Lol wut? No it’s not. That’s a ridiculous thing to say. Properly implemented RT is gorgeous and worlds ahead of rasterized lighting. Sure, some games have shit RT, but RT in general is not a money grab. That’s a dumb thing to say
Game engines don’t have to simulate sound pressure bouncing off surfaces to get good audio. They don’t have to simulate all the atoms in objects to get good physics. There’s no reason to have to simulate photons to get good lighting. This is a way to lower engine dev costs and push that cost onto the consumer.
Game engines don’t have to simulate sound pressure bouncing off surfaces to get good audio.
Sure, but imitating good audio takes a lot of work. Just look at Escape From Tarkov that has replaced its audio component twice? in 5 years and the output is only getting worse. I imagine if they could have an audio component that simulates audio in a more realistic way with miminal performance hit compared to the current solutions I think they’d absolutely use it instead of having to go over thousands of occlusion zones just to get a “good enough”.
They don’t have to simulate all the atoms in objects to get good physics.
If it meant it solves all physics interactions I imagine developers would love it. During Totk development Nintendo spent over a year only on physics. Imagine if all their could be solved simply by putting in some physics rules. It would be a huge save on development time.
There’s no reason to have to simulate photons to get good lighting.
I might be misremembering but I’m pretty sure raytracing can’t reenact the double slit experiment because it’s not actually simulating photons. It is simulating light in a more realistic way and it’s going to make lighting the scenes much easier.
This is a way to lower engine dev costs and push that cost onto the consumer.
The only downside of raytracing is the performance cost. But that argument we could’ve used in the early 90s against 3d engines as well. Eventually the tech will mature and raytracing will become the norm. If you argued they Raytracing is a money grab at this very moment I’d agree. The tech isn’t quite there yet, but I imagine within the next decade it will be. However you’re presenting raytracing as something useless and that’s just disingenuous.
Ray tracing is a conceptually lazy and computationally expensive. Fire off as many rays as you can in every direction from every light source, when the ray hits something it gets lit up and fires off more rays of lower intensity and maybe a different colour.
Sure you can optimize things by having a maximum number of bounces or a maximum distance each ray can travel but all that does is decrease the quality of your lighting. An abstracted model can be optimized like crazy BUT it take a lot of man power (paid hours) and doesn’t directly translate to revenue for the publisher.
The only downside of raytracing is the performance cost.
The downside is the wallet cost. Spreading the development cost of making a better conventional lighting system over thousands of copies of a game is negligible, requiring ray tracing hardware is an extra 500-1000 bucks that could otherwise be spent on games.
You’re either not arguing in good faith or grossly misunderstanding why RT results in more realistic lighting. I suggest you read up on RT, how it works, and what it is supposed to be simulating.
You’re forgetting about the #1 reason why Ray Tracing is so good: it saves hard drive space because you don’t need to pre-bake lighting, when it’s rendered in realtime. You should be a fan for that reason alone. Games have gotten too large.
I looks pretty when enabled, can you get Cyberpunks level of ray tracing visuals without it? Honest question, I thought that’s what made the game gorgeous, but if it’s possible without it why don’t know why some teams haven’t shown those results without it? And again I may have missed some games that do near equivalent without that feature.
Lol wut? No it’s not. That’s a ridiculous thing to say. Properly implemented RT is gorgeous and worlds ahead of rasterized lighting. Sure, some games have shit RT, but RT in general is not a money grab. That’s a dumb thing to say
Game engines don’t have to simulate sound pressure bouncing off surfaces to get good audio. They don’t have to simulate all the atoms in objects to get good physics. There’s no reason to have to simulate photons to get good lighting. This is a way to lower engine dev costs and push that cost onto the consumer.
Sure, but imitating good audio takes a lot of work. Just look at Escape From Tarkov that has replaced its audio component twice? in 5 years and the output is only getting worse. I imagine if they could have an audio component that simulates audio in a more realistic way with miminal performance hit compared to the current solutions I think they’d absolutely use it instead of having to go over thousands of occlusion zones just to get a “good enough”.
If it meant it solves all physics interactions I imagine developers would love it. During Totk development Nintendo spent over a year only on physics. Imagine if all their could be solved simply by putting in some physics rules. It would be a huge save on development time.
I might be misremembering but I’m pretty sure raytracing can’t reenact the double slit experiment because it’s not actually simulating photons. It is simulating light in a more realistic way and it’s going to make lighting the scenes much easier.
The only downside of raytracing is the performance cost. But that argument we could’ve used in the early 90s against 3d engines as well. Eventually the tech will mature and raytracing will become the norm. If you argued they Raytracing is a money grab at this very moment I’d agree. The tech isn’t quite there yet, but I imagine within the next decade it will be. However you’re presenting raytracing as something useless and that’s just disingenuous.
Ray tracing is a conceptually lazy and computationally expensive. Fire off as many rays as you can in every direction from every light source, when the ray hits something it gets lit up and fires off more rays of lower intensity and maybe a different colour.
Sure you can optimize things by having a maximum number of bounces or a maximum distance each ray can travel but all that does is decrease the quality of your lighting. An abstracted model can be optimized like crazy BUT it take a lot of man power (paid hours) and doesn’t directly translate to revenue for the publisher.
The downside is the wallet cost. Spreading the development cost of making a better conventional lighting system over thousands of copies of a game is negligible, requiring ray tracing hardware is an extra 500-1000 bucks that could otherwise be spent on games.
You’re either not arguing in good faith or grossly misunderstanding why RT results in more realistic lighting. I suggest you read up on RT, how it works, and what it is supposed to be simulating.
You’re forgetting about the #1 reason why Ray Tracing is so good: it saves hard drive space because you don’t need to pre-bake lighting, when it’s rendered in realtime. You should be a fan for that reason alone. Games have gotten too large.
I looks pretty when enabled, can you get Cyberpunks level of ray tracing visuals without it? Honest question, I thought that’s what made the game gorgeous, but if it’s possible without it why don’t know why some teams haven’t shown those results without it? And again I may have missed some games that do near equivalent without that feature.
Cyberpunk with RT off still looks damn good.
Personally, if it’s between RT off and giving my money to a company normalizing lying to me, I’ll stick with RT off.