• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

DLSS 5 - Generative AI

MistaSparkul said:
And those games that do not have RT have actually been the most enjoyable to me, the general trend of game development hasn't stopped me from enjoying games and I doubt Gen AI will too.
Click to expand...
That's a non sequitur. And if you only enjoy games that don't use it you should be all the more invested in making sure less devs rely on it.
 
MikeTrike said:
So we're going to get three versions of a official game.
The original raster version.
The AMD FSR version.
The Nvidia DLSS version.

AMD is going to be using different training data most likely.

It's just going to be weird along with the additional complexities of having to support both, devs might forgo AMD, as we've seen with crimson desert telling Intel users to f*** themselves and then doing a 180.

Also, does this mean no more remasters? And if there are remasters what does that even mean?
Click to expand...

Yep. That is exactly what is happening.

Really there will only be the original raster version. As Nvidia just announced they are done with the Ray tracing experiment. lol

There will be a very basic crude raster version. Made to run at high frame rates. With low quality textures and models that have been retoped to as low a geometry resolution as possible and still have a AI model be able to figure it out.

From their Nvidia will apply their proprietary model on top. AMD will apply their model on top. Sony will apply their model (and AMD and Sony will pretend there stuff is not the same thing).

I'll go one further. Intel might actually be happier with DLSS5 then anyone else. Just wait at some point they will announce a XESS Super slop mode using Intel CPU NPU units. They get to look smart for dumping their GPU ambitions. Why do that when they can probably do most of this work on their CPU NPU cores.

Heck realistically. It is very possible Nvidia has already been talking to Intel about this exact tech. Nvidia invested in Intel... Intel announced they are moving to Nvidia iGPUs at some point.
I would not be shocked in the least, if when that happens... DLSS directly may well be able to use Intel NPU in some way. I mean why not? If the chip has a Intel CPU and NPU and a Nvidia integrated type GPU. Why not combine the two things. I mean Nvidia does have this running today on TWO 5090s. What if the main goal in all of this is for Nvidia to mostly EXIT the PC dGPU space. All you really need is a solid Nvidia integrated GPU to render 720p (or even 480p) raster graphics with a basic light map and low pressure models. Then you have the NPU riding shot gun use its inference magic to inference the AI instagram filter... which feeds back into the iGPU via the frame gen tech Nvidia already has working. Really it would be an elegant solution... if it wasn't inelegant slop. :)
 
M76 said:
That's a non sequitur. And if you only enjoy games that don't use it you should be all the more invested in making sure less devs rely on it.
Click to expand...

When did I say I ONLY enjoy games that don't use RT? Personally I don't care if a dev chooses to make their games based around RT or not, I'm just saying that recently the games without RT have been the most enjoyable to me, that does not mean that I do NOT enjoy ANY game that is built around RT. If devs want to build their graphics around Gen AI they can do whatever they want, there will still be devs around who won't go that path and they will most likely be AA or indie devs who are less inclined to follow the "general trend".
 
ChadD said:
Yep. That is exactly what is happening.

Really there will only be the original raster version. As Nvidia just announced they are done with the Ray tracing experiment. lol
Click to expand...
no more RTX / ray tracing ??

can they fake it with Generative AI going forward?
 
ChadD said:
Yep. That is exactly what is happening.

Really there will only be the original raster version. As Nvidia just announced they are done with the Ray tracing experiment. lol

There will be a very basic crude raster version. Made to run at high frame rates. With low quality textures and models that have been retoped to as low a geometry resolution as possible and still have a AI model be able to figure it out.

From their Nvidia will apply their proprietary model on top. AMD will apply their model on top. Sony will apply their model (and AMD and Sony will pretend there stuff is not the same thing).

I'll go one further. Intel might actually be happier with DLSS5 then anyone else. Just wait at some point they will announce a XESS Super slop mode using Intel CPU NPU units. They get to look smart for dumping their GPU ambitions. Why do that when they can probably do most of this work on their CPU NPU cores.

Heck realistically. It is very possible Nvidia has already been talking to Intel about this exact tech. Nvidia invested in Intel... Intel announced they are moving to Nvidia iGPUs at some point.
I would not be shocked in the least, if when that happens... DLSS directly may well be able to use Intel NPU in some way. I mean why not? If the chip has a Intel CPU and NPU and a Nvidia integrated type GPU. Why not combine the two things. I mean Nvidia does have this running today on TWO 5090s. What if the main goal in all of this is for Nvidia to mostly EXIT the PC dGPU space. All you really need is a solid Nvidia integrated GPU to render 720p (or even 480p) raster graphics with a basic light map and low pressure models. Then you have the NPU riding shot gun use its inference magic to inference the AI instagram filter... which feeds back into the iGPU via the frame gen tech Nvidia already has working. Really it would be an elegant solution... if it wasn't inelegant slop. :)
Click to expand...
I said this 3 years ago.

kac77 said:
In so many ways DLSS is turning into an alternate rendering pathway with different objects in it.

It's "Better than native" means it's different than the native image and that's not good for benchmarking at all.
Click to expand...
 
ChadD said:
They are going to try. lol
Click to expand...
additional commentary,

“Nvidia CEO Says He's 'Empathetic' To DLSS 5 Concerns​

BeauHD 2 hours ago		19
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says he understands the concerns about "AI slop" with DLSS 5 but insists the feature preserves a game's underlying geometry and artistic intent. "I think their perspective makes sense, " said Huang during a recent appearance on the Lex Fridman podcast. "And I could see where they're coming from because I don't love AI slop myself. You know, all of the AI-generated content increasingly looks similar, and they're all beautiful... so I'm empathic toward what they're thinking. That's just not what DLSS 5 is trying to do." Tom's Hardware reports: Although Huang is striking a more conciliatory tone, much of his response is similar to what we heard at GTC [where Huang said gamers were "completely wrong."] The artist determines the geometry, we are completely truthful to the geometry... so every single frame, it enhances, but it doesn't change anything." There was some confusion about how DLSS 5 worked when it was first announced, and although the inner workings of it still aren't clear on a technical level, Huang has said that it isn't a general-purpose generative AI model. He describes it as "content-controlled generative AI." On the other end of the spectrum, Huang also said that it isn't a post-processing filter. The technical details of DLSS 5 live somewhere between that space, and we likely won't know them until later this year when the feature is set to release.

"The question about enhancing, DLSS 5... in the future, you could even prompt it. You know, I want it to be a toon shader. I want it to look like this, kind of. You could even give it an example and it would generate in the style of that, all consistent with the artistry, the style, the intent of the artist," Huang continued. "All of that is done for the artist so they can create something that is more beautiful but still in the style that they want." Although the talking points about DLSS 5 remain unchanged, it seems that Huang has at least heard the criticism. "I think that they got the impression that the games are going to come out the way the games are... and then we're going to post-process it. That's not what DLSS is intended to do."

Huang also made assertions that DLSS is "integrated" with the artist, and suggested that it would put the power of generative AI in the hands of artists working in game development [...]. Although DLSS 5 looks like it's doing a lot, Huang said that it's just another tool, not an essential feature. "The gamers might also appreciate that, in the last couple of years, we introduced skin shaders to game developers, and many of those games have skin shaders that include sub-surface scattering that makes skin look more skin-like... [DLSS 5] is just one more tool. They can decide what to use," Huang ended the conversation about DLSS 5. Immediately after, without missing a beat, he said 1993's Doom was the most influential video game ever made.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this

“Tools Like DLSS 5 May "Bring Into Question What Version of a Game Should Be Preserved" According to Preservation Expert​

by Cpt.Jank Today, 17:24 Discuss (4 Comments)
There's been quite the din about DLSS 5 since NVIDIA previewed the AI-powered tech mid-March, with some gamers calling it "AI slop," NVIDIA's CEO firing back a dismissive response, and an official NVIDIA statement that seems to call into question many of the earlier claims NVIDIA made about the technology's capabilities. Now, Chloe Appleby, a program curator at Sydney's Powerhouse Museum, has weighed in on the issue in an interview with GadgetGuy, expressing concerns about the implications about the repeatability and state of a game when DLSS 5 comes into play.

Part of the driving force behind game preservation is that it allows gamers and researchers to go back and experience games throughout history, but technology like DLSS 5 may make that complicated, as Appleby explains: "If these new AI technologies become essential for making and playing games, it has the potential to not only add another layer of potential copyright complexity but bring into question what version of a game should be preserved. Do we preserve both DLSS off and on? Is the DLSS 5 version consistent amongst players and if not, what version represents the collective experience?"“
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
MistaSparkul said:
When did I say I ONLY enjoy games that don't use RT? Personally I don't care if a dev chooses to make their games based around RT or not, I'm just saying that recently the games without RT have been the most enjoyable to me, that does not mean that I do NOT enjoy ANY game that is built around RT. If devs want to build their graphics around Gen AI they can do whatever they want, there will still be devs around who won't go that path and they will most likely be AA or indie devs who are less inclined to follow the "general trend".
Click to expand...
Right, you said you enjoy them more, which doesn't change anything in terms of it being a non sequitur. Your argument is that it's OK, because not everyone will use it. That doesn't make any sense. If I don't like something i want less of it, not more.
 
erek said:
additional commentary,

“Nvidia CEO Says He's 'Empathetic' To DLSS 5 Concerns​

BeauHD 2 hours ago		19
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says he understands the concerns about "AI slop" with DLSS 5 but insists the feature preserves a game's underlying geometry and artistic intent. "I think their perspective makes sense, " said Huang during a recent appearance on the Lex Fridman podcast. "And I could see where they're coming from because I don't love AI slop myself. You know, all of the AI-generated content increasingly looks similar, and they're all beautiful... so I'm empathic toward what they're thinking. That's just not what DLSS 5 is trying to do." Tom's Hardware reports: Although Huang is striking a more conciliatory tone, much of his response is similar to what we heard at GTC [where Huang said gamers were "completely wrong."] The artist determines the geometry, we are completely truthful to the geometry... so every single frame, it enhances, but it doesn't change anything." There was some confusion about how DLSS 5 worked when it was first announced, and although the inner workings of it still aren't clear on a technical level, Huang has said that it isn't a general-purpose generative AI model. He describes it as "content-controlled generative AI." On the other end of the spectrum, Huang also said that it isn't a post-processing filter. The technical details of DLSS 5 live somewhere between that space, and we likely won't know them until later this year when the feature is set to release.

"The question about enhancing, DLSS 5... in the future, you could even prompt it. You know, I want it to be a toon shader. I want it to look like this, kind of. You could even give it an example and it would generate in the style of that, all consistent with the artistry, the style, the intent of the artist," Huang continued. "All of that is done for the artist so they can create something that is more beautiful but still in the style that they want." Although the talking points about DLSS 5 remain unchanged, it seems that Huang has at least heard the criticism. "I think that they got the impression that the games are going to come out the way the games are... and then we're going to post-process it. That's not what DLSS is intended to do."

Huang also made assertions that DLSS is "integrated" with the artist, and suggested that it would put the power of generative AI in the hands of artists working in game development [...]. Although DLSS 5 looks like it's doing a lot, Huang said that it's just another tool, not an essential feature. "The gamers might also appreciate that, in the last couple of years, we introduced skin shaders to game developers, and many of those games have skin shaders that include sub-surface scattering that makes skin look more skin-like... [DLSS 5] is just one more tool. They can decide what to use," Huang ended the conversation about DLSS 5. Immediately after, without missing a beat, he said 1993's Doom was the most influential video game ever made.”
Click to expand...
1774352880310.png
 
ChadD said:
Then you already understand the issue. We now have games with only RT lighting. By the looks of it we will get AI only games soon enough.
Publishers are looking to save money with this tech, not double their work load.
Click to expand...
I asked Copilot, and yes, I know you should not take that answer as a fact, about how many PC games that require a RT capable card to run without having a rasterized fallback option.
How many games are there?

Two.

One is Metro Exodus Enhanced edition, the other Quake II RTX. Both of these have regular versions that has no RT requirements, so in fact there are NO games that requires raytracing capable cards as of now.

If you can find some examples that Copilot has missed do add them, but I'd be surprised if there are more than a few.

It's all optional, even after about 8 years on the market.
 
Eivind68 said:
There was a poll on a Norwegian site that showed 70% positive feedback the last I checked. It may have changed now, but I'm not so sure the gamers have broadly rejected this tech.
Click to expand...
I just checked, and it has dropped to 54% positive out of 5800 votes. But the remaining 46% are quite evenly split between those who hate it and those who will wait to see how it turns out.
So based on that I would say that the "GAMERS HATE DLSS 5!!!" headlines aren't really indicative of the real situation, at least not among Norwegian gamers.
 
Eivind68 said:
One is Metro Exodus Enhanced edition, the other Quake II RTX. Both of these have regular versions that has no RT requirements, so in fact there are NO games that requires raytracing capable cards as of now.
Click to expand...
There is different level to this, many game does not have a no RT mode, just software RT fallback, software lumen for example of the recent Ubisoft games, Indiana Jones I think is one that refused to boot without certain level of mesh shader capability because of the RT work and alan wake 2, Doom is always on.

Crimson desert still offer software fallback, but that does not mean it offer a non-RT mode, and by the time the Witcher 4 launch they could very well make like have no software Lumen mode.

This could obviously specially on the next nintendo console game that use it all the time, but that only happen if it work well and people love it in the transition period where it will always be optional for a while.
 
M76 said:
Right, you said you enjoy them more, which doesn't change anything in terms of it being a non sequitur. Your argument is that it's OK, because not everyone will use it. That doesn't make any sense. If I don't like something i want less of it, not more.
Click to expand...

No dude my argument is that it simply doesn't matter whether devs use Gen AI or not, it will never stop my enjoyment of gaming. The 4 scenarios that I can see happening will either be:

1. Support for DLSS 5 gets dropped due to the huge amount of pushback (probably not going to happen, but it's a possibility), we can all go back to enjoying "normal graphics"
2. Support for DLSS 5 is limited, probably most AAA devs will adopt it in order to save time and cut costs, but plenty of devs will still be around who won't use it.
3. Support for DLSS 5 is widespread, but is completely optional, it ain't being forced fed to you and games are still made with "normal graphics" in mind so just turn the damn thing off and enjoy the game.
4. Now for everyone's "Doomsday" scenario, DLSS 5 is widespread AND it is the only way for you to play games without the graphics looking like Playstation 1 and every single dev from AAA down to indie uses it heavily. I personally doubt this will happen, but if it does then that just means that it has gotten so good that nobody gives a shit that it's being used anymore. Right now people only care so much because it "looks like AI slop bad". Time will tell how DLSS 5 evolves in the future.

And here's the thing, nobody knows how DLSS 5 will look like in the future, maybe it will continue to have the "AI slop" look to it, or maybe it won't, time will tell. Sure, if scenario 4 happens AND it continues to have the same bad AI slop look to it then I wouldn't be OK with it. But otherwise I feel like that won't happen unless DLSS 5 has gotten that good that every single dev will comfortably use it and nobody would even know, in which case yeah I wouldn't care that it's being used either I'll just enjoy my games.
 
Last edited:
Eivind68 said:
I asked Copilot, and yes, I know you should not take that answer as a fact, about how many PC games that require a RT capable card to run without having a rasterized fallback option.
How many games are there?

Two.

One is Metro Exodus Enhanced edition, the other Quake II RTX. Both of these have regular versions that has no RT requirements, so in fact there are NO games that requires raytracing capable cards as of now.

If you can find some examples that Copilot has missed do add them, but I'd be surprised if there are more than a few.

It's all optional, even after about 8 years on the market.
Click to expand...

Yes I wouldn't trust AI least of all Microsofts.
Of the top of my head add Indiana Jones, Avatar, Star Wars Outlaws, Black Myth and Doom the Dark ages.
I know their are more. But those are just recent ones I can think of without a ai. :)

The same will be true for DLSS5 type neural render techs. Games will go into development early that won't use anything else.
In fact ideally the best way to make DLSS5 not RUN like ass.. will be developers catering to it very early on. With models/textures purposely designed to be easy for the AI to "see". It will probably look like ass with out the AI, but it will be faster for the AI to pretty up. There is no point in spending 100s of hours on great high rez textures if Nvidia (and probably AMDs) AI models are just going to replace them anyway.
 
ChadD said:
Yes I wouldn't trust AI least of all Microsofts.
Of the top of my head add Indiana Jones, Avatar, Star Wars Outlaws, Black Myth and Doom the Dark ages.
I know their are more. But those are just recent ones I can think of without a ai. :)

The same will be true for DLSS5 type neural render techs. Games will go into development early that won't use anything else.
In fact ideally the best way to make DLSS5 not RUN like ass.. will be developers catering to it very early on. With models/textures purposely designed to be easy for the AI to "see". It will probably look like ass with out the AI, but it will be faster for the AI to pretty up. There is no point in spending 100s of hours on great high rez textures if Nvidia (and probably AMDs) AI models are just going to replace them anyway.
Click to expand...
I've also seen more than one article about how Crimson Desert looks like ass in regular raster and so you have to turn RT on just to have normal lighting and working shadows. So "it's optional" really isn't going to be true moving forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
kac77 said:
I've also seen more than one article about how Crimson Desert looks like ass in regular raster and so you have to turn RT on just to have normal lighting and working shadows. So "it's optional" really isn't going to be true moving forward.
Click to expand...

Non-RT will die off as hardware becomes more capable. Non-RT lighting is a lot more work than RT and it's not fun work. No one likes doing it. Doing non-RT lighting is more than double the work of just doing RT. And it's way more of a PITA to get looking good. It does not feel good as an artist or engineer putting a hidden light source in just to make something adequate when you could be adjusting real light sources that look a thousand times better.
 
kac77 said:
I've also seen more than one article about how Crimson Desert looks like ass in regular raster and so you have to turn RT on just to have normal lighting and working shadows. So "it's optional" really isn't going to be true moving forward.
Click to expand...
I'm looking forward to it not being optional. I don't really have any complaints about the RT-required games I've played so far. Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition, Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, and Doom the Dark Ages all run pretty well compared to a lot of RT-optional games with RT turned on. Seems like when RT is an option they just toss it in for high end card owners and it kills your fps. When they actually make some effort it works a lot better. MEEE is kinda the poster child for RT done right IMHO. It doesn't need a huge card. It's all ray traced, but low-med-high is still there instead of RT being "ultra+".
 
zandor said:
I'm looking forward to it not being optional. I don't really have any complaints about the RT-required games I've played so far. Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition, Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, and Doom the Dark Ages all run pretty well compared to a lot of RT-optional games with RT turned on. Seems like when RT is an option they just toss it in for high end card owners and it kills your fps. When they actually make some effort it works a lot better. MEEE is kinda the poster child for RT done right IMHO. It doesn't need a huge card. It's all ray traced, but low-med-high is still there instead of RT being "ultra+".
Click to expand...
It's probably worth it to point out that all 3 games you mentioned there that run well are running on their studio's game engine, which probably has a lot to do with the performance .
 
Balkroth said:
It's probably worth it to point out that all 3 games you mentioned there that run well are running on their studio's game engine, which probably has a lot to do with the performance .
Click to expand...
2 out of 3. Indiana Jones and the Great Circle was developed by Machine games, and runs on an ID engine.

My point is that it's doable and can work pretty well. Game devs being slobs and tacking low effort RT onto console ports doesn't make RT bad. Next gen I bet we'll see a lot of RT console games.
 
ChadD said:
Yes I wouldn't trust AI least of all Microsofts.
Of the top of my head add Indiana Jones, Avatar, Star Wars Outlaws, Black Myth and Doom the Dark ages.
I know their are more. But those are just recent ones I can think of without a ai. :)

The same will be true for DLSS5 type neural render techs. Games will go into development early that won't use anything else.
In fact ideally the best way to make DLSS5 not RUN like ass.. will be developers catering to it very early on. With models/textures purposely designed to be easy for the AI to "see". It will probably look like ass with out the AI, but it will be faster for the AI to pretty up. There is no point in spending 100s of hours on great high rez textures if Nvidia (and probably AMDs) AI models are just going to replace them anyway.
Click to expand...
Okay, Copilot obviously sucks even more than I thought.

But I'm still not worried about this, the amount of games requiring RT are still very low as a percentage of released games. And if RT makes it easier to add quality lighing and people eventually have the hardware to support it, I don't see using raytraced lighting as a problem for the end user. After all, when I buy a game I consider it my own property and as such I can do with it as I please, so DLSS 5 being another way to change things is not a problem for me.

If you guys thinks the future of gaming is big corporations having a couple of employees vibe coding games for subscription based streaming, then I guess we will just disagree on that prediction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadD
like this
Eivind68 said:
Okay, Copilot obviously sucks even more than I thought.

But I'm still not worried about this, the amount of games requiring RT are still very low as a percentage of released games. And if RT makes it easier to add quality lighing and people eventually have the hardware to support it, I don't see using raytraced lighting as a problem for the end user. After all, when I buy a game I consider it my own property and as such I can do with it as I please, so DLSS 5 being another way to change things is not a problem for me.

If you guys thinks the future of gaming is big corporations having a couple of employees vibe coding games for subscription based streaming, then I guess we will just disagree on that prediction.
Click to expand...
There are a bunch of UE5 games that only use lumen which is just a form of RT. You asked the wrong question, you asked for games that required hardware RT. We are still in the transitional period, but most new games going for good graphics being developed right now will not do non-rt lighting.
 
Eivind68 said:
Okay, Copilot obviously sucks even more than I thought.

But I'm still not worried about this, the amount of games requiring RT are still very low as a percentage of released games. And if RT makes it easier to add quality lighing and people eventually have the hardware to support it, I don't see using raytraced lighting as a problem for the end user. After all, when I buy a game I consider it my own property and as such I can do with it as I please, so DLSS 5 being another way to change things is not a problem for me.

If you guys thinks the future of gaming is big corporations having a couple of employees vibe coding games for subscription based streaming, then I guess we will just disagree on that prediction.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that RT is fine.
The point on DLSS5... is there are people arguing. "Why do you care, YOU can turn it off."

To which the counter point is. Sure people said the same thing about Ray tracing 8 years ago when Nvidia introduced it and some of us correctly said. THIS IS STUPID AND BS. There is no way this is going to be a transformative (Better) experience for a decade if ever. The response from some was "Why do you care, YOU can turn it off."
The response from game developers based on major AAA titles like the latest Doom based on the 4-8 year game/game engine development cycles. "We aren't going to bother doing lighting any other way" way back when RT was launched and sort of sucked.

The same will happen with "neural rendering". DLSS5 sure we'll be able to shut it off in games that developers update to support the tech. We won't be able to turn it off in games where they don't bother to develop anything but.

Also beyond this... I know the list of games that force RT lighting is not huge at the moment. Though it is quite a few larger AAA titles. It will grow from this point forward. Also there are many more games where clearly the non RT pipeline gets far less priority then it used to. Many new games look terrible without RT. Your right most people have basic RT hardware. The thing is Basic RT hardware can't run anything but low RT settings anyway and objectively look worse then good raster light maps. If a game has no RT, or low RT settings... its generally pointless to use low RT setting it doesn't look any better and runs a lot slower. If you can't run RT Medium-High there is little point... and most peoples RT capable GPU don't really do that all that well 8 years post RTs debut.
 
ChadD said:
I don't disagree that RT is fine.
The point on DLSS5... is there are people arguing. "Why do you care, YOU can turn it off."

To which the counter point is. Sure people said the same thing about Ray tracing 8 years ago when Nvidia introduced it and some of us correctly said. THIS IS STUPID AND BS. There is no way this is going to be a transformative (Better) experience for a decade if ever. The response from some was "Why do you care, YOU can turn it off."
The response from game developers based on major AAA titles like the latest Doom based on the 4-8 year game/game engine development cycles. Said "We aren't going to bother doing lighting any other way".

The same will happen with "neural rendering". DLSS5 sure we'll be able to shut it off in games that developers update to support the tech. We won't be able to turn it off in games where they don't bother to develop anything but.

Also beyond this... I know the list of games that force RT lighting is not huge at the moment. Though it is quite a few larger AAA titles. It will grow from this point forward. Also there are many more games where clearly the non RT pipeline gets far less priority then it used to. Many new games look terrible without RT. Your right most people have basic RT hardware. The thing is Basic RT hardware can't run anything but low RT settings anyway and objectively look worse then good raster light maps. If a game has no RT, or low RT settings... its generally pointless to use low RT setting it doesn't look any better and runs a lot slower. If you can't run RT Medium-High there is little point... and most peoples RT capable GPU don't really do that all that well 8 years post RTs debut.
Click to expand...

Doom runs quite well though. There’s nothing wrong with progression as long as it is indeed progression. DLSS5 is anything but. Not only is it far more demanding but it also kills the scene.
 
zandor said:
I'm looking forward to it not being optional. I don't really have any complaints about the RT-required games I've played so far. Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition, Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, and Doom the Dark Ages all run pretty well compared to a lot of RT-optional games with RT turned on. Seems like when RT is an option they just toss it in for high end card owners and it kills your fps. When they actually make some effort it works a lot better. MEEE is kinda the poster child for RT done right IMHO. It doesn't need a huge card. It's all ray traced, but low-med-high is still there instead of RT being "ultra+".
Click to expand...
All of those games you listed use RT sparingly. They don't have nearly the same utilization as Alan Wake 2. It sounds great until someone has a 4060/5060 or lower and can barely play the game w/o running a game in Performance mode where anomalies are worse than native. Sure it's better than native on a 4090/5090, but is it on cards lower than that? That's the question. There's many games where it isn't the case.
 
WilyKit said:
Doom runs quite well though. There’s nothing wrong with progression as long as it is indeed progression. DLSS5 is anything but. Not only is it far more demanding but it also kills the scene.
Click to expand...
Doom runs quite well because the light sources are low. It's a big dark cave with minimal light and open maps are a bigger cave with even less RT. nVidia is doing an end run around your every day raster techniques in order to create a custom rendering path that is NOT any more detailed than raster and often times less. RT looks great on anything that's Lo-Fi which masks it's performance impact. The moment you go to AAA you immediately get tons of noise which is caused by all of the short cuts implemented to make RT performant. Each one of those shortcuts DLSS, pathtracing and its denoisers, ray reconstruction, all of the crap in UE5 etc create "simulated visuals" in order to boost the frame rate. We're essentially trading raster for an AI generated asset / pipeline that is far worse at lighting. It's not a secret. nVidia and AMD literally tell you what they're doing. They literally say some shit like "with this rendering technique we calculate half the necessary rays (?) then we bring in AI" and everyone stares at it and calls it good. "It's better than raster!" Is it? You can pick up many Assassin Creed games that will knock Alan Wake 2 out of the park with less grain and noise and some really good lighting effects.

If people like it, that's fine, but be aware of what you're liking because it's not lighting accuracy or improving the native experience anymore. You're being fed AI generated content that is an average. Is that better than raster? Depends, but I've seen so much noise coming out of everything trying to simulate accurate rendered frames that I largely disagree.

In the case of DLSS 5, they just throw the baby out with the bath water and just cover up all of the models and lighting with content that doesn't even make sense when you pause it. I took a look at this shot and pretty quickly could find all sorts of errors. Artists spend days getting this stuff right, so for anything to come along and basically produce an alpha concept build of a scene would piss them off royally.
1774595356895.png
 
kac77 said:
Doom runs quite well because the light sources are low. It's a big dark cave with minimal light and open maps are a bigger cave with even less RT. nVidia is doing an end run around your every day raster techniques in order to create a custom rendering path that is NOT any more detailed than raster and often times less. RT looks great on anything that's Lo-Fi which masks it's performance impact. The moment you go to AAA you immediately get tons of noise which is caused by all of the short cuts implemented to make RT performant. Each one of those shortcuts DLSS, pathtracing and its denoisers, ray reconstruction, all of the crap in UE5 etc create "simulated visuals" in order to boost the frame rate. We're essentially trading raster for an AI generated asset / pipeline that is far worse at lighting. It's not a secret. nVidia and AMD literally tell you what they're doing. They literally say some shit like "with this rendering technique we calculate half the necessary rays (?) then we bring in AI" and everyone stares at it and calls it good. "It's better than raster!" Is it? You can pick up many Assassin Creed games that will knock Alan Wake 2 out of the park with less grain and noise and some really good lighting effects.

If people like it, that's fine, but be aware of what you're liking because it's not lighting accuracy or improving the native experience anymore. You're being fed AI generated content that is an average. Is that better than raster? Depends, but I've seen so much noise coming out of everything trying to simulate accurate rendered frames that I largely disagree.

In the case of DLSS 5, they just throw the baby out with the bath water and just cover up all of the models and lighting with content that doesn't even make sense when you pause it. I took a look at this shot and pretty quickly could find all sorts of errors. Artists spend days getting this stuff right, so for anything to come along and basically produce an alpha concept build of a scene would piss them off royally.
View attachment 793938
Click to expand...
I agree. On the hair highlights thing, I'm sure the AI just assumed that the glow was meant to be highlights and then applied that to her hair and wiped out the lights. Also, I'm sure if the guy in the top photo was present in the bottom one his jacket would have lost the light reflections as well.

But, the overall brightness just kills the mood for me. Every example they've used just brightened all the scenes. I agree this is early demo stuff but if they can't sort that out then you'll be unable to have good mood lighting in games anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
If they used DLSS 5 to give model filters on old games so you could choose a style I think that would have had real positive feedback. And also give incentive to publishers to go back through their library to add hooks to make it easier for these models to work with the games so they can make new sales of old product with near zero cost.

An example of something that would have really impressed me if it was in motion.

kq5 pond.jpg
 
ChadD said:
I don't disagree that RT is fine.
The point on DLSS5... is there are people arguing. "Why do you care, YOU can turn it off."

To which the counter point is. Sure people said the same thing about Ray tracing 8 years ago when Nvidia introduced it and some of us correctly said. THIS IS STUPID AND BS. There is no way this is going to be a transformative (Better) experience for a decade if ever. The response from some was "Why do you care, YOU can turn it off."
The response from game developers based on major AAA titles like the latest Doom based on the 4-8 year game/game engine development cycles. "We aren't going to bother doing lighting any other way" way back when RT was launched and sort of sucked.

The same will happen with "neural rendering". DLSS5 sure we'll be able to shut it off in games that developers update to support the tech. We won't be able to turn it off in games where they don't bother to develop anything but.

Also beyond this... I know the list of games that force RT lighting is not huge at the moment. Though it is quite a few larger AAA titles. It will grow from this point forward. Also there are many more games where clearly the non RT pipeline gets far less priority then it used to. Many new games look terrible without RT. Your right most people have basic RT hardware. The thing is Basic RT hardware can't run anything but low RT settings anyway and objectively look worse then good raster light maps. If a game has no RT, or low RT settings... its generally pointless to use low RT setting it doesn't look any better and runs a lot slower. If you can't run RT Medium-High there is little point... and most peoples RT capable GPU don't really do that all that well 8 years post RTs debut.
Click to expand...

I mean the Doom developer response was: "we literally can't rely on baking things out like the previous game any more"

1774797553822.png
1774797742352.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top