Metro Exodus: GeForce RTX Real-Time Ray Traced Global Illumination Demo

Krenum said:
I think people that bought these high refresh & resolution monitors are going to be pissed once they get their RTX cards & realize that their not getting the refresh rates & FPS they want because Ray Tracing is hindering their performance.


Also, RTX on doesn't look more "realistic" at all, there is waaaay to much bloom.
Click to expand...
No one had seen any concrete numbers yet u are on every RTX story posting opinion based, amd fanboy responses multiple times. Take a deep breath, we know you have a giant hard on for the red team, but maybe wait for legitimate reviews prior to the nonsense hypothetical presented as knowledge posts? I get you want your thumb up counter since [H] had become the AMD fanboy campsite lately...
 
I agree with the people above that RTX Off looked better most of the time. I don't have a problem with raytracing itself even though it looks like there might be a fairly substantial performance hit (and it tends to make most demos i've seen look rediculously shiny).
My problem is that adding RT is adding to the biggest overall problem with games these days. Games companies focus on visuals and FX more than the important stuff like playability.
 
RT is of course fantastic by its nature, it's as close to reality as we can get. I'm stoked that NV is pursuing this, because if they can't pull it off, I don't know who can.

My objection to the RTX line is that I feel the 2070 is a deception. All those demos with RTX use a 2080 TI, and NEED it.
OK, alright, there will be settings to lower RT and have a lesser version perform OK-ish.

But in my mind the 2070 should be the 2080, and the 2080 should be the actual 2080Ti.
I think the Ti branding was used prematurely to justify a very high price. It doesn't serve NV because it really lowers the meaning of the Ti branding.

A 2080 with the perf of a 2080Ti at 2080 price would be sensible to me.
 
lollerwaffle said:
But in my mind the 2070 should be the 2080, and the 2080 should be the actual 2080Ti.
I think the Ti branding was used prematurely to justify a very high price. It doesn't serve NV because it really lowers the meaning of the Ti branding.

A 2080 with the perf of a 2080Ti at 2080 price would be sensible to me.
Click to expand...

2070 ray-tracing performance numbers are going to be the most interesting for me...
 
Spidey329 said:
It's not pure Global Illumination like you'd find in an art render package. GI encompasses many many algorithms. Some of which are used in modern game engines along side the "faked" methods (pre-rendered lighting, etc.).

RTX just allows them to not-fake a few more things.
Click to expand...

Without seeing RTX off/on sided by side, I'm not sure I'd notice it. In this video, it doesn't look significantly better. It just looks different. And that makes sense. The fake effects that raytracing replaces were also intended to be an approximation of the behavior of light. So, of course they produce a comparable result. But raytracing certainly looks more realistic. As pretty as RTX is in BF V, there's no way I'm dropping screen resolution to 1080p.

I watched a video today that explained how, soon (but not at launch), you (or developers) will be able to render RTX elements at different resolution than screen resolution. That might make performance acceptable.
 
The problem I have is Nvidia pushing a concept that is all but useless unless you have their highest priced card (2080TI) and game at 1920x1080. Its just glossed over marketing with a British accent to make it more appealing.
 
kilroy67 said:
The problem I have is Nvidia pushing a concept that is all but useless unless you have their highest priced card (2080TI) and game at 1920x1080. Its just glossed over marketing with a British accent to make it more appealing.
Click to expand...

A lot of things are like that though at first, like 4K gaming for the longest time.

Takes time often for new technologies to trickle down to more affordable GPUs. Not a new concept.
 
Brent_Justice said:
A lot of things are like that though at first, like 4K gaming for the longest time.

Takes time often for new technologies to trickle down to more affordable GPUs. Not a new concept.
Click to expand...
It kind of reminds me of Crysis, a cutting edge game and not a GPU that could handle it for awhile, not even in SLI.
 
The inside demonstration stands out the most- this is the hardest thing to make look natural!

Outside is pretty easy if you're not looking at details, and we see in the demo- they'll probably need to tweak it, or even rely on ray tracing for specific situations/models/viewpoints.

And that's something to keep in mind here. We're not seeing the best that ray tracing can provide in games- we're seeing that it can be done in the first place!
 
Brent_Justice said:
Just remember, you don't have to turn RTX features on. As long as the options can be toggled, I don't mind having the option there.
Click to expand...

Plus the engines and RTX tech are still new and subject to change/optimization. Who knows how RTX will impact frames 6, 12, 24+ months in the future.

I do like the option to turn it off. I have zero interest in the frame impact in a competitive FPS like BF. Would rather have frames than pretty scenery.
 
Cr4ckm0nk3y said:
I do like the option to turn it off. I have zero interest in the frame impact in a competitive FPS like BF. Would rather have frames than pretty scenery.
Click to expand...

Who has time to look at pretty lights in a DM, Im just trying to stay alive for more then 30 seconds.
 
kilroy67 said:
It kind of reminds me of Crysis, a cutting edge game and not a GPU that could handle it for awhile, not even in SLI.
Click to expand...

Which we need more of! Higher resolution and refresh rates does not equal better graphics. Crysis was an amazing leap. Games have looked the same for the last 5 years + everything is a console port.

Give me a new FPS that runs at 25FPS on a 2080ti but looks like Crysis did to us back in 2007 please. Give me something a Ps4 has no shot of running.
 
Cr4ckm0nk3y said:
Plus the engines and RTX tech are still new and subject to change/optimization. Who knows how RTX will impact frames 6, 12, 24+ months in the future.

I do like the option to turn it off. I have zero interest in the frame impact in a competitive FPS like BF. Would rather have frames than pretty scenery.
Click to expand...

Same. Some games will run with it on, others with it lowered or disabled, you know, when I get around to getting one...
 
Insomniator said:
Which we need more of! Higher resolution and refresh rates does not equal better graphics. Crysis was an amazing leap. Games have looked the same for the last 5 years + everything is a console port.

Give me a new FPS that runs at 25FPS on a 2080ti but looks like Crysis did to us back in 2007 please. Give me something a Ps4 has no shot of running.
Click to expand...
It was a amazing game once I was able to play it in 2017 :LOL:
 
Insomniator said:
Which we need more of! Higher resolution and refresh rates does not equal better graphics. Crysis was an amazing leap. Games have looked the same for the last 5 years + everything is a console port.

Give me a new FPS that runs at 25FPS on a 2080ti but looks like Crysis did to us back in 2007 please. Give me something a Ps4 has no shot of running.
Click to expand...

It's a point I want to emphasize. I want to see higher resolution textures, more detailed textures, higher polygon counts, environment tessellation improving everything, longer view distances with smart ways at reducing LoD "pop-in", accurate physics, physics fluid dynamics, better character facial animations, and so many other things improved, before ray tracing. They are pretty good at faking lighting these days that are so much better on performance. Ray Tracing is the light at the end of the tunnel, but there's a lot of tunnel to explore and we can improve on before we get there, IMO. That said, I'm glad the ball is rolling, but we've got a long way to go, and we can't forget the other things down that road.

Also have to remember NVIDIA's method is a hybrid Ray Tracing method. The games are still inherently rasterized. They are not truly Ray Traced only with no rasterization.

We are far from having games built from the ground up to be Ray Traced only, with no resterization. Right now, this hybrid method is only "patched" in.
 
Last edited:
haste. said:
No one had seen any concrete numbers yet u are on every RTX story posting opinion based, amd fanboy responses multiple times. Take a deep breath, we know you have a giant hard on for the red team, but maybe wait for legitimate reviews prior to the nonsense hypothetical presented as knowledge posts? I get you want your thumb up counter since [H] had become the AMD fanboy campsite lately...
Click to expand...

Hypothetical? Alright. Let see these cards perform at 144-165hz at framerate caps with RTX ON at high resolutions. Shouldn't be long now. I hope you're right & I'm wrong.
 
Brent_Justice said:
It's a point I want to emphasize. I'd rather have higher resolution more detailed textures, higher polygon counts, more environment tessellation, longer view distances with smart ways at reducing LoD "pop-in", accurate physics, fluid dynamics, better character facial animations, and so many other things improved, before we get to ray tracing. Ray Tracing is the light at the end of the tunnel, but there's a lot of tunnel to explore and improve on before we get there, IMO.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, but also its nice to have hardware that can actually handle playing games with these these new features, not just it has the ability. It will be very interesting when HardOCP does their review to see if the 2080 RTX and 2070 RTX (especially the 2070 RTX) can even play games at ultra settings and ray tracing turned on.
 
This was just bad implementation. They were too excited to show the tech and forgot that the artistic quality of the game was lost when the tuning of their lighting was lost.

This can be fixed but it made for yet another bad demo.

I know the tech can do better, we've seen the tech do better, but there's TOO much pushing to weld RT into games that are nearly complete and havn't had all the textures and lighting optimized for the more physical based rendering approach of RT. There's a ton of raster tricks and lighting adjustments happening that just get shut OFF when RT is turned on resulting in a scene that's brighter and less edgy than intended.

If Nvidia wants this so badly they need to let the devs get this done right BEFORE showing it. At least showing it in this way to the masses who don't care about how game dev works. They only care about how it looks.
 
kilroy67 said:
Who has time to look at pretty lights in a DM, Im just trying to stay alive for more then 30 seconds.
Click to expand...

But consider... your on the ground and in a reflection of a drop of liquid, you can see the enemy approaching from behind.... AND THEN, you realize you saw their reflection in a pool of your own blood, dead again.
 
Krenum said:
Honestly I think a lot of these scenes look better with RTX off. I'm not sure I could justify the cost of these cards by this demo I just watched, especially if there is a large performance hit. Like others have said, I think it would be best to wait until they can refine it more in the next generation.
Click to expand...
I agree, to me it looked jerky with RTX on? When it was off, it looked smooth. Maybe they will tweak it down?
 
cjcox said:
But consider... your on the ground and in a reflection of a drop of liquid, you can see the enemy approaching from behind.... AND THEN, you realize you saw their reflection in a pool of your own blood, dead again.
Click to expand...
Thats funny , but usually for me it ends being run over by a tank or picked off by a sniper from across the map.
 
Honestly, RTX looks really good to me. But that frame-rate drop was brutal. The problem is it looks like you will need 2 2080 Ti's in NV-link just to get playable frames at 1080P with all of the eye candy turned on.

Looks I will be hitting up the used market for a 1080 Ti to replace my 1060 6GB since I upgraded from a 1200P 60 Hz to a 1440P 165 Hz monitor about 6 weeks ago (4.4 times the pixels to push in a second) and my 1060 is OCed fairly high and it still sounds like a vacuum cleaner when gaming.
 
That's it!! After watching, I am buying 2 $1200 graphics cards for this!!



Said no one ever with a brain bigger than a pea.
 
kilroy67 said:
The problem I have is Nvidia pushing a concept that is all but useless unless you have their highest priced card (2080TI) and game at 1920x1080. Its just glossed over marketing with a British accent to make it more appealing.
Click to expand...

It is one of those things where if the hardware isn't there, developers will not push for it kind of things. 1st generation always sucks pushing the new feature but give it couple of generations, it will become common place.
 
maybe Raytracing would work wonders in a more modern setting where there are 10x more lights , but man, using that in this game only means i would need to jack up the contrast settings...lol


discotheque raid anyone? hmmmmm

p.s Atomic heart raytracing promo vid has more pizzazzz which actually makes u want to buy the refresh.


 
Last edited:
Chimpee said:
It is one of those things where if the hardware isn't there, developers will not push for it kind of things. 1st generation always sucks pushing the new feature but give it couple of generations, it will become common place.
Click to expand...

I get what your saying and Im all for new tech, but if I buy say a 2070 RTX for around $700, and it cant play one game with ray tracing turned on, I kind of see that being more then just sucks. But we will see what HardOCP says when they do their review.
 
kilroy67 said:
I totally agree, but also its nice to have hardware that can actually handle playing games with these these new features, not just it has the ability. It will be very interesting when HardOCP does their review to see if the 2080 RTX and 2070 RTX (especially the 2070 RTX) can even play games at ultra settings and ray tracing turned on.
Click to expand...

Yes, I too am looking forward to HardOCP doing their review. That guy who does their video card reviews sure is slow!
 
While not quite ready, I'm imagining a Left 4 Dead style or Vermintide game... just think of fire and gunshots being used to illuminate targets... AI where they can miss you because they can't see in the dark...
 
Hagrid said:
I agree, to me it looked jerky with RTX on? When it was off, it looked smooth. Maybe they will tweak it down?
Click to expand...

I didn't notice any jerkiness, will take another look, but RTX on seemed like it had way too much bloom or glow. If they're shooting for realism, I think they missed the mark. I know when I look out a window from inside a building it doesn't glow around the edges of the window in real life.
 
theBrownLlama said:
maybe Raytracing would work wonders in a more modern setting where there are 10x more lights , but man, using that in this game only means i would need to jack up the contrast settings...lol


discotheque raid anyone? hmmmmm

p.s Atomic heart raytracing promo vid has more pizzazzz.

Click to expand...


Looks way better off. The shadows look terrible with it on.

Video makes me want to play Bioshock though :)
 
Last edited:
You can see a difference, but just imagine a pepsi-challenge of testing the two with no "RTX ON/OFF" card and see who picks out which scenes are RTX enabled.
 
kilroy67 said:
I get what your saying and Im all for new tech, but if I buy say a 2070 RTX for around $700, and it cant play one game with ray tracing turned on, I kind of see that being more then just sucks. But we will see what HardOCP says when they do their review.
Click to expand...

Yes pricing for it does kinda suck, no doubt Nvidia maintaining the margin for their expensive die.
 
Well, just my observation: I think RT would work much better for horror games for now. In the future, RT will be widely adopted, especially after consoles start utilizing it.

For this Metro demo, the usage of RT and its settings is really up to the developers. Maybe they wanted to go for a much more clear definition of having RT and not having it, which I think they did pretty well. Doesn't look good to me but it looks very cool, nonetheless.

I remember when tessallation was demoed in a game so long ago, I forgot if it was Serious Sam or Quake, and the game's shotgun became cartoonishly bulky. Looks like the moment before a cartoon shotgun explodes because the end was plugged.
 
Well, just my observation: I think RT would work much better for horror games for now. In the future, RT will be widely adopted, especially after consoles start utilizing it.

For this Metro demo, the usage of RT and its settings is really up to the developers. Maybe they wanted to go for a much more clear definition of having RT and not having it, which I think they did pretty well. Doesn't look good to me but it looks very cool, nonetheless.

I remember when tessallation was demoed in a game so long ago, I forgot if it was Serious Sam or Quake, and the game's shotgun became cartoonishly bulky. Looks like the moment before a cartoon shotgun explodes because the end was plugged.
 
I wonder if NVLink will double the RT performance too. It should in theory, but who knows.

Imagine people buying 2 2080Tis just to play games at 1080p60 raytraced.
 
A lot of these videos are showing NO development effort in taking advantage of current standard-practice techniques. Have a look at this Unreal Engine documentation on reflections inside their engine

Also look at this video made 3 years ago: No RTX in sight.



Its like some of these devs disable ALL raster and shader effects (like in the below video) and then turn on RTX and go LOOK LOOK AT HOW GOOD IT LOOKS.

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