/3/ - 3DCG

>>737468
If by "rasterization" you meant Lithuanians, I hate them because they're filthy people.

>>737468
I don't. Are you sick?

>>737473
Still whiter than you. :|

>>737468
>Why do you guys hate rasterization so much?
Who the fuck dosnt?
You have no fucking idea how a modern rasterization renderer works, nobody does.
Thats the problem, we got to a point where a rasterization render requires so many steps that no single man can wrap his head around the internal working of a modern aaa engine, it requires a fucking team of coders with weeks of time to fix any single thing.
The sooner we switch to ray tracing for everything the more happy everyone will become.
Artists will have predictable results, coders wont have to search what fucking makes the game run at 5fps in some scenes then 100 in another, and level designers wont have to fake everything.

>>737511
Doesn't work like that you simpleton.

>>737473
Yo what the fuck

>>737513
Not him, but why don't you actually explain why he's wrong so there's finally something worth reading on /3/. And I'm interested about this topic.

>>737528
That simplifies nothing and is even magnitudes more complicated, not to mention that you always need rasterization at the end of your pipeline to project shit on your puny flat display.

Rasterization will stay the next one and a half decades because there is no hardware in the mainstream to even remotely support such affords.

OP is a faggot and just because the retarded zoomer gets a full hardon for a meme version of "raytracing" now means jack shit.

Tossers

>>737468
If we want more than 1 fps, rasterization is neccessairy. The performance is initally no problem here, making things look nice is. And you can't deny that screen space operations are -despite looking ass- dirt cheap.
The main issue is that almost all modern aaa games are unoptimized since they rely on pure hardware performance instead of improving engine efficiency and performance beyond the general standards.

Because it's complicated I don't like complicated stuff I like simple stuff

>>737541
So it's easier to get good looking resuts with offline renderers?

Does this mean lighting artists for games are chads?

>>737531
100% correct.

>>737533
Sadly, engines will never ever get near the optimization of 90s/2000s engines again.
Because of publishers wanting their game on everybody's mother's smart fridge, developers can't optimize their engine or their workflows and pipelines for one platform, and that's where 90% of the potential is.

>>737531
This sounds about right to me. I was surprised the move towards ray-tracing came this early.

To me it's a very misguided effort to pursue increased visual fidelity at such a high cost while we're still struggling to hit even a low 60hz in most titles.

It's amazing to me it's working as well as it does but it's still way premature.

>>737533
So basically you like to be lazy and let your scene run like jack shit?

>>737541
You like throwing models with 5 million polygons next to models with 500 polygons and have floodlights everywhere to compensate for your lack of technical skill. Rasterization engines aren't hard to use, yes they are extra steps than raytracing but give you much better control and flexibility over your lighting and shaders.

>>738762
Well at least we 3D artists get Hardware with dedicated chips to do Raytracing that is much faster than what we had before. Who gives a shit about the normies and gaming with raytracing. I laughed really hard when i saw the first iterations of game engines with barely noticeable effects that eat up 60% of the GPU performance.

>>737468
Because raymarching seems mathematically perfect.

>>738760
Unironically, I think carmack is right that vr will make optimization necessary again.

>>740306
I'm an artist that's into games and work game graphics. Not to be confused with the recent crowd tho.
I did offline rendering stuff for 10 years before I made the transit to realtime.

As a gamer I hate the trend of always pushing for visual fidelity on the high end.
I understand that is a thing since it's the only problem you can solve by throwing money at it.
But to me the goal should be to ensure a silky framerate of ~120 fps on an average system before upping the visual complexity.
Image quality during gameplay is pretty unimportant compared to movement.

John Carmack said something at Quakecon many years ago that resonated with me, that even if we let blur studious or equivalent
make a segment of gameplay with the most costly most gorgeous dressed up visuals it still would not look that much better than what a game already does.
What makes cinematic scenes look so good compared to gameplay is not so much the image quality, it's the staging framing, motion and and camera work.

What we really need in games are more advanced rigs, more advanced animation, more physics interactive animation and more naturalistic camera work.
Problem is these are things that are extremely technical to work on that simultaneously requires a very artistic quality to it.
Unlike graphics where you can have a pure technician figure out the lighting calculations and the tricky part of drawing polygons fast on screen
and just hand it off to an artist. here you need the artist and the technician to be the same person to make the systems come about.

>>740392
Just bake your textures and use light maps bro.

>>740392
that is, if vr ever becomes relevant

>>738762
>still struggling
it's a moving target anon, we could render early 2000s games at 120Hz on a mobile phone. whenever you make the switch to ray tracing, it will be a hit in asset quality in order to get better lighting and workflow.

>>737511
>the game run at 5fps in some scenes then 100 in another
do you realize that this exact problem is what makes full raytracing unusable in games, you fucking retard? When you have thousands of places, where you have to optimize materials and lighting to limit bouncing and not end up with piece of shit, screen space reflections and fake ao look like perfectly predictable heaven

>>737468
Image sauce ?

>>737531
Nah, you dumbfuck. Carmack had it years ago. In a 2013 presentation IIRC.

Raytracing/Pathtracing is simple, can be easily understood, and doesn't require ridiculous hacks and bizarre materials to work with. What it needs is at least basically two order of magnitudes of computing power more, which we won't have for two or three decades, but it's a better tech all around than raster. Easier to understand, closer to reality, not absurdly complicated and tailored for each vidya gaems in an ad-hoc manner, but in fact physic based and photorealistic by design.

So what >>737511 basically said.

Unless you know more than Carmack, please shut the fuck up.

>>740645
>>737531
Here's the presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6UKhR0T6cs

Things to get for retarded morons:

>Raster engines are a pile of hacks that are hardly viable, and that no-one understands, but it uses less processing power, so we use them for now.

>We're starting to use ray-tracing in the big ball of bizarre hacks we call a raster engine, but it's even more ugly, but again we don't have a choice. It's the only way.

>When we have enough processing power, everyone will go to path-tracing, because that's the only non-retarded way.

>>740606
The last guardian

>>740645
Ok, brainlet

>>740606
Tomb raider. Probably the last one because I can't remember this part, and it looks like a complete shit. Maybe I'll change my mind when I play it, but this one always looked like there was something terribly wrong with it technically. Looks so bad.

>>740928
Thanks anon. Only played the first one. I remember them bragging about lara hair with amd (nvidia?) tressfx mode
I was surprised by lara outfit

>>740931
>I was surprised by lara outfit
In OP pic ofc

RAYTRACE NIGGERS BTFO!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC5KtatMcUw
Again, why do you hate Rasterization?
RASTERIZATION IS MASTER RACE

>>741353
Why do brainlets think this is not raytraced?

>>741408
Because Ray Tracing is the current meme. If it were raytraced don't you think the video would've just shat on about raytracing for 9 minutes?

>>737511
As a hobby game engine developer, I endorse this opinion.

>>742047
git gud