• murvel@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s not a trick, it’s just lighting done the way it should be done without all the tricks we need now like Subsurface scattering or Screen space reflections.

    The added benefit is that materials reflect more of their natural reflection making all the materials look more true to life.

    Its main drawback is that it’s GPU costly, but more and more AAA games are now moving toward RT as standard by being more clever in how it handles its calculations.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yes, I’m sure every player spends the majority of their game time admiring the realistic material properties of Spider-Man’s suit. So far I’ve never seen a game that was made better by forcing RT into it. A little prettier if you really focus on the details where it works, but overall it’s a costly (in terms of power, computation, and price) gimmick.

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 days ago

        The one benefit I see is that it simplifies lighting for the developer by a whole lot.

        Which isn’t a benefit at all, because as of now, they basically have to have a non-raytrace version so 90% of players can play the game

        But in a decade, maybe, raytracing will make sense as the default

        • WhiteBurrito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          I’ve always said that, because the baseline GPUs are the RTX 3060 and the RX 6700 (consoles equivalent)… And those GPUs aren’t doing amazing RT so, what’s the point in pushing it so hard NOW for the 1% of users with a 4090 or whatever?

      • murvel@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        RT also makes level-design simpler for the development team as they can design levels by what-you-see-is-what-you-get method rather than having to bake the light sources.

        • rtxn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 days ago

          Development and design can use RT all day long, that’s not the issue. They have the benefit of not having to run ray tracing in real time on consumer hardware. At the end of the day, unless they want to offload all of that computation load onto the customer forever (and I really mean all RT all the time), they’ll eventually have to bake most or all of that information into a format that a rasterizer can use.

    • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Subsurface scattering is not one of the things you get automatically with ray tracing. If you just bounce the rays off objects as would be the usual first step in implementing ray tracing you don’t get any light penetration into the object, so none of that depth.

      Maybe you meant ambient occlusion?

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      raytracing still needs to do subsurface scattering. It can actually do it for real though. It also “wastes” a lot of bounces, so is usually approximated anyway

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Even with raytracing there is still a lot of shortcuts and trickery under the hood. Ray tracing is the “cheating” form of path tracing.