Quoting: GuestI mean, I'm only going by the talk of the nvidia engineer who was the primary guy behind the port. Obviously you know better, my mistake then.

More than you, it seems. You seem to have misinterpreted the video that you watched.

You could play it yourself, and look at the code, or just go by something like "Q2VKPT [External Link] is the first playable game that is entirely raytraced and efficiently simulates fully dynamic lighting in real-time, with the same modern techniques as used in the movie industry" and read the copious documentation and papers that Nvidia have put out about the renderer and how it works.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestNo, raytracing is overlaid on top of some other traditional techniques still. It does completely replace the lighting pass for example, but not all of the shadow passes.

It is all raytraced. Even the shadows.

That question of performance is also crucial. It's not something that can be ignored, because it directly impacts the code written.

That... doesn't make any sense. The performance issue is important, which is why you're only getting playable performance at 1080p on a game with relatively low scene complexity (given that it's 20 years old), and you're limited to ~10 rays per pixel so you need to use a denoiser. But an entirely raytraced game at "high definition" resolution at 60 fps exists, and has existed for two years.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestWell, it raytraces most of it for some effects then applies de-noising. A complete, 100% ray trace of everything at high frame rates and high resolution is still beyond the cards.

No, it raytraces all of it. It uses fewer rays per pixel than you would if you were doing a non-interactive render, which is where the denoiser comes in. You can turn off the denoiser and it's still perfectly playable, just with a noisy image. Being able to increase the rays per pixel enough so that you don't need the denoiser is just a question of performance from here, not a change in technique. Only the HUD isn't raytraced.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubiThat's fine, but the difference is that you were raytracing a whole scene. These extensions make it possible to add some fidelity and realism to lighting and reflections using specialized RT shaders, but that's about all we can expect at this point. We're still far from fully raytraced games, if that's even the goal.

Quake 2 RTX raytraces the whole scene. 60 times per second.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ZapporAnd I guess that's a big no on AMD since it checks that you're running the correct Nvidia driver version:

That check doesn't do what you think it does: if you're using Windows, and if you've got an Nvidia card, and if you don't have ray tracing support (using either extension) Nvidia can tell you the minimum required driver version number in the error message.

People have already posted videos of themselves playing the game on AMD cards with drivers that expose the extension.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ageresIt's just a line of text or two, isn't it?

It's an extra 11% of vertical space.

The black bars that you're concerned about: it's exactly that much.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LordDaveTheKindThis approach was real 10 years ago. It has changed nowadays

No. They've included the (proprietary) library with their (proprietary) driver, exactly as I said. What they haven't done, and aren't likely to, is help open source projects - like vkd3d or Q2RTX - make any use of that. I'd like it if it were different, but it isn't.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ikirutoI think if Nvidia herself takes on helping the developers of VKD3D, then anything is possible. But this is fantastic. :)

Nvidia had the opportunity to create a means to utilise the DLSS library that they include with their driver in their own open source game, and they explicitly refused to.

It's entirely within their means to be more helpful, but they don't want to; that's why lots of people have a low opinion of them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ageresWhen I was about to buy my first desktop in 2009, I hardly could find a 16:9 FHD monitor. All shelves in stores were full of 1680×1050 only.

:shrug: I went from 1600×1200 to 1920×1200 when LCDs had mostly-as-good colours and viewing angles as CRTs; early LCDs were terrible at both. Cheap LCDs still are.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ageresBetter in what? In videogames you get either a truncated image, or black borders on top and bottom. All videos are 16:9 now, so black borders again. When just using an OS and applications, there isn't much significant difference between 16:9 and 16:10.

16:10 is strictly bigger than 16:9. That's why it's written that way, rather than as 8:5. 1920×1200 has 120 more vertical pixels than 1920×1080; 2560×1600 has 160 more vertical pixels than 2560×1440; 3840×2400 has 240 more vertical pixels than 3840×2160.

16:9 is simply too short for monitors. It only exists for TVs as a compromise between the 1.85 and 2.39 ratios that cinemas used, and the 4:3 that TVs used. Widescreen monitors started as 16:10 so that you wouldn't have to sacrifice crucial vertical pixels for relatively unimportant horizontal pixels going from a 4:3 monitor. Then manufacturers started reusing cheap TV panels in monitors, on the grounds that consumers were more interested in price than functionality.

View this comment - View article - View full comments