tired when writing this )
@@aethernets9442 You can optimize it to run decently. Tweak the global illumination and turn down your render scale a bit. With a 1080ti you can absolutely get a playable frame rate.
Unfortunately you need an rtx series card to run this. By turning the resolution scale down you can get a good frame rate, but the image will be quite blurry.
raytracing is the future of video game graphics, however most people don't see any real difference, because game engines have gotten so good at Faking it, and thus nvidia's big unveil as a bit of a flop, except for devs, and other people who understand what's going on
Well, raytracing is brand new, and normal lighting methods are very advanced, but they're very close, so raytracing definitely has a lot of room to grow going forward if or once it becomes more mainstream,since it'll quickly become more optimized
I'm surprised that ray-tracing is mostly demonstrated with reflections and not so much with bumping the lamp. As in, *literally* moving the light source like in Roger Rabbit and Toy Story.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider is the only mainstream game to demonstrate realtime-raytraced shadows at the moment. Personally I think Global Illumination is the most noticeable use of the technology - though it is also much more computationally expensive.
@@ShawFujikawa actually reflections are the most expensive because it requires more bounces to prevent a significant resolution drop off. Refraction is also extremely expensive and it's still an issue even on pre-renders with fireflies popping in.
That's because denoiser isn't able to denoise that fast and is heavily relying on previous frames. You've seen the time it takes for shadows to update, right?
I both pity and envy the youngest generation. They'll find it harder to appreciate stuff like this, but will also likely be around way longer than us and see even more crazy shit
JustJay You noobs all cry Half Life, why can't you do one post about Half Life, why you all cry in multiple posts????? Weirdo community this way!!!!!!!!
@@lucasrem bruh i'm talking about the raw noise sections in the video. It maxed out the bandwidth on my video decoder. This has nothing to do with the gpu, just video decoding. You know how if you watch a video with confetti or snow it absolutely kills the video quality? Yeah this is also like that, just cranked up to 11.
Imo the noticeable difference is so small that I would trade maybe 5fps for it but not more. Even in side by side comparisons, the normal reflections don't look bad, and I doubt most people would even notice ray-tracing if they're just playing the game and not looking for reflections. If they can make it fully run on the raytracing cores and have 0 decrease in fps then it would be really nice.
This tech is less for the consumer and more for the video game developer. It's all about lessening their workload and time invested in 'faking' graphics, hence making it easier for them to make the game (or possibly spend more resources into better writers and what not). Create a scene -> let the lights do their thing. The marketing however was weird, since NVidia seemingly aimed it at consumers instead of the developers first (presumably because of the speculation he laid out in the video regarding AMD).
I remember John Carmack doing a keynote talk about light rendering at Quakecon years ago and how ray tracing was the dream, weird to think we've come this far in such a short space of time
There is something special about watching a normal 2kliksphilip and to suddenly hear the roar of a dragon or a glimpse of the skyrim soundtrack, its so exciting and causes me to lapse back into the hype for Odgrub even though its been years
runforitman What processes can be handled by the cloud, only needing some light GPU solution in the system! Some iPad apps do this! Autodesk cloud i use!
They had an update that supported ray-tracing graphics cards, I think it was only 30% or something without the update, but that could still save hours. I don't know about how it compares to other graphics cards though
Thanks goes to Arthur Appel in 1968 who created the first ray tracing algorithm used for rendering, that was 51 years ago. It took NVIDIA 26 years after being founded to implement their version, so it took over a half a century to be widely available on consumer hardware in 2019. Just a neat little bit of information to know.
But the improvement is mind blowing. I think it shows the difference a lot more. Like philip said the difference in modern games is minimal cause they are so good at faking it or using tricks to simulate it. But ya I guess still kinda silly.
These kinds of effects normally had to be pre-rendered for minutes or hours or days or months depending on scene complexity. The fact that this can be done now in real time is amazing. Like its advertised, its a demo to show the potential of fully ray traced graphics, not just elements of it. Modern polygon counts paired with this are still difficult, so I don't think we will see modern fully ray traced games anytime soon. It also adds a really cool reason to go back and play old games.
It was demonstrated on modern games (Tomb Rider for example). This is opensource aimed for developers so they can see how to implement path tracing and denoise. I can imagine that indie game developers can benefit from ray tracing. I'm sure that most GPUs will have ray tracing implemented or be capable to render it in decent frame count soon.
I believe detailed 3D models and lighting are the most important elements to add realism - the later even more. And since raytracing is simpler to apply to old games, it will become a efficient method of reviving them.
@Neven Palvović Your first sentence is true, but your second is very much not. What that shader is able to pull off with the limited information it has access to is still incredibly impressive, with very similar fidelity to lower-level implementations like this.
@@balewaif You get none of the light/shadow play shown in this video. You do get plenty of visible glitches in form of abrupt lightning changes as you move though.
Omg my childhood came to life again!!! This looks amazing! Love what they did with this classic. I wish more games from that era got remade with all the modern graphics. Just remixing masterpieces into new level of epic.
It's also amazing for people who do 3d modeling, the render time is so much faster in Blender with rtx enabled that I literally couldn't believe it when I first tried it
Agreed with pretty much everything you said. I recently built a proper gaming PC after being stuck with a weak laptop for years, and I went with an RTX 2060. Not because I wanted the fancy RTX hardware, but because I wanted something around GTX 1080 performance and this card was close enough to that while being considerably cheaper because prices around here are stupid and the used market might as well not even exist. But while I wouldn't consider the DXR features to be worthwhile for the average gamer at this point, I appreciate the fact that someone took the first step. Hell, the interest in real time raytracing has been at an all time high these past months with the Minecraft mods, the new Reshade Global Illumination thing (Digital Foundry did a video with it recently too), the DXR acceleration in Unreal and Unity, and Crytek's demo. What I want to add is that, since raytracing is supposedly a much easier way for developers to do lighting compared to traditional methods, combined with things such as AI upscaling (ESRGAN and the like), remastering old games might end up being considerably easier in the future while still looking somewhat comparable to brand new games. Which is why I think that Quake 2 RTX is the best thing to have come out of the RTX cards, because like you said modern games are already capable of looking fairly close to fully raytraced 3D through traditional methods, and thus they don't really look particularly impressive at first glance from simply adding DXR reflections or shadows. Metro Exodus does look amazing in places, though.
Wow, indeed! Good observation. I also think that sound is woefully neglected in games. Most people not having proper Dolby Surround sound equipment and the inability to showcase that to potential customers is perhaps one major stumbling block.
"I don't see them creating hardware for it/making techdemos" -> That is because you most likely got some benefits from Nvidia. What about Cryteks techdemo running on a Vega 56 which costs around 250€?
2:45 You basically described the principle of why roughness cutoffs are important. For example, lowering the DXR setting on BFV makes it so the game doesn’t use ray tracing for more less reflective objects. This means stuff like wood and rock would probably receive less reflection detail. It’s useful because it saves performance and doesn’t use ray tracing for places where it’s not as necessary.
I also have a 1070 and have settled on 30-40fps at %70 scale of 1280x720. But I think 60fps at 480 is worth it when you consider thats the kind of resolutions this game was originally played at, but now it's with ray-tracing.
As much as I prefer the original games art style. There was a moment where I was looking at a reflective surface, saw an enemy run up behind me, and I quickly turned around and blasted them. That felt so cool.
Inspirer Your system, cheap old i5 7600K, RTX 2070??? is it running any good????? Nerdy people love hardware, just hobby gear, nerdy hobby gear! Convince himself??? This is what nerdy people do with their money! Other people just use a console, some need to run these console titles on PC!
It would be cool if Microsoft released a version of halo 1 with all the original graphics but with raytracing, seems like it would be a good way of promoting a future console or the upcoming pc release of the MCC
This is the most enjoyable ray tracing showcase i have seen so far it looks visually fun to just shoot and see what the light will do, or the flares too on other games like Battlefield 5 im like, oh... thats cool
With raytracing simpler architecture looks very good. I think a lot of architecture in video games is overly complex to hide th bad lighting, which makes it look unrealistic.
As you said, most people don't understand what they are seeing. I'm always sad of seeing the amazing work of Sonic Ether (minecraft shaders) what has done on his very own for a JAVA game, and seeing the struggle that nVidia as a whole company is dealing with.
What is so remarkable is how, despite being low-poly and somewhat abstract, ray tracing makes Quake 2 seem like a real place that would have real tactile feedback. I would love to see some PS1/N64/6th gen era games receive this treatment. There's something incredibly satisfying about how much you can make low-detail assets shine with photoreal lighting.
Why are people using Quake for demonstrating ray tracing? Is it just because it's an old enough 3D engine for it to work smoothly? Because it really destroys the bespoke environment design of the levels, all for a few shinies that are soon forgotten - the left side looks way better in that first comparison shot. I'd love to see it in a more realistic game, that'll really prove its usefulness.
I do like your point in the middle there - ray tracing, even at lower resolutions, is still infinitely more exciting than something as banal as 4K. Graphics effects and shaders always have a greater capacity to improve a game's look than pure pixel output.
it is because it has been made open source so the academic community can use a game with some kind of actual recognition to test limits of new graphical things + it was pretty cutting edge for its time so it has lots of stuff good to demo
All of the above + the ray tracing is far more noticeable when you have a game that is this old. If you put ray tracing on a new one it just looks like you went from Medium to Ultra. This looks like going from Very low to Crysis.
From a performance perspective, the low poly geometry really helps with performance. The raytracer used in this and any RTX games is interacting with an actual mesh, so the performance scales with the amount of polygons in the mesh. The more polygons, the worse the performance hit. The less, the better. Quake has very basic geometry with a very low amount of polygons, so the raytracer is actually quite fast for each ray calculated. This is also kinda why the raytracing shaders for Minecraft are possible, the basic geometry of Minecraft allows the raytracer to run a lot faster, because the data behind it is a lot simpler. (The raytracer used in these Minecraft shaders are different, though, as it's interacting with voxels in a 3D texture, not an actual mesh. Because blocks are so large, it allows the shader to use a very low resolution 3D texture, which helps a lot with performance.)
7:00 are u joking???? You say it’s something which is not completely ready now, we shouldn’t be able to use it blabla.. Then why sell it in the first place? They could easily do the research inhouse and release it when its really ready. But Nvidia actually forces the end user, put a non ready technology in a gpu, double the price, there you go
Almost all of these effects can be pulled off convincingly without any raycasting using standard openGL shaders. Obviously RTX can do some cool stuff, but this sort of seems like a "fake" demo that overemphasizes the use and power of raycasting. I would much prefer to see a tech demo showcasing things that are effectively impossible without RTX
Just to put the performance a bit more into perspective - I recently serviced an Atari ATW800 from 1987, which was partially demoed with raytracing. Using 4 CPUs (performance scales pretty much linearly), rendering a single still image with 4 basic geometric shapes still requires 10 minutes at 512x512 at 256 colors - which was considered incredibly fast at the time. I have a video of it on my channel in case anyone is interested. I'll be holding a presentation about that machine soon and I'm extremely pleased that I will be able to claim "realtime raytracing is real now folks!"
2:46-3:10 Basically what I was thinking for the entire time I knew what raytracing is. The thing is we are humans, not evolution, nothing can be good enough for us, we continuously strive for better.
Takes me back 15 years ago when we had videos/demos of Quake *3* in ray tracing. Nice to see we don’t need a cluster of computers anymore to make it run, though :-)
10 years too early. In ten years the hardware will be good enough. But for now, it should have stayed a proof of concept in nVidia's lab and never ship. You talk about this being the real deal and not faking it, but the truth is that the RTX 2080Ti is unable to display your path traced frame properly. It has to fake it by computing a ridiculously small amount of rays, and then interpolate what's in between pixels. And sure enough it cant even do the really small amount of marches necessary in one frame. This aint the real time path tracing we were promised by nVidia, and it would be a stretch to call it REAL TIME path tracing at all. Should you buy a RTX card? Well, would you have recommended buying the Fujifilm Fujix DS-X in the late 80s? 400 KPixel, all digital. Sure digital photography was the future, but at the time, you'd be better off buying film.
Amazing video. I originally got 2080 because I was upgrading to from 2500K to Ryzen 2700X and wanted nice GPU to accompany it. That card died in 4 days. So I got my money back, added few more bucks and got 2080TI instead. Why not go all the way? And now with Cyberpunk, Vampire Bloodlines, Doom, Wolfenstein, Control, Watchdogs 3 and other games all getting RTX support, I am damn glad I got it. In the meantime I can play games in 1440 and 4K at nice framerates.
I dont get why are you so rough on AMD. And yes games with raytracing and tech demoes are really excessive and often unrealistic(cuz of not adjusted light sources and overbright and other issues) with it to pretend it looks better by being flashy. Thing is that it doesnt, it just is accurate. As for the very last graphics jump that is noticeaable that we will ever have, well. It's good but nothing we havent seen in some form already. It was used in cgi and animated movies for decades.
amd deserves it. they haven't released anything worthwhile since the 7870. sure there are good cards since then, but that's all on pricing. the r9 290 was fast but it was hot and loud. amd keeps having to push their stuff to the brink to get competitive performance and as a result we get stuff like that. hot, power-thirsty and with basically no overclock headroom.
Honestly, I think Philip would make a nice addition to the Digital Foundry's team. His view about games and technology is unique and interesting, I could listen to him for literal days! Anyway, I hope they notice your talent and your passion. Keep up the good work, man!
It's mostly the fault of the baked lighting in texture and normal mapping simulating a lot of the actual lighting complexity and the fact that those two actually interfere with the ray-tracing reducing the accuracy of the lighting. However a modern game with full-on ray tracing as it's only lighting method would look and feel significantly better and likely fall into photo-realism territory extremely easily especially with photogrammetry and tesselation as the primary building blocks. In fact if you're into 3D modeling and posing you learn early on that your textures have to have no shadows baked in and that direct lighting is important. This is why game devs often have to go places themselves and take photos with correct lighting to get textures that look proper in videogames.
I think I prefer q2vkpt's implementation better... The textures seem slightly less flat, with a nice layer of AO and reflectivity on top of that for not much of a performance drop. The extra glass reflections are sweet tho!
"Somewhat strangely, it's made me appreciate it more in real life as well" I went through a similar phase when I played a game with heavy normal mapping and phong shading for the first time.
9:24 don’t be fooled by the process name game, believe it or not TSMCs 12nm process has a slightly LOWER transistor density than their 16nm. The purpose of 12nm is it’s cheaper, yields more reliably, and clocks slightly higher. Very important when you are pushing out chips that are 50-70% bigger than your previous generation.
Good choice and decision-making process. Yeah, I'm waiting. But what you did, I did same thing with 1080ti. Happened on a good deal one night when it was like $550 with a 5 year warranty. So, I jumped. I came from an AMD 290X, so it is a huge jump.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
1997: Need a powerful PC run Quake 2
2016: Need a powerful PC to run Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
2019: Need a powerful PC to run Quake 2
2020: Need a powerful PC to run tf2
@@terner1234 i doubt that, tf2 isn't gonna get any updates by 2020, let alone a graphics update.
@@bemo_10 more hats are making performance worse
@@wadimek116 oh that's true.
What about crysis?😧
I love that playable Tech Demos are making a comeback.
The last one I remember was NVidia Flex.
MegaKosan god I still love messing about with it
Yeah it was featured on Killing Floor 2
there was the nvidia fun house for vr 2 years ago
Also the return of that fairy with Kepler in 2012.
@@solarstrike33 7 years ago already, damn.
Everyone talks about raytraced light. But no one talks about raytraced sound.
Just imagine how good it would be having sound bounce off walls convincingly and finally with real time delay and reverb!
Yee! We could have had this ages ago with even wave-based simulations, which is more accurate to real-life btw.
But for some reason no one adopts these realistic sound models... Even though they're decades old.
Isn't Playstation 5 reported to be capable of it?
@@ronnielenroberts6136 no
yes i would like in overwatch -now i got monosounds from the middle of the monitor - stero seems network related , you dont need it if the game engine desides that -which is almost always
@@ronnielenroberts6136 If the PS5 supports hardware-accelerated raytracing -- which it is rumoured to -- yep. The difference is primarily in how the rays themselves interact with the scene, but it's still the same fundamental thing, it's still shooting rays around the scene, and *that* is what RTX and other technologies do. They don't really accelerate the raytracing itself, they accelerate the underlying rays.
A Laser Tag game with mirrors around the map would be a cool RTX demo
How to melt down a NASA computer.
Dad
or the end of John wick 2 being built in engine
You can do lazers really easily, it's just a single ray, raytracing is hard because you have use a lot of rays to get details and soft lighting (global illumination)
Josie don't actually need ray tracing for that though, it would still just be hitscan with reflections
I'm hoping for Half-Life 1 with Ray Tracing. It'l just be like Half-Life: Source again, but without the bugs!
*laughs in Black Mesa*
Dunno, for me Source is the best half-life
@@VK-sz4it I kinda agree. I'm a sucker for ragdoll physics and good lighting.
@@ironraccoon3536 Good lighting you say?..
@@ironraccoon3536 I too have 2080ti. And I too installed quake RTX. Cool thing is cool, but really, It was not enjoyable enough to go beyound 1st level. Source and Half-life 2, for example have already decent lightning map. Unless there is fully destructible world - there is like no need to sacrifice resolution.
looking at a twenty something year old game with no textures and it's gorgeous. this shows really clearly how important good lighting is.
Agreed. Personally, I found Fallout New Vegas to be textured and lighted absolutely hideously. I bet it would look much better with disabled textures and some ray tracing.
I usually tend to have lower end cards and I often just turn off all lighting and shadow effects for fps gains. To be honest, when I got my hands on beefier GPU, I could turn them on, but like 95% of games just look bad with them on. And this has been true since at least early 2000s.
One day I just started to think what in game makes the most meaningful visual impact and for it's textures and resolution. Pretty much everything else including polygon count hardly matters and I wouldn't trade fps for those effects.
I know that this is a bit retrospective, but I used to play Far Cry on FX 5200. It ran on 800x600 resolution and around 30 fps. Later I got ATi X800 Pro. It made a noticeable difference, but honestly I expected much more from it. I even got X800 XT PE and that upgrade made nearly 0 difference.
We need a SUPER HOT style game with Raytracting. Basically no texture
THIS
Minecraft ptgi kinda comes close, minimalistic textures and lets path tracing do all the work showing its full potential without clashing too much with textures
You should check out my engine then!
ruclips.net/video/fI7iwHCRzKk/видео.html
Isaax
Who are your WE, you and your mum?
U just need skills! reverse engineering old titles, or do demo's in new engines now!
Is Destruction Darius 2 coming with real-time ray tracing? ;)
To be fair ray tracing for 2D games isn't too hard to add to the game
DD is not 2d
@@Daddy_Dagoth It is
@@Daddy_Dagoth DD *is* 2D
Oberst Schulz It’s 2d
Who needs an RTX card when we can render a 320x240 ray-traced scene of untextured spheres in 20 hours on a Commodore 64?
Just before it explodes
Jokes aside, exactly this was all the rage on the Amiga in the mid 90's. Especially since there was productive raytracing software all over the place with programs like Maxon Cinema 4, Reflections. Real3D, LightWave 3D etc. Amiga magazines (in germany) had competitions about spectacular raytraced scenes. Well with my unaccelerated Amiga 1200 that I used productively way into the '00s and Real3D just 20 hours was nothing for bigger scene. Higher resolutions and complex scenes could take days without more processing power. So most of the scenes were indeed untextured spheres, squares, tubes and cones with highly reflective surfaces.
i remember the Amiga juggling demo in 320x240 it could render roughly one Frame in one about 1 Hour. Ray-Tracing truly is the Holy gale of computer graphics, 22 Frames a second in 4k with a "complex" game as quake 2 is insanely fast.
remember seeing this and thought it looked amazing: ruclips.net/video/QNrT2MSCkzQ/видео.html
1 frame per 20 h, hmmm..... so I don't have to care about lagging internet connection anymore.
I recently got a 1440p monitor, now I can enjoy Philip in _even more quality_ with _more pixels_
I'm watching on a 1440p phone screen
I also experienced that when I first started to appreciate good graphics, that I also started to just notice how realistic real life is. Especially when I first found out about Ray tracing. Everytime I see "ambient occlusion", reflections or very complex lighting in real life it just makes me appreciate how beautiful real life can be. It made me really start to take a lot more pictures.
edit: ( sorry if the writing of my sentences sounds a bit weird. I was really tired when writing this )
Ha, 4 to 6 FPS on a GTX 1060 6gb
A hellalolalolot of fps
im getting 20 with a 1080Ti
Xd
@@aethernets9442 You can optimize it to run decently. Tweak the global illumination and turn down your render scale a bit. With a 1080ti you can absolutely get a playable frame rate.
@@M1ndblast ye, but no thanks
Unfortunately you need an rtx series card to run this. By turning the resolution scale down you can get a good frame rate, but the image will be quite blurry.
Should i try it on 1050ti then?😂
We write the year 2022
Everything is chromed and wet.
*FUUUTUUURE*
and made of plastic like fortnite
raytracing is the future of video game graphics, however most people don't see any real difference, because game engines have gotten so good at Faking it, and thus nvidia's big unveil as a bit of a flop, except for devs, and other people who understand what's going on
Most people interested in PLAYING (and not looking at) a game dont give 2 shits about it...
Well, raytracing is brand new, and normal lighting methods are very advanced, but they're very close, so raytracing definitely has a lot of room to grow going forward if or once it becomes more mainstream,since it'll quickly become more optimized
but remember. ray tracing wont replace the existing technique that like all dev used
1997: Can It Run Quake 2?
2007: Can It Run Crysis?
2019: Can It Run Quake 2?
Underrated comment!
2022: Can It Run Crysis 4?
UnknownVengeance
1997, mini Glide, 3Dfx card, cheap PC enough...
Now RTX 2080 cards!
Also 2019: Can I run Call of Duty Modern Warfare?
@@syky145 NO.
I'm surprised that ray-tracing is mostly demonstrated with reflections and not so much with bumping the lamp.
As in, *literally* moving the light source like in Roger Rabbit and Toy Story.
You can literally and seamlessly move the sun in Quake 2 RTX
Shadow of the Tomb Raider is the only mainstream game to demonstrate realtime-raytraced shadows at the moment.
Personally I think Global Illumination is the most noticeable use of the technology - though it is also much more computationally expensive.
@@ShawFujikawa actually reflections are the most expensive because it requires more bounces to prevent a significant resolution drop off. Refraction is also extremely expensive and it's still an issue even on pre-renders with fireflies popping in.
That's because denoiser isn't able to denoise that fast and is heavily relying on previous frames. You've seen the time it takes for shadows to update, right?
*banned from r/ayymd*
Imagine playing F.E.A.R with it's amazing lighting with raytracing
I would pay for F.E.A.R. remastered with AAA graphics and RTX.
GTA IV's Shadow Density was pretty good when you block a light source
GTA IV graphic engine was so advanced it still runs like gobshit even on modern hardware.
@@SMGJohn I have an R9 380 and can get ~45fps on the absolute max settings, 60-100 with drawdistance on human levels
+zolika1351
45 fps on 1080p? Still bad, GTA IV is old game.
@@SMGJohn 45fps on 1440p, and on an AMD card from 2015
@@seanathonhooper I wonder why dumbasses think that IV is the best?
A game series I'd love to see with ray tracing is Thief (The ones from Eidos and Looking Glass Studios)
Provided they're at least directx 8, you could give it a try yourself with Pascal Gilcher's universal (albeit screen-space only) RT shader from qUINT
Xawis Deadly Shadows, yes. Thief 1/2? Nope by default, yes with current mods.
Great idea.
Odgrub vs the Ebony Warrior wasn't a troll was it 😢
The 2080ti is a diamond sword with sharpness IV, and looting III,
The Radeon 7 is a diamond sword with sharpness V, and fire aspect.
Randy Co what a perfect analogy
I have no idea how this analogy works 😂
@@YourPalHDee Sharpness is computing power, looting is efficiency, fire aspect means it gets hot
@@inv41id cool, thanks.
@@inv41id looting, as in, what it does to your wallet
I both pity and envy the youngest generation. They'll find it harder to appreciate stuff like this, but will also likely be around way longer than us and see even more crazy shit
As soon as I read this comment, I can see PC gamers can duke it out in 1v1 deathmatch Pokemon style
@@zudy9067 wanna maybe pass that one by me again?
Three years later, and the analysis and predictions from this video about the future of the battle between AMD and Nvidia are amazingly prescient
If Quake Ray Tracing is here Half Life could be next
Then Unreal and Unreal Tournament 99
JustJay
You noobs all cry Half Life, why can't you do one post about Half Life, why you all cry in multiple posts?????
Weirdo community this way!!!!!!!!
@@lucasremI agree
Wolf 3D, Doom 1-2, Duke 3D raytracing when?
2:35 the thing that really blew me away about the water in RTX was when you partially submerge the gun in water, it looks *really* convincing.
4:32 damn now I want a battlefield skiing simulator.
Steep?
Did he just drop the news that Destruction Darius 2 is finished? Hype!
wait when i wasn't listening
William Waffle 12:32
the raw noise sections maxed out the bandwidth and absolutely killed my cpu.
nice.
Hoàng Trần Minh
The noise, what did u do, RTX 2080 ti too, low resolutions?
Killed it, what did it do, too hot, over 120 Celsius, bad build you did?
@@lucasrem bruh i'm talking about the raw noise sections in the video. It maxed out the bandwidth on my video decoder. This has nothing to do with the gpu, just video decoding.
You know how if you watch a video with confetti or snow it absolutely kills the video quality? Yeah this is also like that, just cranked up to 11.
2021: Need a powerful PC to mine bitcoin
2022: Need a powerful PC to run Quake 2
Man I love Witchard Phillips from Digital Foundry. Such detailed explanation of the inner workings of the game.
Imo the noticeable difference is so small that I would trade maybe 5fps for it but not more. Even in side by side comparisons, the normal reflections don't look bad, and I doubt most people would even notice ray-tracing if they're just playing the game and not looking for reflections. If they can make it fully run on the raytracing cores and have 0 decrease in fps then it would be really nice.
This tech is less for the consumer and more for the video game developer. It's all about lessening their workload and time invested in 'faking' graphics, hence making it easier for them to make the game (or possibly spend more resources into better writers and what not). Create a scene -> let the lights do their thing.
The marketing however was weird, since NVidia seemingly aimed it at consumers instead of the developers first (presumably because of the speculation he laid out in the video regarding AMD).
Oh boy, I when I saw the thumbnail I thought this is a Digital Foundry vid
What a pleasant surprise it was to hear philip
The intro was also quite cheeky! "Hi, Philip, NOT from Digital Foundry"😁
I remember John Carmack doing a keynote talk about light rendering at Quakecon years ago and how ray tracing was the dream, weird to think we've come this far in such a short space of time
12:31 wait Destruction Darius 2 is done?
But...
An honest review of the meaning of ray tracing with no bullshit or crapping on others! This is why independent reviewers are needed!
I think the Gothic series would be beautiful with raytracing
There is something special about watching a normal 2kliksphilip and to suddenly hear the roar of a dragon or a glimpse of the skyrim soundtrack, its so exciting and causes me to lapse back into the hype for Odgrub even though its been years
Imagine how fast these could render blender scenes
runforitman
What processes can be handled by the cloud, only needing some light GPU solution in the system!
Some iPad apps do this! Autodesk cloud i use!
They had an update that supported ray-tracing graphics cards, I think it was only 30% or something without the update, but that could still save hours. I don't know about how it compares to other graphics cards though
Thanks goes to Arthur Appel in 1968 who created the first ray tracing algorithm used for rendering, that was 51 years ago.
It took NVIDIA 26 years after being founded to implement their version, so it took over a half a century to be widely available on consumer hardware in 2019.
Just a neat little bit of information to know.
this and minecraft convinced me about how good ray tracing can look
There some custom resource pack that makes minecraft look like some 3d architecture program
You suddenly appeared in my feed and now I'm in love with your channel. Yay?
I still find it silly that the game to demonstrate a cutting edge graphical feature... Is a game from 1998.
But the improvement is mind blowing. I think it shows the difference a lot more. Like philip said the difference in modern games is minimal cause they are so good at faking it or using tricks to simulate it. But ya I guess still kinda silly.
Lol
These kinds of effects normally had to be pre-rendered for minutes or hours or days or months depending on scene complexity. The fact that this can be done now in real time is amazing. Like its advertised, its a demo to show the potential of fully ray traced graphics, not just elements of it. Modern polygon counts paired with this are still difficult, so I don't think we will see modern fully ray traced games anytime soon. It also adds a really cool reason to go back and play old games.
It was demonstrated on modern games (Tomb Rider for example). This is opensource aimed for developers so they can see how to implement path tracing and denoise. I can imagine that indie game developers can benefit from ray tracing. I'm sure that most GPUs will have ray tracing implemented or be capable to render it in decent frame count soon.
Try Metro Exodus if you want a modern showcase
I believe detailed 3D models and lighting are the most important elements to add realism - the later even more.
And since raytracing is simpler to apply to old games, it will become a efficient method of reviving them.
How about Pascal Gilcher's Ray Tracing shader for ReShade? You should make a video about this.
That shader is only using information from screen space. It's not even close to this.
@Neven Palvović Your first sentence is true, but your second is very much not. What that shader is able to pull off with the limited information it has access to is still incredibly impressive, with very similar fidelity to lower-level implementations like this.
@@balewaif You get none of the light/shadow play shown in this video. You do get plenty of visible glitches in form of abrupt lightning changes as you move though.
@Neven Palvović That doesn't sound like my experience with it at all-try changing your settings.
Omg my childhood came to life again!!! This looks amazing! Love what they did with this classic. I wish more games from that era got remade with all the modern graphics. Just remixing masterpieces into new level of epic.
I'll consider updating my hardware right as soon as games that require high end gear are good again as GAMES.
It's also amazing for people who do 3d modeling, the render time is so much faster in Blender with rtx enabled that I literally couldn't believe it when I first tried it
you know what's more crazy to me? that RTX 2060 can run this in 1080p in ~50 fps or in 720p in ~70
Иван Ларионов
Crazy guy, what did you do here, just lower the resolution!
Agreed with pretty much everything you said. I recently built a proper gaming PC after being stuck with a weak laptop for years, and I went with an RTX 2060. Not because I wanted the fancy RTX hardware, but because I wanted something around GTX 1080 performance and this card was close enough to that while being considerably cheaper because prices around here are stupid and the used market might as well not even exist. But while I wouldn't consider the DXR features to be worthwhile for the average gamer at this point, I appreciate the fact that someone took the first step.
Hell, the interest in real time raytracing has been at an all time high these past months with the Minecraft mods, the new Reshade Global Illumination thing (Digital Foundry did a video with it recently too), the DXR acceleration in Unreal and Unity, and Crytek's demo.
What I want to add is that, since raytracing is supposedly a much easier way for developers to do lighting compared to traditional methods, combined with things such as AI upscaling (ESRGAN and the like), remastering old games might end up being considerably easier in the future while still looking somewhat comparable to brand new games. Which is why I think that Quake 2 RTX is the best thing to have come out of the RTX cards, because like you said modern games are already capable of looking fairly close to fully raytraced 3D through traditional methods, and thus they don't really look particularly impressive at first glance from simply adding DXR reflections or shadows. Metro Exodus does look amazing in places, though.
Thanks for beta testing phil ill buy the amd version for half the price when it comes out. :^)
"BUT AMD IS WEAK THO!!!!!!!"
I'm more excited for pathtracing's applications for sound rendering, honestly.
Wow, indeed! Good observation. I also think that sound is woefully neglected in games. Most people not having proper Dolby Surround sound equipment and the inability to showcase that to potential customers is perhaps one major stumbling block.
2kliksphilip: cool video about ray tracing
Ogrumb II: Am I a joke to you?
Fuck, now Philip has a better PC than me
"I don't see them creating hardware for it/making techdemos" -> That is because you most likely got some benefits from Nvidia. What about Cryteks techdemo running on a Vega 56 which costs around 250€?
AMD actually had raytracing tech demos back in 2011, and they were in real time.
Can you play this techdemo? no? Well then
2:45 You basically described the principle of why roughness cutoffs are important. For example, lowering the DXR setting on BFV makes it so the game doesn’t use ray tracing for more less reflective objects. This means stuff like wood and rock would probably receive less reflection detail. It’s useful because it saves performance and doesn’t use ray tracing for places where it’s not as necessary.
I got 60 fps with a GTX 1070 on 640x480.
I also have a 1070 and have settled on 30-40fps at %70 scale of 1280x720. But I think 60fps at 480 is worth it when you consider thats the kind of resolutions this game was originally played at, but now it's with ray-tracing.
As much as I prefer the original games art style. There was a moment where I was looking at a reflective surface, saw an enemy run up behind me, and I quickly turned around and blasted them. That felt so cool.
Wait.. destruction darius 2 is pretty much done??
You're not the only one comparing lighting in games to lighting in real life. It's an interesting phenomenon.
13 minutes of Philip attempts to convince himself that it was the right decision to buy 2080 Ti. Alright alright, joking :D
Inspirer
Your system, cheap old i5 7600K, RTX 2070??? is it running any good?????
Nerdy people love hardware, just hobby gear, nerdy hobby gear!
Convince himself??? This is what nerdy people do with their money!
Other people just use a console, some need to run these console titles on PC!
It would be cool if Microsoft released a version of halo 1 with all the original graphics but with raytracing, seems like it would be a good way of promoting a future console or the upcoming pc release of the MCC
Yeah, rtx quake in 2019 is ok, but have you tried stalker, from 2007? (Mb need to configurate some settings, stalkash (ru-youtuber) will help you)
This is the most enjoyable ray tracing showcase i have seen so far
it looks visually fun to just shoot and see what the light will do, or the flares too
on other games like Battlefield 5 im like, oh... thats cool
"I feel that criticising performance shows that you don't understand what it is that you are seeing."
Exactly
With raytracing simpler architecture looks very good. I think a lot of architecture in video games is overly complex to hide th bad lighting, which makes it look unrealistic.
so when are you merging with DF? ;)
10:45 HOLY HECKIN RAILGUN LIGHTING 🤯
Deus EX Ray Tracing when?
As you said, most people don't understand what they are seeing.
I'm always sad of seeing the amazing work of Sonic Ether (minecraft shaders) what has done on his very own for a JAVA game, and seeing the struggle that nVidia as a whole company is dealing with.
Buys a £1000 GPU
Plays a £5 game from 1997
at 80 fps
@@buckeye_cs And that
i just got my 2060 from msi and i love the fact that there are more and more rtx games
Your 4K fps is what I get when running this on a GTX 1080 in 720p. :|
What is so remarkable is how, despite being low-poly and somewhat abstract, ray tracing makes Quake 2 seem like a real place that would have real tactile feedback. I would love to see some PS1/N64/6th gen era games receive this treatment. There's something incredibly satisfying about how much you can make low-detail assets shine with photoreal lighting.
Why are people using Quake for demonstrating ray tracing? Is it just because it's an old enough 3D engine for it to work smoothly? Because it really destroys the bespoke environment design of the levels, all for a few shinies that are soon forgotten - the left side looks way better in that first comparison shot. I'd love to see it in a more realistic game, that'll really prove its usefulness.
I do like your point in the middle there - ray tracing, even at lower resolutions, is still infinitely more exciting than something as banal as 4K. Graphics effects and shaders always have a greater capacity to improve a game's look than pure pixel output.
Probably because Quake is open source so the RTX implementation can be done at a much deeper level
it is because it has been made open source so the academic community can use a game with some kind of actual recognition to test limits of new graphical things + it was pretty cutting edge for its time so it has lots of stuff good to demo
All of the above + the ray tracing is far more noticeable when you have a game that is this old. If you put ray tracing on a new one it just looks like you went from Medium to Ultra. This looks like going from Very low to Crysis.
From a performance perspective, the low poly geometry really helps with performance. The raytracer used in this and any RTX games is interacting with an actual mesh, so the performance scales with the amount of polygons in the mesh. The more polygons, the worse the performance hit. The less, the better. Quake has very basic geometry with a very low amount of polygons, so the raytracer is actually quite fast for each ray calculated.
This is also kinda why the raytracing shaders for Minecraft are possible, the basic geometry of Minecraft allows the raytracer to run a lot faster, because the data behind it is a lot simpler. (The raytracer used in these Minecraft shaders are different, though, as it's interacting with voxels in a 3D texture, not an actual mesh. Because blocks are so large, it allows the shader to use a very low resolution 3D texture, which helps a lot with performance.)
@3:45 No shame. This universe has some pretty good graphics
7:00 are u joking???? You say it’s something which is not completely ready now, we shouldn’t be able to use it blabla..
Then why sell it in the first place? They could easily do the research inhouse and release it when its really ready.
But Nvidia actually forces the end user, put a non ready technology in a gpu, double the price, there you go
ICEMANZIDANE the gpu’s are still considerably better than the older batch and it’s still fun to use!
ICEMANZIDANE
7.00??? nerdy jokes?? is that humor now???
humor, nerdy people just can't do that!, HDD SD NVMe in my ass muahahaha jokes here....
I LOOVE the idea of spending effort on lighting, instead of textures. This is an enabler
Almost all of these effects can be pulled off convincingly without any raycasting using standard openGL shaders. Obviously RTX can do some cool stuff, but this sort of seems like a "fake" demo that overemphasizes the use and power of raycasting. I would much prefer to see a tech demo showcasing things that are effectively impossible without RTX
Just to put the performance a bit more into perspective - I recently serviced an Atari ATW800 from 1987, which was partially demoed with raytracing. Using 4 CPUs (performance scales pretty much linearly), rendering a single still image with 4 basic geometric shapes still requires 10 minutes at 512x512 at 256 colors - which was considered incredibly fast at the time.
I have a video of it on my channel in case anyone is interested. I'll be holding a presentation about that machine soon and I'm extremely pleased that I will be able to claim "realtime raytracing is real now folks!"
for these little gimmicks 20xx cards are so not worth it.. to me...
I honestly turn these kinds of gimmicks off EVERY game. FPS to me is king
2:46-3:10
Basically what I was thinking for the entire time I knew what raytracing is.
The thing is we are humans, not evolution, nothing can be good enough for us, we continuously strive for better.
5:27 I don't care about Fallout 76, it's a bad game.
Takes me back 15 years ago when we had videos/demos of Quake *3* in ray tracing. Nice to see we don’t need a cluster of computers anymore to make it run, though :-)
Fanboyism is strong with this one.
This and Minecraft are the two best examples so far and RTX clearly works and will work well in future with more performance. Great video bud.
10 years too early. In ten years the hardware will be good enough. But for now, it should have stayed a proof of concept in nVidia's lab and never ship.
You talk about this being the real deal and not faking it, but the truth is that the RTX 2080Ti is unable to display your path traced frame properly. It has to fake it by computing a ridiculously small amount of rays, and then interpolate what's in between pixels. And sure enough it cant even do the really small amount of marches necessary in one frame.
This aint the real time path tracing we were promised by nVidia, and it would be a stretch to call it REAL TIME path tracing at all.
Should you buy a RTX card? Well, would you have recommended buying the Fujifilm Fujix DS-X in the late 80s? 400 KPixel, all digital. Sure digital photography was the future, but at the time, you'd be better off buying film.
Laughs in Minecraft
Amazing video. I originally got 2080 because I was upgrading to from 2500K to Ryzen 2700X and wanted nice GPU to accompany it. That card died in 4 days. So I got my money back, added few more bucks and got 2080TI instead. Why not go all the way? And now with Cyberpunk, Vampire Bloodlines, Doom, Wolfenstein, Control, Watchdogs 3 and other games all getting RTX support, I am damn glad I got it. In the meantime I can play games in 1440 and 4K at nice framerates.
I dont get why are you so rough on AMD. And yes games with raytracing and tech demoes are really excessive and often unrealistic(cuz of not adjusted light sources and overbright and other issues) with it to pretend it looks better by being flashy. Thing is that it doesnt, it just is accurate. As for the very last graphics jump that is noticeaable that we will ever have, well. It's good but nothing we havent seen in some form already. It was used in cgi and animated movies for decades.
its not in real time tho in movies
@@rayz0rxxx Yes but its still something we have seen in action via them
amd deserves it. they haven't released anything worthwhile since the 7870.
sure there are good cards since then, but that's all on pricing. the r9 290 was fast but it was hot and loud. amd keeps having to push their stuff to the brink to get competitive performance and as a result we get stuff like that. hot, power-thirsty and with basically no overclock headroom.
Great birthday gift, thanks phillip
3:50 lmao u made my day i used to be like that trying to study how light works in real life and compare it to games
Honestly, I think Philip would make a nice addition to the Digital Foundry's team. His view about games and technology is unique and interesting, I could listen to him for literal days! Anyway, I hope they notice your talent and your passion. Keep up the good work, man!
I got a 2080Ti because my 980Ti was aging, I didn't buy it for RTX but it has been really fun to experience
Damn I remember when red faction has the best glass effect. The glass effect and breaking glass effect used to be part of reviews back in the day.
I like how ray tracing has the most noticeable effect on older games and simple games like minecraft and not games with more complex graphics.
It's mostly the fault of the baked lighting in texture and normal mapping simulating a lot of the actual lighting complexity and the fact that those two actually interfere with the ray-tracing reducing the accuracy of the lighting. However a modern game with full-on ray tracing as it's only lighting method would look and feel significantly better and likely fall into photo-realism territory extremely easily especially with photogrammetry and tesselation as the primary building blocks.
In fact if you're into 3D modeling and posing you learn early on that your textures have to have no shadows baked in and that direct lighting is important. This is why game devs often have to go places themselves and take photos with correct lighting to get textures that look proper in videogames.
I think I prefer q2vkpt's implementation better... The textures seem slightly less flat, with a nice layer of AO and reflectivity on top of that for not much of a performance drop.
The extra glass reflections are sweet tho!
"Somewhat strangely, it's made me appreciate it more in real life as well" I went through a similar phase when I played a game with heavy normal mapping and phong shading for the first time.
9:24 don’t be fooled by the process name game, believe it or not TSMCs 12nm process has a slightly LOWER transistor density than their 16nm. The purpose of 12nm is it’s cheaper, yields more reliably, and clocks slightly higher. Very important when you are pushing out chips that are 50-70% bigger than your previous generation.
You almost got him! Should have used the ambassador.
Good choice and decision-making process. Yeah, I'm waiting. But what you did, I did same thing with 1080ti. Happened on a good deal one night when it was like $550 with a 5 year warranty. So, I jumped. I came from an AMD 290X, so it is a huge jump.