Nvidia Creates New Studio To Remaster Classic Games With Raytracing

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
10,239
The age of the game doesn't really matter. Quake II is fully Path Traced. That's all the Ray Tracing lightening effects, shadows, reflections, refractions, ambient occlusion, and diffuse global illumination.

And I know which one I would play, the non Ray traced Quake II looks terrible when you go back to it after playing the Ray Traced version.
No you wouldn’t. 1000fps locked feels buttery smooth!
32 FPS average feels incredibly, incredibly, incredibly clunky after playing at 1000fps for just a few moments. I played about 5 minutes of RTX Quake, then turned it off.
 

KATEKATEKATE

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
354
No you wouldn’t. 1000fps locked feels buttery smooth!
32 FPS average feels incredibly, incredibly, incredibly clunky after playing at 1000fps for just a few moments. I played about 5 minutes of RTX Quake, then turned it off.
it's fascinating how ppl believe that because they have a preference, that said preference is so objectively correct that anyone who claims a dissenting opinion is not only wrong, but incapable of knowing their own experience.

Different people have different experiences and priorities, how wild is that!

No I wouldn’t. 1000fps locked feels buttery smooth!
32 FPS average feels incredibly, incredibly, incredibly clunky to me after playing at 1000fps for just a few moments. I played about 5 minutes of RTX Quake, then turned it off.
ftfy
 

Brian_B

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,356
They also aren’t using Nvidia’s brand of shading or texturing or memory compression. So what?
nVidia's brand of raytracing - RTX, comes at a steep price increase.

We don't know what AMD or nVidia will bring to the table in that regard yet. You could, if a developer wanted to, use DXR and just bypass hardware all together. nVidia enabled RTX on Pascal cards, just to prove that performance would be abysmal without the dedicated RTX hardware. I can only speculate this is the same reason that AMD and Intel haven't enabled DXR support in their drivers.

Just because consoles have pledged raytracing support doesn't mean that RTX/nVidia will necessarily benefit, or that Raytracing will necessarily even stick around. There's been a lot of trends in graphics that seem like they are going to take off, most of them just kind of fade away; but those that are successful almost inevitably get commoditized and then taken for granted. And if AMD's version is going into consoles, which are extremely price sensitive --- either the RT hardware doesn't cost nearly as much to add as RTX price increase indicates it may, or AMD's implementation will be too weak to make an impactful difference.

My prediction - if Raytracing does stick around, the price will drop to insignificance as it will get lumped in as standard with all the other hardware and, for nVidia, RTX will end up just being a branding shift. If it continues to carry a marked increase in price, then it will wither and eventually be driven into irrelevance.

All I'm saying here is don't confuse RTX with Raytracing. RTX is a version of Raytracing, but they are not interchangeable terms and it's not the only one, and it certainly won't be the one that consoles support. It's the same thing as saying PhysX and hardware based physics are the same thing - PhysX is one implementation, but it's not the only one. Or that all soda is Coka-Cola.

My own opinion - Raytracing is nifty, but i don't see enough in current generation to make it worth any extra money out of my pocket - but then again, I'm pretty happy with my current setup (GTX980 @ 4K/60 with lowered settings) and don't see a lot of reason to ugprade from what I have to anything, and I'm certainly not chasing cutting edge. For those that are willing to pay for it - the more power to you, and if it should catch on, then you trailblazers will be the ones that funded the first steps on that path. I think going back and remastering older games with it is a worthy cause, and it certainly piques my interest, but again, I'm probably not going to shuck out cash to go back and replay games that are years/decades old.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,333
“Quake RTX on” on my rig, 32 frames per second on my EVGA 2080 at 3440x1440 resolution

“Quake II RTX off “on my rig, 1000fps (capped by the Quake II engine)

I’ll give you one guess which way I’d rather play.

Nvidia, fix that FPS nonsense first! If it needs more hardware — it needs more hardware. 32 FPS on a 22 year old game? Get out of here.
Just out of curiousity, though, how does RTX play at, say, 1080p or 1440p?
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Not many people will buy an RTX card just to play some remastered game. But it's another perk and they add up.
This is key. I have to laugh every time someone grumps that no one is going to buy RT card for some old remastered game.

The point it's an every accumulating list of new and old games, and that could easily tip the balance.

Depending on which old game, it could even be more valuable to me than a lot of new ones. I have Jedi Outcast in my GoG account, but I haven't played it yet.

It would be a major bonus for it to get an RT overhaul before I do.
 

MangoSeed

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
1,197
nVidia's brand of raytracing - RTX, comes at a steep price increase.

We don't know what AMD or nVidia will bring to the table in that regard yet. You could, if a developer wanted to, use DXR and just bypass hardware all together. nVidia enabled RTX on Pascal cards, just to prove that performance would be abysmal without the dedicated RTX hardware. I can only speculate this is the same reason that AMD and Intel haven't enabled DXR support in their drivers.

Just because consoles have pledged raytracing support doesn't mean that RTX/nVidia will necessarily benefit, or that Raytracing will necessarily even stick around. There's been a lot of trends in graphics that seem like they are going to take off, most of them just kind of fade away; but those that are successful almost inevitably get commoditized and then taken for granted. And if AMD's version is going into consoles, which are extremely price sensitive --- either the RT hardware doesn't cost nearly as much to add as RTX price increase indicates it may, or AMD's implementation will be too weak to make an impactful difference.

My prediction - if Raytracing does stick around, the price will drop to insignificance as it will get lumped in as standard with all the other hardware and, for nVidia, RTX will end up just being a branding shift. If it continues to carry a marked increase in price, then it will wither and eventually be driven into irrelevance.

All I'm saying here is don't confuse RTX with Raytracing. RTX is a version of Raytracing, but they are not interchangeable terms and it's not the only one, and it certainly won't be the one that consoles support. It's the same thing as saying PhysX and hardware based physics are the same thing - PhysX is one implementation, but it's not the only one. Or that all soda is Coka-Cola.

My own opinion - Raytracing is nifty, but i don't see enough in current generation to make it worth any extra money out of my pocket - but then again, I'm pretty happy with my current setup (GTX980 @ 4K/60 with lowered settings) and don't see a lot of reason to ugprade from what I have to anything, and I'm certainly not chasing cutting edge. For those that are willing to pay for it - the more power to you, and if it should catch on, then you trailblazers will be the ones that funded the first steps on that path. I think going back and remastering older games with it is a worthy cause, and it certainly piques my interest, but again, I'm probably not going to shuck out cash to go back and replay games that are years/decades old.
RTX isn’t a version of anything though. It is nothing like PhysX.

It’s just Nvidia’s brand for their hardware implementation of industry standard DirectX and Vulkan raytracing APIs.

Console adoption of raytracing benefits everyone not just Nvidia. It means more developers gain experience with the technique and more engines are built with raytracing support. That’s a good thing.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,445
No you wouldn’t. 1000fps locked feels buttery smooth!
32 FPS average feels incredibly, incredibly, incredibly clunky after playing at 1000fps for just a few moments. I played about 5 minutes of RTX Quake, then turned it off.
I should correct this statement. I know which I am playing. I have a 2070 Super, I play Quake 2 with Ray Tracing on. I tried playing it without Ray Tracing and it was too terrible to look at. Or to put it another way, if it didn't have Ray Tracing, I wouldn't play it at all!!
 

demondrops

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
422
if they did mass effect.. i dont see current gen worth to upgrade for. rtx is still mostly just an expensive gimmick. just hope that next gen wont have that hefty price increase, rtx is just too damn expensive.
 

blackmomba

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
357
It's losing steam and that's why both next gen consoles have announced support?

Not many people will buy an RTX card just to play some remastered game. But it's another perk and they add up.
Raytracing isn't necessarily losing steam. RTX is. We've been discussing AMD, Sony, Microsoft, maybe even Intel's implementations.

So this is supposed to remind us of RTX branding. Thats all this is
 

d3athf1sh

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
670
long shot, but a re-release of Oni with DXR, high-rez textures, updated particle effects, and controller support would be awesome. The gameplay has really held up, even today there's nothing I can think of that matches the smoothness and pace of the hand-to-hand combat.

i agree that Doom 3 with RT needs to happen. Unreal would be neat too but tbh the lighting in the original was pretty good, and the full-scene reflections still look way better than the screenspace crap we're stuck with today

Quake 1 RTX too plz? F**k, some of those levels would look stunning with full RT shadows+GI+AO :eek:
doom 3 was too much step on tile get jump scare and enemies attacking from behind. didn't feel really dynamic. idk.
 

demondrops

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
422
Raytracing isn't necessarily losing steam. RTX is. We've been discussing AMD, Sony, Microsoft, maybe even Intel's implementations.

So this is supposed to remind us of RTX branding. Thats all this is
Think there is future for it for sure. It's just not right now. And consoles always seem to overshoot their capabilities for the sake of having it more for advertising probs :p Hello 4k, and the already talking 8k haha :p
 

SvenBent

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
3,171
Am I the only one who finds old games perfectly fine as they are graphics wise and that they have other qualities that made them great then and to this day?
Agreed but if they dont touch what made them great I don't see the bad in adding better graphics.
 

cyklondx

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
419
I don't think Heretic is a real 3D game. If this uses the original Doom engine. Objects are sprites, not 3D models.
You can still do RT on 2d objects. The world construct is 3d, just items/monsters are 2d sprites. They can cast shadows etc without issues.
 
Top