this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025

780 points (97.9% liked)

Greentext

greentext@sh.itjust.works

9,003 readers

3,823 active

480 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 3 years ago

moderators

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

Anon turns on raytracing (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

167 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (23 children)

The first F.E.A.R. had excellent dynamic lighting, I'd argue it had the epitome of relevant dynamic lighting. It didn't need to set your GPU on fire for it, it didn't have to sacrifice two thirds of its framerate for it, it had it all figured out. It did need work on textures, but even those looked at least believable due to the lighting system. We really didn't need more than that.

RT is nothing but eye candy and a pointless resource hog meant to sell us GPUs with redundant compute capacities, which don't even guarantee that the game'll run any better! And it's not just RT, it's 4k textures, it's upscaling, it's Ambient Occlusion, all of these things hog resources without any major visual improvement.

Upgraded from a 3060 to a 4080 Super to play STALKER 2 at more than 25 frames per second. Got the GPU, same basic settings, increased the resolution a bit, +10 FPS... Totes worth the money...

Edit: not blaming GSC for it, they're just victims of the AAA disease.

Edit 2: to be clear, my CPU's an i7, so I doubt it had much to do with the STALKER bottleneck, considering it barely reached 60% usage, while my GPU was panting...

Edit 3: while re-reading this, it hit me that I sound like the Luddite Boss, so I need to clarify this for myself more than anyone else: I am not against technological advancement, I want tech in my eyeballs (literally), I am against "advancements" which exist solely as marketing accolades.

hideshow 23 child comments

[–] KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

F. E. A. R. And Riddick EFBB were beautiful games, I remember GTA SA coming out a few months later and thinking, WTF are these graphics.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Seriously, even GTA III had a MUCH better defined atmosphere and feel than SA!

And the Riddick games were, indeed, gorgeous! In a grim as hell way, but gorgeous!

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

It was fun though, despite the shitty GFX, was definitely my favourite of the series.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Agreed, it was a major step forward in terms of mechanical complexity, but I couldn't shake the feeling that everything I saw was made out of plastic, y'know? Cars included.

parent

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

To be fair, the "sunny California" setting and atmosphere is probably as bland and generic as it gets. It didn't give designers a lot to work with.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago

It's not just that, Vice City was set in Miami, I'd argue it had similar vibes/aesthetics (accounting for the difference in time and setting), and it felt significantly more cohesive and well-designed in terms of aesthetics.

parent

[–] faintwhenfree@lemmus.org 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I remeber reading the real sell to developers is less calculations, currently textures have to be designed for different lightening, which would require pre rendering same textures across multiple lightings. And that is time and resource intensive for developers.

Ray tracing is a simpler solution. I'm not an expert, but that seemed sensible to me.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

I heard the Source 2 editor has (relatively offline, think blender viewport style) ray tracing as an option, even though no games with it support any sort of real time RT. Just so artists can estimate what the light bake will look like without actually having to wait for it.

So what people are talking about there is lightmaps, essentially a whole other texture on top of everything else that holds diffuse lighting information. It's 'baked' in a lengthy process of ray tracing that can take seconds to hours to days depending on how fast the baking system is and how hard the level is to light. This just puts that raytraced lighting information directly into a texture so it can be read in fractions of a millisecond like any other texture. It's great for performance, but can't be quickly previewed, can't show the influence of moving objects, and technically can't be applied to any surface with a roughness other than full (so most diffuse objects but basically no metallic objects, those use light probes and bent normals usually, and sometimes take lightmap information although that isn't technically correct and can produce weird results in some cases)

The solution to lighting dynamic objects in a scene with lightmaps is through a grid of pre baked light probes. These give lighting to dynamic objects but don't receive it from them.

parent

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly, this wouldn't have been an issue, ever, if we wouldn't have switched to "release fast, fuck quality, crunch ya' plebs!" It's yet another solution for a self-generated problem.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] faintwhenfree@lemmus.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I don't know who is downvoting you, but release fast at cost of quality definitely makes the problem worse. Because people keep buying half baked unfinished games.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago*

Oh, I always remove the default upvote:))

And thoroughly agreed, currently playing Dune Awakening. It's been about two weeks since launch. I fell through the map twice (by doing nothing other than using what the game gave me - grappling-hooked to a container in a lab, catapulted me straight through the wall), and keep getting ganked by solo mobs who pin me to walls, because I'm unable to move or dodge. A single enemy. Blocking my movement completely. Not to mention NPCs being displayed as blank templates which load in when you're barely 2m away from them, twitchy directionals, and many other points of minor annoyance, which just add up...

And I'm not dumping on Dune, it's a good game! But it's VERY rough around the edges...

parent

[–] daellat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Cpu % usage is not a great stat. If on a 10 core CPU the main thread is maxed and the others are on 20% it would read 28% overall but you're still CPU limited.

Even the 7800x3d is cpu limited in stalker 2 in any npc area

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Sorry, yeah, forgot the deets. 9700k, none of the cores were overworked, 60% seemed to be average usage across them.

And, yeah, checked in NPC-heavy areas, where the stuttering, lag, and frame times were the worst, and I didn't have it set to "Ridiculous" - using a combination of High for textures and Med for effects (like shadows and lighting), running it at 1080p on the 3060 and 1440p on the 4080 Super (bumped it up to native, basically). Exclusively on SSD, 32 Gigs of RAM.

Edit: no upscaling because the input lag was horrid.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] WhiteBurrito@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I that's part of it.. The 9700K is like 7 years old at this point, and I'm all for holding off updates if it does what you want, but eventually you'll have to if you want to actually take advantage of that 4080

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

Well aware of that, but no game has ever had issues with it so far, so...

And I even run it without any OC, because it handles everything I throw at it juust fine.

Edit: plus, to be honest... if things keep going the way they're going, I can see a clear cut-off point for me around gaming... Very few new games I'd actually want to play, and I own every game I've ever enjoyed playing.

Edit 2: as an example, I can run Cyberpunk 2077 with everything cranked up to 11 and my system's actually chillin'.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] daellat@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

I think you'd be surprised at how much headroom a fast cpu will give you in some games on that resolution and with that gpu. I've got a similar performing one (7900xtx) and I swear by my 7800x3d. Every game (apart from stalker 2) just feels so responsive. But it's no cheap upgrade thats for sure.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago

I don't doubt that! My point was that a 9th-gen i7 is beef enough to handle literally everything I've ever thrown at it, games or otherwise, yet some newer games with very few graphical enhancements (I'm talking not even ray-tracing) are so poorly optimised, that the hardware isn't to blame. UE5 in general, for instance, is a hot mess, not in terms of graphical fidelity, but in terms of software bulk and resource consumption. And it really doesn't look THAT much better when compared to UE4.

I'd rather just stop buying half-baked software than be strong-armed into expensive and unnecessary upgrades to play a game which was clearly rushed to market and is oftentimes incomplete not just from a software perspective, but also from a narrative and feature perspective.

parent

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Still, even if any thread looks like it's always at 60%, if a load appears and disappears very quickly and gets averaged out on the graph (as it could in an unoptimised or unusual situation) it could still be a factor. I think the only real way to know is to benchmark. You could try underclocking your CPU and see if the performance gets worse, if you really want to know.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago

Did several, the CPU is fine. Of course, it isn't fine when a new game suffers from unpatched memory leaks and unoptimised respurce consumption, which has become the trend rather than the exception - looking at Cyberpunk 2077 for demonstrating to publishers that gamers will buy literally anything out of inertia.

parent

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

Really? Ambient occlusion used to be the first thing I would turn on. Anyways, 4k textures barely add any cost to the GPU. That's because they don't use any compute, just vram, and vram is very cheap ($3.36/GB of GDDR6). The only reason consumer cards are limited in vram is to prevent them from being used for professional and AI applications. If they had a comparable ratio of vram to compute, they would be an insanely better value compared to workstation cards, and manufacturers don't want to draw away sales from that very profitable market.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly, I find 4k in general to be entirely unnecessary. Anything above 1440p is redundant imho, as diminishing returns kick in very fast as the density increases.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

For the resolution of the texture to need to be doubled along each axis, you could either have a monitor with twice the resolution, or you could be half the distance away. Most of the time games will let you get closer to objects than their texture resolution looks good for. So 4k textures still give an improvement even on a 1080p monitor.

Texture resolution is chosen on a case by case basis, objects that the player will usually be very close to have higher resolution textures, and ones that are impossible to approach can use lower resolution.

The only costs to including higher resolution textures are artist time and (usually) disk space. Artist time is outsourced to countries with cheap labor (Philippines, Indonesia, etc) and apparently no-one cares about disk space.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago*

It is such a minor improvement, though. Especially, as you've mentioned, on a 1080p screen. And, sorry to say, but having to fill up 150+ Gigs of space for a 20-30 hour game is a complete waste with, as I've said several times, immensely diminished returns.

Let's take UE5, for instance. Texture streaming has become necessary because we can't afford to have a coherent texture map loaded in all at once, precisely because those textures are stupidly large. This causes so, so many performance issues, that I'd argue it's been a downgrade even coming off UE3.

I'd rather have a smooth and OK-looking game which doesn't require me to get a second SSD just to fit it all, than to face significant stutters every time I do a 180° turn because the engine is struggling to load Gigs of uncached textures, which, again, barely look any better.

parent