this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
724 points (97.8% liked)

Greentext

6596 readers
675 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 4) 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago (9 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week 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

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (17 children)

The first F.E.A.R. had excellent dynamic lighting, I'd argue it had the epitome of relevant dynamic lighting. It didn't need to set your GPU on fire for it, it didn't have to sacrifice two thirds of its framerate for it, it had it all figured out. It did need work on textures, but even those looked at least believable due to the lighting system. We really didn't need more than that.

RT is nothing but eye candy and a pointless resource hog meant to sell us GPUs with redundant compute capacities, which don't even guarantee that the game'll run any better! And it's not just RT, it's 4k textures, it's upscaling, it's Ambient Occlusion, all of these things hog resources without any major visual improvement.

Upgraded from a 3060 to a 4080 Super to play STALKER 2 at more than 25 frames per second. Got the GPU, same basic settings, increased the resolution a bit, +10 FPS... Totes worth the money...

Edit: not blaming GSC for it, they're just victims of the AAA disease.

Edit 2: to be clear, my CPU's an i7, so I doubt it had much to do with the STALKER bottleneck, considering it barely reached 60% usage, while my GPU was panting...

Edit 3: while re-reading this, it hit me that I sound like the Luddite Boss, so I need to clarify this for myself more than anyone else: I am not against technological advancement, I want tech in my eyeballs (literally), I am against "advancements" which exist solely as marketing accolades.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I have seen FEW games that really benefit from RT. RT is a subtle effect because we'we got pretty good at baking and faking how light should look.

But even if its just a subtle effect, it adds so much, the feeling of the lighting is (for me) better wit RT, light properly propagates, bounces, dynamic geometry is properly lit. It's just so much of these, on the bigger scale, tiny upgrades that make the lighting look a lot better.

It just sucks that the performance is utter shit right now. I hope in few years this will be optimised and we won't need to sacrifice 1\2 of the framerate just to get lighting that feels right.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

But you can bake additive environment lighting as well.

You can even bake additive lighting in layers, at least for things like street lamps, like coming out of a window onto a street, mostly static objects that can be turned on/off or broken...

And then just only use truly dynamic lighting for... people with lamps, flashlights, cars, truly dynamic stuff.

But that takes time, attention to detail, good map/level design, a bit of extra logic to handle everything... and the AAA paradigm is crank out flashy bullshit that runs like ass... unless you check out our marketing partner's newest GPU!

Not everything, but most advanced dynamic lighting stuff that people associate with RT... can be done in an optimized way, leaving only a few elements to be truly fully, dynamically, brute force rendered every scene.

But, its about 95% easier for a game dev to (or management to tell them to) just let the game engine they paid for a liscense to (almost always UE) to handle it via assuming the end user has a GPU that costs as much as an entire PC 2 years ago.

Long, long gone are the days where game studios were largely defined by having their own engine, tailored to work optimally with the kinds of games they make.

Nearly no AAA game studios bother to make engines these days, nearly none of them have competent enough coders to actually make one... thats all subcontracted out now.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What games do you know that really benefit from RT? So far I'm only aware of Metro Exodus enhanced edition and probably Cyberpunk (haven't played it yet though). Witcher 3 has some noticable changes sometimes but eh. In every other game it feels completely useless.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Maximise your RTX performance with this one crazy hack!

Ray traced reflections: on
Ray traced everything else: off

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 158 points 1 week ago (4 children)

We’ve gotten so good at faking most lighting effects that honestly RTX isn’t a huge win except in certain types of scenes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

The issues come if you know how they're faking them. Sure, SSR can look good sometimes, but if you know what it is it becomes really obvious. Meanwhile raytraced reflections can look great always, with the cost of performance usually. It's sometimes worth it, especially when done intelligently.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

The difference is pretty big when there are lots of reflective surfaces, and especially when light sources move (prebaked shadows rarely do, and even when, it's hardly realistic).

A big thing is that developers use less effort and the end result looks better. That's progress. You could argue it's kind of like when web developers finally were able to stop supporting IE9 - it wasn't big for end users, but holy hell did the job get more enjoyable, faster and also cheaper.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (14 children)

Not true. Screen space reflections consistently fails to produce accurate reflections.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago (2 children)

But, it takes a lot of work by designers to get the fake lighting to look natural. Raytracing would help avoid that toil if the game is forced RT.

[–] [email protected] 93 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Gamers needs expensive hardware so designer has less work. Game still not cheaper.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I took pickes and tomatoes off my burger, where's my $0.23 discount damn it?!

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Let's assume cutting out tomatoes and pickles saved $0.23 per hamburger.

McDonald's serves 6.5 million hamburgers a day.
That's $500 million extra yearly profit for their shareholders.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›