Support NeoGAF

[CGNoire]

Jedi survivor is a joke in this regard. It doesn’t even attempt reflections without RT.

Now that is some BS.

 

[nemiroff]

I'd sacrifice sound for RT.

 

[Bonfires Down]

Not worth it with current console hardware. I’d accept 1080p30 for path tracing depending on the game though.

 

[Deerock71]

(I'm actually not interested in RT lol)

 

[CGNoire]

RTGI is the only thing I care about.

I also often prefer the SSR artifacts over the overly specular reflections produced by RT. Obviously this will be fixed with more hardware power but still not a fan of the way they often look.

 

[lachesis]

1. FPS. (60+ fps, locked because I don't have VRR)
2. Resolution. (1080p+)
3. Animation
4. Texture (including baked-in lighting)
5. Lighting (non-ray-tracing)
6. Modeling

and ray tracing for me, does not really interest me.... unless it's like rendered shot. My eyes are too untrained in 3D gfx, even after all these years - so minor ray-tracing, I can't really tell much difference. I can tell difference in hair flow and all, but that also comes way down to the priority.

If all of above is all well reprsented w Ray-tracing, then sure... perhaps next gen would achieve that?

 

[Arsic]

Now that is some BS.

Yeah I went to a bathroom mirror on Koboh for the game and the mirror is just a 100% blur of like a green/khaki color.

RT on its just a normal reflection .

Like… come on son.

 

[Sleepwalker]

For console , nada

For pc maybe some performance

 

[GreatnessRD]

When I don't have to spend $1800 to get 45FPS using an upscaler.

 

[Valt7786]

For consoles i'd rather they skipped RT if it mean keeping the FPS at 60 and the resolution at or above 1440p. At least in performance modes.
Jedi doesn't do this and its "performance" mode is complete arse.

 

[Hunnybun]

If it's RTGI and it makes a major difference, like Metro, then I'd sacrifice resolution down to like 1080p, I guess. Especially if that was with good overall IQ.

I'm not willing to go down to 30fps for it though. 40fps at the absolute minimum, and even then it would be a tough choice.

For the kind of RT we'll probably *actually* get - ie low quality reflections etc - then I'm not willing to make any (appreciable) trade off at all. When I can use it without seeing a difference, as with Ratchet, then I will, but for me it adds almost nothing to the graphical quality.

 

[Mozzarella]

Very Very Very little. Although its good when you take screenshots, i turn it on, take the photo and turn it off and continue playing

 

[ultrazilla]

Just voted for "ray-tracing but only minor losses" and see that it made the voting even with "ray tracing doesn't interest me".

I'm all for the extra eye candy but stop when it becomes a detriment to the game's overall technical performance.

 

[Hunnybun]

Honestly not bothered by ray tracing. In the future we'll look back at this time and laugh at how it became such an obsession, even though it'll be routine by then.

Yeah it's really kind of ridiculous at the moment.

For me, in almost all cases I've seen it, RT has been a boost to visuals of the kind of magnitude of something like changing a quality setting from medium to high. Roughly that kind of effect. Like, oh yeah, I can notice that. Great.

And then you realise it's equivalent to like a quarter of the entire rendering budget, and I'm like 'er, fucking *excuse me*?!'

The cost is absolutely insane right now, at least from what I've seen. Next gen will be the time it becomes worth it.

 

[Buggy Loop]

I would honestly take Cyberpunk 2077 overdrive performance for path tracing AAA games from now on 100%.

Looks insane

 

[SF Kosmo]

I am willing to sacrifice 4K and high VRR. Especially when DLSS is involved.

I won't drop to 30fps or sub-1080p, but I also don't have to...

 

[March Climber]

Honestly not bothered by ray tracing. In the future we'll look back at this time and laugh at how it became such an obsession, even though it'll be routine by then.

Yea, this gaming generation will be remembered as the generation of choice.

60fps or 4k RT

 

[Icymanipulator]

Anything that prevents a solid 60fps is a no go.
Don’t care about resolution, graphics, effects, ect if it means playing a slideshow.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

Nada, zero, zilch.

 

[mdkirby]

Depends on what u mean by retracing and how/why it’s being used. If it’s just to make thing a bit prettier then no it’s not worth it. The existing hacky work arounds we’ve used in recent years work reasonably well. If however it’s so a game can use global illumination with something like lumen, and as such allow interesting physics and destructible environments, then yes it’s worth reduced resolution or frame count.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Ray tracing is nice but honestly without cherry picked comparisons it’s only moderately noticeable at this point.

 

[Dr.brain64]

graphics > 60 fps

 

[Elder Legend]

I don't care for RTX enough to sacrifice for it. Always run performance in school and every game.

 

[Jigsaah]

Long as it's not too much. Like if i'm getting an insanely high framerate, I'll settle for something around 120 fps with Raytracing in 1440p. I won't ever go back to 1080p gaming. 4k is only worth it on certain titles to me. 4k and raytracing? Not interested.

 

[StereoVsn]

As long as I can hit 1440p upscaled to 4K (ie DLSS quality or FSR 2 quality) with 60+ fps, I am ok with it.

Not budging from that though. Well, maybe 1080p upscaled to 4K with DLSS with 60fps + if effects are outstanding. But really unlikely I would take that.