• lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    3 days ago

    ray tracing mimics the way light bounces around on surfaces in real time. it does this by tracing rays from light sources in game and colouring the objects they hit. the rays then “bounce” off of the objects and redo the same step of colouring. this needs to be done for every pixel you can see.

    in regards to it changing video games: idk, how much do you care about lighting?

    • Tanoh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Something quite important to keep in mind is that this is nothing new, there have been raytracers since at least the 70s. However, they were never anywhere near real time. A simple scene with just a few simple objects could take hours to render.

      That it is now possible to do with much more complex meshes, more lighting and much higher resolution and also many times per second shows how much faster (and specialised) the hardware has become.

  • hanke@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 days ago

    If you want pretty graphics this is good.

    If you want many frames this is bad.

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      There has long been the claim that CPUs (these days GPUs, but the claim predates GPUs) that can ray trace your games with plenty of frames are just around the corner. So far that hasn’t happened and most people working on CPUs/GPUs are pessimistic of it. Maybe you could raytrace something simple (tetris?) in real time, but modern games put in too many objects.

      • Gerudo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Your exactly right. If graphic quality stood still for a couple years, Ray tracing speed would catch up and be on parity. We keep pushing more polygons and other things that keep putting ray tracing behind a bit.

        • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s kind of why it started to become feasible, right? Graphics quality has only incrementally improved over the last decade or so, vs geometrically improving in decades past

          • Gerudo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I mean, that’s been my opinion. You can only get so many polygons and bump mapping and texture resolution, etc, before you hit a plateau. The rest is 100% lighting.

            I think as things like dlss and other frame generation tech gets better, Ray tracing will eventually become the norm.

  • .Donuts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s a lighting technique that creates more realistic visuals, especially reflections.

    The technique allows the GPU to “track” / calculate how the light should actually travel and what it bounces off of (like light in real life), compared to the pre-calculated methods of before.

    So it will cost you processing power and therefore frames, but it greatly increases the visual accuracy of lighting, shadows and reflections.

    A simple but effective example is Minecraft with Ray Tracing. The following video showcases the difference:

    https://youtu.be/9qxfavtUs7w

    Notice how the game looks completely different. That’s what lighting can do for a game.

    Obviously this is less noticeable when it’s a game with realistic graphics and a lot of time spent on getting the (prebaked) lighting just right.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s a hardware intensive process that tries to make lighting as realistic as possible. So, which areas are illuminated, which are in shadow. From an artistic perspective, this is very important to how a user visually processes any particular image.

    No, not really. Just better graphics.

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I always disable it because it makes games looks weird. I refuse to believe it’s realistic lighting

  • e0qdk@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Games need to figure out what color to show for each pixel on the screen. Imagine shooting lines out from your screen into the game world and seeing what objects they run into. Take whatever color that object is supposed to be and put it on the screen. That’s the basic idea.

    To make it look better, you can repeat the process each time one of the lines hits an object. Basically, when a line hits an object, make more lines – maybe a hundred or a thousand or whatever the programmer picks – and then see what those lines run into as they shoot out from the point in all directions. Mix the colors of the objects they run into and now that becomes the color you put on screen.

    You can repeat that process again and again with more and more bounces. As you add more and more bounces it gets slower though – since there are so many lines to keep track of!

    When you’ve done as many bounces as you want to do then you can shoot out lines one last time to all the lights in the game. If there is an object in the way blocking a light, the color for the object you’re trying to figure out will be darker since it’s in a shadow!

    It’s an old and simple idea to figure out what color something is like that by bouncing off objects repeatedly… but it’s hard to do quickly. So, most games until very recently did not work that way. They used other clever tricks instead that were much faster, but made it hard to draw reflections and shadows. Games with those other techniques usually did not look as good – but you could actually play them on old computers.