Read more.Quote:
We also learn about the game's 'Braindance' experience recording / playback mechanics.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
We also learn about the game's 'Braindance' experience recording / playback mechanics.
I watched this yesterday, and the best looking bit IMHO was the outside landscape segments which I thought were stunning - looks like physically based rendering is being used well - and nothing to do with ray-tracing. Object pop-up was pretty distracting though- I wonder if new consoles fix this problem?
The character models were disappointing, looking a bit plasticine with not the greatest animation and self-shadowing - both things that are hard to get right, but a couple of other developers seem to have nailed it.
meh...
Pcgameshardware says the demo was with DLSS on at 1080p using an RTX2080TI:
https://translate.google.co.uk/trans...acing-1352917/
So the actual rendered internal resolution with an RTX2080TI is less than 1080p!
Looks like the playable demo was as you say Cat, while the gameplay trailer was 4k/30 without raytracing (and the SSR was really impressive).
From your link I'm not impressed by the monk screenshot at the end of the gallery.
look at the lighting of the carpet around the candle on the right - it looks like a placed lighting with neither global illumination nor raytraced shadows (even ambient occlusion would have helped the candle seem seated in the scene better).
We're probably asking too much - this is only the start of RT really. I bet games will look a lot better in 5 years.
There's like three (4 if you include Nvidea's vid) different versions of media out there for this one media drop which is poor, really.
The media B-roll is 4K30 but doesn't have RT, the majority of people actually played a 1080p GeForce now stream and then you've got the PCGH who appear to have played a native PC experience along with some Australian outfit.
Confused as to why they wouldn't just offer up remote downloads for everyone.
For the level of hardware required for those visuals I am not impressed.Plenty of games look fine without the need for RT,so this game shouldn't be any different,so I hope its not made intentionally "ugly" to oversell the "pretty" RTX features,as a vehicle for Nvidia to sell more Ampere GPUs,as I remember W3 also being poorly optimised for anything other than Maxwell. Then after a few months the other GPUs could run it much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
I will be examining how the consoles run this,and see how the PC version is configured. I don't need or really want any of this RTX stuff,just as long as it runs OK on my current system at 1080p or 1440p medium.
I don't think that's a worry on two counts: 1. The gameplay trailer was completely non-RT, and looked pretty fantastic with great screen space reflections etc. 2. It's using DX12 ultimate rather than nVidia specific RT, and I'm sure they'll have the next gen consoles in mind so it's my expectation it'll actually look/perform better on RDNA2 than it does on current turing cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
It looked OK,but if it is 4K30 with an RTX2080TI and probably a CPU most people won't have is still mediocre performance. Something like Metro:Exodus runs at double that on Ultra settings at 4K(no RTX),and at Extreme settings with RTX on,Hairworks on,etc runs at 4K30,and that was an early RTX title. Also look how much of the videos shown were just cut scenes,etc which are less taxing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Also CDPR has a very poor history on optimisations. They did it W3 and a lot of the Nvidia sponsored options - Kepler owners were screwed over so much,that after massive complaints,they had to add a patch with tessellation options,etc and work on performance. Many AMD users fared better as in AMD drivers you could change tessellation manually - this is despite consoles having AMD GPUs,but even then performance had to be patched. CDPR was more worried about only supporting Maxwell based GPUs properly at the time,because Nvidia sponsored them....even those Gameworks features were rushed into the game according to AMD within 6 months of release! A number of the Gameworks features were implemented without using Gameworks in a different more open way in the console versions.
Nvidia made sure the PC version again just used too much tessellation. This is my concern with them getting involved,its not just RT performance,but general performance in the non-RT aspects of the game. Pascal and Turing owners get screwed over,so they can sell Ampere GPUs,the "next generation" console version,won't be the launch version,so probably no proper RDNA2 optimisations until 2021:
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/...a-launch-game/
The game isn't being delayed for consoles,but the Ampere launch,especially if it gets bundled with Ampere GPUs you will see that.
Edit!!
PCGH also says that it was not only DLSS at 1080p,but performance dips as low as 30FPS,and rarely hits 60FPS.
You can't actually believe this to be the case?Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
There's no doubt Nvidia have slung some cash their way for marketing (and being the only company currently offering RT, of course) but given CDPR don't need money upfront there is absolutely no reason for them to delay their game for Ampere. It's okay to be annoyed at perceived 'lazy devs' and artificial limitations but what you're suggesting doesn't make a jot of financial sense for CDPR.
Ampere will launch before cyberpunk - even before the previous release date, let alone the new november one, so I don't think that's the case. Bundles will be vouchers or something if need be, I don't think there's enough reason for CDPR to delay just for one vendor.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terbinator
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
It makes zero difference for CDPR in terms of sales,in fact more people will pre-order it anyway,as the game is mega hyped.
CDPR specifically said the next generation console version will be a 2021 release,and since we know they probably will launch this year,if CDPR had financial sense they should be working on that too,not delaying it. So the next generation consoles will be running the current generation console version(apparently):
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/...a-launch-game/
So they are prioritising the PC version over the next generation console version,and loads of people are going to be buying them. It wouldn't surprise they will sell more than some of these next generation GPUs.
Also look at prior history. W3 was delayed by 3 months - merely 2 months before launch,Nvidia dropped Gameworks code,which replaced some of the stuff implemented in other ways(look at the console version).
How convenient,delay the game by 3 months for "bug fixes",and 2 months before launch they integrate Gameworks code. W3 was also bundled with Maxwell GPUs - it was a big selling point to buy Maxwell.Quote:
"We've been working with CD Projeckt Red from the beginning," said Huddy. "We've been giving them detailed feedback all the way through. Around two months before release, or thereabouts, the GameWorks code arrived with HairWorks, and it completely sabotaged our performance as far as we're concerned. We were running well before that... it's wrecked our performance, almost as if it was put in to achieve that goal."
CDPR despite the delay were more worried about plonking in Gameworks stuff,than fixing performance,etc on Kepler. They knew very well what state the game was - I wonder why they didn't seem to know,that the majority of GPU users would have problems(all it really needed was more fined tuned tessellation options which took them months to add).
Also Epic have tons of money too,but look at how close they are to Nvidia,ie,UE4 games out of the box just work much better on Nvidia GPUs(you need to optimise specifically for AMD,and that version is made mostly for consoles). It's like some bromance. CDPR and Nvidia have the same bromance too.
BTW,do you think with Nvidia working so closely with CDPR,that making their best gaming GPU look rubbish,ie,running the game at under 1080p native resolution with framerates as low as 30FPS,is a mistake? Wait until you see the demo of the RTX3080TI,which doubles/triples the performance,has improved DLSS3.0,etc. Then months later,Nvidia and CDPR will fix performance to some degree for older GPUs.
But by then it won't matter,ie,first impressions count.
I like to be wrong,but since AMD is utterly quiet on this game,and Nvidia is already going full steam ahead on PR,this going to be the title to "sell" Ampere. The hype is dialled upto 11,so it will work!
I just hope the delay isn't because of RT as I along with about 90% od people that will buy and play this game won't be using a rt card :(
Interview about ray tracing: https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Cyber...erview-1353192
Doesn't sound like it's going to be worth it especially. Their main focus has been on non-RT solutions - the new consoles will be using non-RT rendering even, for now. They already support bounced light in software, and adding raytracing just improves the accuracy.
The lack of RT on next gen consoles does play into the concerns that they've initially gone with an nVidia specific solution. Hopefully not, but we'll have to see.