Slashdot Mirror


NVIDIA RTX Technology To Usher In Real-Time Ray Tracing Holy Grail of Gaming Graphics (hothardware.com)

HotHardware writes: NVIDIA has been dabbling in real-time ray tracing for over a decade. However, the company just introduced NVIDIA RTX, which is its latest effort to deliver real-time ray tracing to game developers and content creators for implementation in actual game engines. Historically, the computational horsepower to perform real-time ray tracing has been too great to be practical in actual games, but NVIDIA hopes to change that with its new Volta GPU architecture and the help of Microsoft's new DirectX Raytracing (DXR) API enhancements. Ray tracing is a method by which images are enhanced by tracing rays or paths of light as they bounce in and around an object (or objects) in a scene. Under optimum conditions, ray tracing delivers photorealistic imagery with shadows that are correctly cast; water effects that show proper reflections and coloring; and scenes that are cast with realistic lighting effects. NVIDIA RTX is a combination of software (the company's Gameworks SDK, now with ray tracing support), and next generation GPU hardware. NVIDIA notes its Volta architecture has specific hardware support for real-time ray tracing, including offload via its Tensor core engines. To show what's possible with the technology, developers including Epic, 4A Games and Remedy Entertainment will be showcasing their own game engine demonstrations this week at the Game Developers Conference. NVIDIA expects the ramp to be slow at first, but believes eventually most game developers will adopt real-time ray tracing in the future.

21 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft, really? by Zobeid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    quote: "and the help of Microsoft's new DirectX Raytracing (DXR) API enhancements."

    There's a red flag. Is this going to be yet another graphics "standard" for Windows only?

    1. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a red flag. Is this going to be yet another graphics "standard" for Windows only?

      Probably. But, honestly, that's where the gaming market is anyway.

      NVIDIA wants to put out cool products, but I doubt they start off giving a crap about Linux and other platforms.

    2. Re:Microsoft, really? by Holi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean the only OS for gaming is going to support a tech that makes games look better? The horrors!

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    3. Re:Microsoft, really? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      quote: "and the help of Microsoft's new DirectX Raytracing (DXR) API enhancements."

      There's a red flag. Is this going to be yet another graphics "standard" for Windows only?

      Of course not. It will cover XBox too and with it the majority of the gaming market.

  2. No thanks, involves Windows 10 by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On one hand this technology is very exciting for any PC gamer. On other hand, MS locked new DirectX to Windows 10. As such, if you want this or that new feature enabled you could only do that on Win10. No thanks. I wills tick to gaming on Windows 7, that doesn't spy on me.

    1. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by raxtich · · Score: 2

      Those furry fetish sites you love to visit probably spy on you a lot more than MS does.

    2. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by barc0001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > that doesn't spy on me.

      It's a good thing you're posting this via snail mail from a compound in the desert then.

      I'm betting that if we ever get a full look at the scope of all the online spying that goes on with people's every day internet use, Windows 10's telemetry won't even be in the top 100 of data harvesting schemes to worry about.

    3. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      No thanks. I wills tick to gaming on Windows 7, that doesn't spy on me.

      By the time this gets to market you will be using Windows 7 with so many unpatched holes and bugs, EVERYONE will be spying on you.

    4. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by sinij · · Score: 2

      You do realize that 1) Microsoft listened to consumers and made the telemetry data very easy to disable in Windows 10

      Only in Enterprise version. Consumer versions resist disabling this feature to the point that OS disregards registry settings and bypasses its own internal firewall.

      2) that very same telemetry data collection and reporting was already back-ported and pushed as an "update" to Windows 7?

      Yes, but you can block specific patches and there exist a known list of them.

      Also 3) it is similar telemetry data that is collected by other OSes like Android and iOS, plus applications like Firefox and Chrome (where do you think they get the stats for X% of users do Y with our product in their reports?)

      Yes, every commercial OS went to shit insofar as privacy. Even some Linux distros spy on you. This doesn't mean you have to accept this.

    5. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by sinij · · Score: 2

      > No, but I tightly control what is disclosed in my /. posts. No such luck with Win10.

      I'm sure you do *in the post*, but do you really know what's leaking from your browser when you simply visit ./ ?

      I do. I run Pale Moon + No Script and don't allow any kind of third-party plugins. So all /. knows about me is IP address and contents of my posts.

  3. Raytracing does not produce photorealistic images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ray tracing is great for specular (not spectacular...) reflections, i.e. light interacting with mirror-like, non-diffusing surfaces. It produces highlights, (perfect) refraction, (perfect) reflections and hard shadows. Anything else is not the domain of ray tracing. You can have fuzzy effects with ray tracing, but they come at an extreme processing power cost. Some effects are practically impossible to calculate with ray tracing. Ray tracing can contribute a small part of the rendering equation (the specular part) to photorealistic images, but it does not by itself create photorealism.

  4. Using Graphics cards for actual games? Wow!!! by ickleberry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The run of the mill for the past few years is that graphics cards are for mining the cryptocurrency flavour of the month and creating magical AI bots. This is the first time in years I have seen an article that refers to the use of graphics cards for actual graphics.

    1. Re:Using Graphics cards for actual games? Wow!!! by BESTouff · · Score: 2

      That's because governments and GAFA have started a global crackdown on cryptocurrencies. NVIDIA strategists - as the smart bunch they are - feel the wind and repurpose their "tensor engine" for raytracing. That doesn't seem unnatural. At all.

  5. Reminds me of a paper form Intel some years ago by ausekilis · · Score: 2

    Tracing Rays Through the Cloud is a pretty good example of what was "next-gen" 6 years ago. None of the imagery there was generated real-time (just read the paper), but was still a good read about what goes into ray tracing. Intuitively we know what it is, but what it means for computation with reflective/refractive surfaces is a ton of work.

    Of course, I won't believe it's real-time until it can render a house of mirrors at 60fps+.

  6. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    Ray tracing's got what games crave.
    It's got rays.
    More GPU and CPU and that will be perfect for every type of surface in a computer game.
    The need for more extreme processing is what will grow GPU and CPU sales.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  7. Raytracers are pretty fun... by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I was in college, I took two semesters of graphics - but this was in the late DOS era. Early OpenGL existed, but because this was a real theoretical college class on graphics - we built a real raytracer from pure math from c-code and assembler rather than trying to stick to some arbitrary industry standard.

    Cubes, spheres, torus, lighting, reflections, we did it all, piece by piece in glorious 640x350. It was ugly, and eerie, but really fascinating in terms of seeing pure mathematical expressions becoming 3d objects, pixel by pixel.

    Since then, I've worked in several jobs frequently involving 'proper' graphics, even worked on a bunch of professional shipped games (mostly gameplay and systems, occasionally worked everywhere though) - and I can appreciate the need to use all the tricks that we do to make origami worlds, everything angled to the camera, but I really did enjoy creating worlds of actual objects, and having the camera pull its own shell of perspective out of the scene instead.

    Which is how most assets are sort of created, actually, in the asset creation tools. You model the object, rip the polygons out how you can, create meshes and surfaces, and then try and cheat on everything to make it seem like the 'real' object again as cheaply as you can get away with. It's not quite raytracing outside a few tools, but it's an interesting hybrid.

    Raytracers are a cool educational tool - but I can also see why they're only really trotted out when CPU manufacturers want to push for a race to buy more CPUs. They don't scale as well as modern techniques - and although there's some neat tricks you can do when you have your assets really 'present' mathematically (Demoscene stuff does this occasionally), it's usually not a better tradeoff than using the abstraction tools available to make it all work faster.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Raytracers are pretty fun... by ledow · · Score: 2

      The tricks played to make things look real have been very convincing and took up less power.

      But go look at a teardown of a single scene in GTA V

      http://www.adriancourreges.com...

      "All in all there were 4155 draw calls, 1113 textures involved and 88 render targets."

      And a lot of clever trickery that engine etc. programmers have to apply, texture artists have to take account of, etc. etc etc.

      The "shortcuts" give convincing near-realism on low hardware for a hefty development price.

      Ray-tracing gives convincing realism on high hardware for much less development all over.

      As such, I can see a move towards ray-tracing.... eventually. Especially if you can put in a hardware features that helps it, wrap that in an API and force people to buy not just a GPU or a GPGPU but something that's capable of accelerating raytracing specifically. Then you could convince gamers that they need a new card. Especially if you consider, say, VR on top - VR and ray-tracing seems to go together naturally.

      Now you have the same incentive as people who had to go out and by an FPU, a Voodoo card, etc. etc. to play the latest-greatest game that consoles can't get near for another few years. It's what sold Quake, which in turn sold OpenGL cards.

      If things go right, VR/RT will be the reason that people upgrade their machines to play the next mega-game. And developers will push for that not just for showmanship but because their lives suddenly become cheaper and easier. Why bother to sit and texture a glass and come up with so-many-different bump maps, texture maps, reflection maps, etc. etc. when you can just specify that it's glass and have done with it and let the API convert it.

      I remember playing about with POV-Ray back in the day. My old Pentium could barely render a frame in a day. But the descriptive language used to generate the scenes was much easier than the things I see being shoved into graphics memory nowadays.

      If you pull the description of material properties out of the artists hands and into an API or engine, and then let the hardware do the description and heavy-lifting, ray-tracing is suddenly much easier than trying to craft it all yourself.

      The same way that early 3D games all had to write their own 2.5D / 3D engines (e.g. Doom) that did everything themselves and were overtaken by a handful of OpenGL statements and compatible hardware that didn't need the clever tricks, massive optimisation and limitations.

      And if you can get real-time ray-tracing, the creation tools basically mirror the production hardware. You have no need to pre-render, Z-order, edge-cull or almost anything else. You just describe the scene as you like, and that's your finished scene - the ray-tracing handles the rest.

      I can quite see an era where ray-tracing takes control of the industry because it's just not worth faffing about optimising when you can just throw the whole scene at the hardware and let it do the work.

      Maybe at that point, games will return to gameplay and atmosphere rather than just eye-candy, because they'll all be photo-realistic with almost no extraneous effort over downloading a library object and putting it into a scene.

  8. Platform by ledow · · Score: 2

    Yeah, you have to love the graphic towards the bottom:

    "Board Industry Support"

    API: Microsoft.

    That's it. The only option. Not very "broad".

  9. Re:Consoles by Holi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pretty sure I haven't heard of a Volta based console.

    Consoles will be relevant in the discussion when they launch a console that will support this tech. Until then it's a PC ray-traced world.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  10. No Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Zobeid says, "there must be no progress except on my terms! No Progress I say!!"

    Here's a clue. This is an Nvidia technology. OMG, they left AMD out!

    In a world where companies bring value-added and proprietary technologies to the table, this is what happens. Making technologies universal and commodities happens through competition.

    If you wait for standards committees, cooperative ventures, FOSS, Vulkan, and everyone to get their shit together, progress takes years longer and sometimes stops entirely. Is that what you want? Because you shouldn't want that.

    Proprietary standards are imperfect but at least DirectX works well across all of Windows. And Microsoft has made a profitable space where games can be sold and played, and money comes in to fund additional development. The forcing mechanism is competition which makes AMD, Linux, Vulkan, OSX want to catch up.

    But yes, let's wait another 50 years for real-time ray tracing, for some mythical Open Source graphics hardware to appear. Also, we need open source CPUs, and all those missing graphics drivers. Can't have the current motherboards and chipsets, that's clearly untrustworthy, no one knows how they are built! Also, Linux is too much of a compromise for me, I insist upon having the original GNU operating system, currently at version 0.35 after 20 years of development!

  11. Not the Holy Grail by mentil · · Score: 2

    Turns out raytracing isn't the holy grail of gaming graphics, although it's been hyped for so long that it seems like it. I always thought Pixar films were raytraced, but they were actually rasterized. Cars was their first film that used raytracing at all, and even then it was only during the big race (due to all the reflections, presumably). I do know that shows like Babylon 5 and I believe ST:TNG did use raytracing, though. Nvidia shows off 'realtime raytracing' every few years but it never takes off, presumably better overall results are still achieved via rasterization; sure, you can get sexy shadows and reflections, but your poly count will be at early PS3-era levels. Also, there are problems with raytracing and meshes that animate, like, say, humans, that make it much slower. This is why you almost always see it done with static meshes like cars or buildings. Turns out raytracing isn't even the ultimate rendering technology; Path Tracing is closer, if not theoretically perfect.

    It's also worth noting that a form of raytracing has been in use in realtime graphics for a while, called relief mapping, which has made it into games.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.