![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
This is why I wont be playing Cyberpunk on release.
But you can always admire the pretty reflections as you are lying dead on the ground?
But you can always admire the pretty reflections as you are lying dead on the ground?
I agree that RTX would be good for the slow games like a puzzle solving type.
Good rant... But you completely avoided my point that physx didn't die, they eventually went open source and now it's in use still. I didn't comment on anything else your rant entailed, thanks for staying on topic. Nvidia did a crap thing with PhysX trying to tie consumers in, disabling it if it detected an AMD card, etc. I'm not agreeing with their tactics, because they were crappy then, just like a lot of choices they made. You say using their compute cards for gaming like it matters. You do realize people buy cards for graphics right? Nvidia on 12nm? are still on par with performance per transistor, it's not like they are slow cards. I think Nvidia is a crappy company and I own all AMD cards, so don't take this as an Nvidia fan boy, but just use logic instead of throwing random stuff out, makes you say less credible when you can't hold a real conversation.
Hardware level physx DID die. It was an optimized joke from the beginning. They made it look like you could not have waving flags, flying debris or even sparks without hardware physx which of course is laughable. They simply gimped effects on purpose unless you enabled hardware physx. And most of the effects looked unnatural with the same chunks used for debris in pretty much any scene. And it runs like garbage even today as gpu usage actually drops when doing effects so it does not matter how much gpu power you throw at it. My gtx1080 ti still dips in the 40s at 1080p during heavy physx scenes in Borderlands Pre Sequel and it runs no better than it did on my gtx780 from 2013.
Yes hardware physics isn't what it used to be, it's around because Nvidia finally open sourced it and it's one of the most used physics engines in games. There's plenty of first attempts that got defined, redone and reused in other fashions. Again, I'm not a fan of how Nvidia did the whole physx thing, but that doesn't make it dead because you or I didn't like it. The major version of physx runs on shaders in both Nvidia and AMD hardware, although developers are still able to utilize hardware physx if they want.
I give it less time because it's not locked into specific hardware being a dx12 specification, so we most likely won't have to wait as long. It won't be dead, it will be dxr, and Nvidia may move on and stop calling it rtx or they may not. I also doubt it'll move to software given then necessary power required.
From the sounds of it, it appears they had the intention of supporting it until they saw how much effort it was and how bad the frame rates where, they decided to divert resources to more useful things.
Ironic that you bring up Crysis as that game is far from optimized. Most modern games look orders of magnitude better and run better to boot. Crysis cant even always maintain 60 fps with the fastest modern cpus available as it does not really scale well past 2 cores and it was way too cpu dependent in spots.
All the games with reflections with RTX look way off when on, the off version looks more realistic, RTX version look like overdone mirrors placed in the world. Walking around in the real world reflections are way less bright in most cases with more noise and subtle distortions and inconsistencies, RTX makes it look like a house of mirrors instead. I would also like to see the on/off versions with the resolution and FPS as well
, Nvidia can be more honest about RTX. Good that developers are using DXR, maybe by the time Hardware can really support it well they will be good at it.
Play at ultra graphics? Naw, 8 bit is fine...
Even if they all had RTX, the 2080ti is pretty much the only one that is going to give the best playable fps?
Ok, what settings did they disable to make rtx look better? Call of duty has shadows turned off with rtx off... Like there's are no other alternatives for shadows that have been done for years. I wish they would stop claiming things and just legitimately show it. How does it perform and how is the quality compared to the game at high quality with rtx off.
I didn't get that at all, sounded more like they were promised something that turned out not to be as good as advertised... With limited resources they have more important things to focus on before wasting resources on a feature that < 1% of their user base can use. I'm sure they were promised it would be super easy to do, tons of support and run great on anything from a 2060 up. Then reality hit... Sure it could run on a 2060, 1080p at 20fps... And took way more effort than initially thought.
Not only that, but the 1080ti and 2080 were very close in performance at launch. So you're talking a pretty big price difference for almost no gain. Sure now the 2080 super 3 years later is now an improvement, but... 3 years, not the follow up architecture but the refresh after that. The 2080 super is what the 2080 should have been, or the 2080 should have been priced lower, but hey, if people were still thrown it money away, why wouldn't they try to charge as much as they think they can. It's a business, not a charity.
Seems good for having everything maxed out on the 2080ti.
