Ray tracing is about implementing light and representing its behavior. Because reflections are, of course, a huge part of that it gets a lot of attention. Ray traced reflections allow things that aren’t otherwise on screen to be reflected without resorting to other clever tricks.
But other ray traced features implement light in (my opinion) more interesting ways. Global illumination, ambient occlusion, and shadows can all be implemented via RT and because they’re not limited by screen space information can be more accurate and, thus, impressive.
Light and objects in the world look like they belong and just look “right”. The way a sliver of sunlight can subtly light a room or the way an object appears grounded with accurate shadows can make non-RT lighting look wrong.
Can you share any examples? I have yet to see an rtx enabled game that was unusually shiny. Most non RTX game already tend to have way too much specular reflection but the few RTX games I’ve seen were way better with that.
Have you had a look at the RTX trailers of games? Most just show of how great the reflections are and barely anything else. It’s like " Look! We’ve got RTX now! See that puddle? Now you see yourself in there! That’s why we added more puddles!"
I partially disagree, GI is easy to do most of the time with baked lighting, but reflections (especially more diffuse reflections) are hard unless you have very simple environments or tons of gpu resources to spend on rendering alternate camera angles. Even the more modern rasterized reflection techniques such as parallax corrected cubemaps or screen space reflections break easily if you look at them wrong. Raytraced global illumination and soft shadows are still great though, but are more easy to get around with regular rendering in most games where the environments are very static.
I was looking forward to some conversation regarding this subject in the comments, instead all we’ve got is people talking about text vs video, and drawing any attention away from actually discussing the video.
I think it’s interesting that people have to attach their names and prove they’re real to sign this, but serious complaints can be filed anonymously. I’m not European, so does this mean anyone random can file complaints? Or it’s done somehow officially, just shows up anonymously?
I’m asking to understand how this works because this could not be the industry entirely.
tl;dr: it’s far from perfect, but it is a decent compromise.
what you’re talking about are government applications, which can take many different forms.
some can be filled out anonymously (often things like complaints, sometimes even lawsuits, etc.), and some need to have a verifiable identity attached (for example petitions, like SKG).
the reason the latter needs proof of identity is to prevent spam and unlawful influence campaign: if there was no verification, how could you know that it is actually citizens filing these requests, and not bad and/or foreign actors?
what if you had a European Citizens Initiative called “let’s join the russian federation” that got to 50 Million signatures overnight?
obviously seems fishy…so how would you verify wether it was actually supported by your own citizens?
this is why you need verification: it’s simply not an option to have this sort of thing filed anonymously.
there are some ideas on how to do this digitally, mostly focused on pseudonymization, which would be mostly great, but the current system is pretty decent.
there’s a tradeoff happening, and it’s one that has to be extremely carefully considered:
on the one hand, you’d want citizens to be free to support whatever campaigns they want without fear of repercussions, social or otherwise.
on the other hand, it’s also a good thing when people can’t hide behind anonymity when voicing their support. with the recent rise of nazis, that’s certainly a prudent state of affairs.
both ways of doing things have advantages and disadvantages.
the current system of public support tends to favor quite conservative (as in traditionalistic and broadly accepted socially, not as in the “conservative politics”) initiatives over more reformative ones, but it also suppresses utterly unhinged Initiatives of the right wing factions.
as much as i understand that many groups would prefer a more anonymous approach, i honestly think the current approach, under the current state of affairs, offers much needed protection against nazi influence campaigns.
i think people underestimate how much more comfortable nazis get, when they can hide behind anonymity.
they are cowards be default, and anonymity helps them find a whole lot more acceptance than having their names out in the open…
as for why complaints can be filed anonymously… probably the same reasoning, but in reverse:
protecting people from repercussions is more important when it is about reporting current misgivings, than it is when petitioning for change.
think whistleblowers: they NEED anonymity.
without anonymity, a lot remains unreported, because many people tend to shoot the messenger first, ask questions later or never…so protections are required, mostly in form of anonymity, otherwise no one ever finds out about things going wrong…
The anonymous complaint system aids whistleblowers.
But it also means that the complaints can come from less than reputable sources.
The upshot of this is that the complaint doesn’t get as much traction and is vetted more closely.
This complaint amounts to the condiment on a nothingburger.
Trying to stop the petition based on a technicality that someone is working too hard seems a bit unhinged. Anyone that stands to be hurt enough by the movement would have had lawyers on retainer to handle things like this.
It’s also possible that someone supporting the movement used it as a false flag to get more attention, but there’s 1.4+ million eyes on it. I don’t see that being an advantageous path either.
Either way, the complaint is bunk and will end up being ignored with a moment’s scrutiny.
I feel like this needs to be spread as far and wide as possible, and for PirateSoftware to be mass reported for misinformation about an ongoing political initiative.
It’s not about having a dumb opinion, it’s about actually spreading false information. He lies consistently about what the movement is about and what the goals are.
The project doesn’t clearly explain what its intentions are. The first time I saw the stop killing games initiative, I thought the exact same as him. Obviously it goes much further and it doesn’t propose any law so europe and each country would be free to set their own limits, but from an external eye it flawed when these questions are not directly and transparently answered on the website
Ah, I see, your one of His. Once more, just lying. The project does clearly explain the goals and intentions if you have the ability to Read, or at least listen to Ross’s multiple videos explaining them. He also explains Why he doesn’t propose an exact law in his videos, and again in his most recent video.
If you can’t possibly imagine that people have their own opinions, you have serious problems. I can’t stand people like you that categorizes people into small boxes, effectively strawmanning them, as a mean to discredit your opponents. Classical manipulation technique. No, you don’t know me better than myself, thanks.
The project does clearly explain the goals and intentions if you have the ability to Read
That is just false. The blue image shared on Ross’ videos should be on the website to better explain what they want.
or at least listen to Ross’s multiple videos explaining them
In that case yes, but then my point was that it wasn’t clear, and having to search the channel of the creator of the initiative is something no one would do if they wrongly interpreted this from the start, as it was for my case. It was only after more coverage that I thought more about it.
Had some of the details super close, then screw up others. Hopefully it’s good though.
She tips the “bulb” of drink despite having just snatched it from the float beside her (whats that gonna do?).
The ship spins to decelerate (would have been done long before “just arriving”), then spins again under fire despite not being slow enough. It should be dodging and returning fire whilst burning to decelerate, it’s why the turrets are turrets after all.
The station is under zero or very low g - but the drone needs constant downward firing jets to hover in place?
Thanks, seems extremely irritating for a franchise that — except for the protomolecule (and related sufficiently advanced alien shenanigans) and the Epstein drive — prides itself on its realistic physics; you’ve convinced me to blacklist both the game and the publisher on Steam.
DA:I did a tone-shift from dark fantasy towards high fantasy. Personally I prefer hf to df, but I can see that it is a different vibe. This? This did a tone shift from hf to Guardians of the Galaxy. And I don’t think this tone can deliver on what they set up with the Dreadwolf at the end of Trespasser
DAO is my favorite game of all time. Seeing the series get progressively worse (I hated the switch to High Fantasy, and this looks even worse) is really disheartening.
I just don’t understand, why even make a fucking Dragon Age game if you’re going to completely change the tone? (It’s a rhetorical question, the answer is obviously that they’re trying to cash-in on the brand recognition).
Thanks for the explanation. Had the same feeling but couldn’t describe it. They definitely took the high fantasy route and even ‘cartoonize’ it further, which is kind of what DA is not about.
Apparently I was thinking of ‘Conflicts in Civilization’, which was just a scenario set for the base Civ II game. Tbh I sucked hard at that game back then but in my defence I was too young to really get good strategy and just enjoyed building wonders
Man, I have to do this also. No idea why the algorithm doesn’t pick up on me not wanting to watch some idiot ranting about how videogames are woke or whatever.
Well, there’s the fact that outrage seems to drive more activity than other types of content. YouTube sees it as a more profitable option to advertise a Very Angry Gamer™ to you, even if you aren’t interested. I guess they assume that you’ll find something to watch anyhow, but if they will profit even more of they can hook you into the outrage machine.
Then there’s my personal hypothesis that in order to enable this, YouTube’s algorithm weights your demographics, subscriptions, and viewing history much more heavily than your manual inputs.
Nothing beats how much fun Minecraft was during the alpha days. It was so janky and broken, yes, but it was awesome seeing the game get built up and improved.
Things are good, not because of the amount of stuff inside the thing that is provided to be discovered.
I read this guy talking about when they nerfed fire in early Minecraft, how he and his friend before the nerf had accidentally set the entire continent on fire and had to run away in a boat for a long time across empty distant ocean, and landed in some strange place and how they set up the beginnings of their first base there that they played out of for years.
Things are good because of the quality of experience you have on the thing. Social media, operating systems, video games, life in general: Adding to it to make it "good" from the outside, often detracts from the goodness of the experience, from the ones experiencing.
Yeah, it was so janky and the jank is what made it fun.
Wed get griefers on our server whod set the whole server on fire, and it would burn endlessly. Wed all go out and try to clear trees to slow it down, periodically dropping our diamond axes on the ground to restore their condition because of course that was broken too.
I’ve had a similar experience with a lot of early-access games. They always end up disappointing, and I’ve come to realize it’s because the fun comes not just from playing the game and watching it develop and improve but also in equal part from expectations. It’s easy to look at an unfinished game and imagine what it could be in the future, and those fantasies inevitably exceed what is actually feasible to put into the game. I try to steer clear of early-access games now.
I don’t mind early access, but in also not tripping over myself to play them.
If the game is fun as it stands, then awesome. Anything extra is the cherry on top.
If the game feels half baked and like it’s missing all sorts of stuff, then naw. A game like that is just abusing it’s early access status. Trying to sell itself on the promise of what’s to come.
What about games that become less fun as their development goes along? That’s another thing I’ve noticed with some early-access games whose early versions were more… concentrated, for lack of a better term. If there’s progression involved, it tends to go pretty quickly in early versions. Development then doesn’t change how the game plays or where the progression begins and ends, instead it just adds padding between the fun bits and makes everything take longer. Ever encounter a game like that?
In those cases, as long as I got my moneys worth with the amount of time I invested in the game, then Im at least breaking even. But either way, Im not really spending much time on early access games. They really gotta be compelling to lure me in…
youtube.com
Ważne