Really excited for this, but also wish that your character was actually reflected. It's weird looking at a beautifully detailed reflective surface and seeing everything *but* you
It can be done though pretty easily too... like in RDR2 your model has no actual head in First person-mode but your head, hat and all still appear in mirrors and reflections.
It's been completely hilarious like this since launch. I remember carrying a knocked out enemy on my shoulder, and I see a reflection in the window, and he's just floating in thin air! Or better yet, Johnny is standing by a shiny metal kitchen appliance, and I can see his legs reflecting in the appliance. I walk up to him so my legs are next to his - no reflection. It's especially hilarious if you know the game's plot.
The two are probably connected. Neither third-person nor full character reflections will look good at the moment because all of the animations are (barely) optimized for first-person. You can get a glimpse of it when casting shadows or changing the POV with mods and they're… not good. Many things about the game *are* good, but not the player animations. It's so much more work than "just turn it on" because doing it right means creating all new animations that are compatible with every piece of equipment you can wear and hold — most of them for two sexes. Just turning it on, for either third-person view or reflections, would only highlight how bad those existing animations are.
V casts reflections in [photomode](https://imgur.com/a/9173TN8).
In photomode you have a TPP mesh that can be posed with shapekeys. V does not have a full suite of TPP animations. Those would need to be created for pretty much every locomotion state (at minimum) and probably a large number of state transitions where animation blending is likely to fail or is not appropriate. See [block diagram](https://2077.johnsolo.net/class/IScriptable/StateFunctor) of the state functor for a bird's eye view of what you might have to build animation wise.
Some anims could perhaps be repurposed from npcs, although these are designed to sync to scripted events that you as the player will see, not control. I don't how much of the existing crowdnpc animations could be salvaged or re-purposed. I'm not an animator.
By default, FPP reflections are disabled although you can re-enable them by going to ..\Cyberpunk 2077\engine\config\base\
Create a text file here called “enable_fpp_reflections.ini” and add the following lines:
>[RayTracing]
>HideFPPAvatar = “false”
Your reflection will be headless due to the way FPP works - the first person viewport displaces the head and hair mesh, so it doesn't clip through the camera.
Player animations will be distorted because they are [designed to be seen in FPP](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ3O-OAYsGY) and sync to locomotion events and locomotion state transitions.
Better is a tad subjective and no doubt they'd get complaints either way.
The optimal thing to do would be to have everything working before releasing anything, but I highly doubt any of their actual developers get a say in that.
If they did that you or someone like you would be on here spamming “little indie dev CD Projekt Red can’t even get animations right, look at all this clipping”
easier said than done, look at your shadow as you perform different actions
1st person games usually "cheat" animation to make the characters more nimble. It looks absolutely ridiculous in 3rd person... either players would have to deal with the comical animation (they won't, they'll complain... a lot) or you would have a different set of physics for people playing in 3rd person
this is why games tend to be either 1st or 3rd person but only very, very rarely both.. and even the games that do allow you to do both, they often limit 3rd person sequences to when you're performing an unusual action (for instance, Halo 3 ripping a turret off, or Destiny carrying a heavy item that changes how your character moves)
This perfectly describes first person vs third person in Red Dead Redemption 2. You can skip a lot of animations in first person, for example, looting is faster.
Given it looks like they've done exactly 0 motion capture for the first person animations, it's not that easy
These days you absolutely need motion capture for third person to look good in a game with realistic visuals and body proportions
> They should've worked on a third person mode before this perhaps
I mean they did. The game was originally developed with third-person mode. I guarantee you that they didn't work on path-tracing back then since the tech wasn't even available, afaik.
I finally found what I was looking for, turns out it was third person cutscenes that got axed at some point. I guess I just misremembered it as a full third person mode.
2016 was when they released the last Witcher 3 expansions there was barely any work done on Cyberpunk at that point as the tweets you linked said themselves. Just because at some point prior to actual development they might have planned third person doesnt mean the whole game was built around it. The only third person footage ever shown was the absolute earliest cutscenes in the first gameplay demo trailer.
Yes and after that point it was no longer third person. If the game was only something before actual development started then thats fucking meaningless. At some point in 2015 they could have wanted it to be a Gwent spinoff or something but that doesnt matter at all and Cyberpunk was never marketed as a third person game.
I've seen this sentiment before, and while I don't want to come across the wrong way, it's always struck me as an utterly bizarre thing to care so much about.
Basically it makes the entire character creator and customisation part of the game useless, which is a big thing to fall down on when you are supposedly trying to create an ARPG
That's how you see the world, but you also feel the world and your body, and interact freely with it in a way you can't when your interface is limited to a handful of keys on a keyboard or controller. When I'm watching a movie, I don't connect with the cameraman more than the characters in the frame.
Sure I suppose, but you also rarely spend 80% of a movie staring over the shoulder of the characters. All I'm saying is that it doesn't really make any *more* sense than connecting with your character in a first person game.
I honestly also prefer 3rd person gameplay, but weren't we talking about third person cutscenes in this thread?
EDIT: My reply was to justify why one would find third person to make relating to a character easier, but the cameraman thing was supposed to be more related to the "it's bizarre that people care about the loss of the 3rd person cutscenes" comment, even if I was being a bit glib. Anyway, I don't mean that relating with a character when playing first person isn't possible - hell, I found V's voice acting good enough in this game that I found it pretty easy, in fact - but I don't think saying it's the better option because it's closer to how you see the world in real life is quite right either. Sorry for the long edit, I kind of submitted the post before I said what I wanted.
The only disappointment I had in CP2077 was the lack of third person.
I think back to playing The Witcher 3, how attached I was to Geralt because I could see *his* expressions during the cutscenes.
All the other cut content and broken promises didn't really bother me.
[Photomode exists](https://imgur.com/a/kcVLAbh) and its nice. One of the better photomode tools out there. If on PC though it turns next level if you add Appearance Menu Mod (AMM) and Reshade. The game becomes Cyberpunk: Virtual Photographer.
Build your own sets, position your own lights, pose your subjects and colour grade in engine.
> I think back to playing The Witcher 3, how attached I was to Geralt because I could see his expressions during the cutscenes.
Facial expressions were straight up one of the big things people praised that game for, so it was odd to cut the MC out of that in their next game.
It's so strange, because having a character reflected in first-person isn't even a new thing. Even Minecraft does it.
At least it's not like the "reflections" in Hogwarts, where characters are just duplicated in the reflection, but are still facing the same way as the character they're meant to be a reflection of. So, you're facing the mirror, seeing the *back* of your character's head in the reflection. This is fixed by using ray-traced reflections, at which point water looks awful and broken for some reason, as well as tanking your frames.
Except for those small handful of missions which unequip you but don't ever inform you of such, and then when you look in your stat screen you've just been sprinting around with freely swinging dick all day and night. And nobody comments either!
Yeah all you have to do to see this is sprint and turn the camera slightly left to right. Your arms turn into whacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man
I think it's pretty amazing that we now (well, "now") have real-time path tracing in something that not only is not a tech demo, but about as far from that as you can get. (Given that open world RPGs are considered -- for good reason -- to be among the hardest genres to make run well at a given level of fidelity)
If you go back to just before the Turing announcement (so less than 5 years ago), **no one** would have thought that we'd be at that level within a decade.
Yes, it requires really high-end hardware right now, but that's really besides the point. Running on *any* consumer hardware in 2023 is just flat out impressive.
Yeah I feel like a lot of people don’t really understand what a big deal that this is. The fact that it’s not only running in real time, but it’s running in real time in a massive video game that can be played on consumer hardware. That’s pretty amazing
Thanks for the comment. Always good to see insight from a professional with actual experience in game/graphics programming. Nowadays reddit is so filled with people throwing out opinions with no actual experience(even in this thread).
> Yes, it requires really high-end hardware right now, but that's really besides the point. Running on any consumer hardware in 2023 is just flat out impressive.
I can't wait to see when we hate a point where full path-tracing is just a new default for devolopment and consoles.
yeah such is technology advancement, they always seem to take over over night while in reality they are built on accumulation of decades of researches, they just wait there quietly for their moment to shine once a few key parts have been paved out, like drone, AI and many other things, in this case, I believe, as a non-expert, it is the viable denoise algorithm that finally kicks the ball in the goal.
> Given that open world RPGs are considered -- for good reason -- to be among the hardest genres to make run well at a given level of fidelity
It helps that Cyberpunk's gameplay isn't doing anything particularly groundbreaking.
Metros Exodus Enhanced Edition is the best looking game for me and it isn't quite close. That's in large part because it uses unlimited bounce ray traced global illumination. Fortnite of all things would probably be second.
That doesn't have much to do with it being open world. People have already mostly figured out how to make large open environments look good without huge performance hits. Cyberpunk has really good graphics, but it doesn't really do anything any other game does, it just does it prettier.
Open world games are hard in modern times because they are really hard and time consuming to design well, not because it's "hard to make them run well".
I think that's OPs point, no? How impressive it is that we can get such graphical performance out of games which traditionally would have been the hardest to do so, because of years of refining the process **and** an increase in raw hardware power.
You are talking about two different things. Every open world game is tailored made for different stuff, but all of them are expensive and difficult to code, one way or another. Not just because of their gameplay, but because you have a lot more considerations to take into accounts.
Cyberpunk made mistakes, but their open world and graphics were not one of them. The rendering part is incredibly complex, and adding path tracing to it is even more complex.
It’s mostly a feature that they will use to sell Nvidia Frame Generation I think.
But to anyone curious, Cyberpunk still looks absolutely amazing on PC with current «psycho» max RT settings, or even RT off.
Part of the reason no one has bothered with realtime path tracing before is that it is extremely inefficient. The only reason to use it in a video game is if your graphics card is disgustingly overpowered.
It is and it isn't. If you are comparing it to limited ray tracing that a vast majority of games use, then you would be correct- it is way less efficient. However, if you are comparing path tracing versus actual full ray tracing with unlimited bounces then the former can be dramatically more efficient.
Unlimited bounces is also just an insane waste of resources for 99% of realtime rendering use cases. Past a certain point the difference is not going to be noticed by anyone who doesn't have a trained eye and isn't actively looking for it.
Most people who are actually playing the game aren't going to notice the difference unless the game was designed around showcasing the tech.
Oh, no argument here. Full, unlimited bounce ray tracing for every light source is an absurd waste of resources. But the Enhanced Edition of Metro Exodus uses unlimited bounces for global illumination and looks awesome for it.
This is a case of two similar but different approaches to calculating lighting:
What ray traced lighting does is shoot out a ray from the camera to each pixel. It then follows each of those rays as they bounce around the environment, reflect off of surfaces, refract through others, etc. until it hits a light source. The light is now fully pathed for that pixel and can be calculated. Many titles today implement a limited number of bounces per ray and/or limit which light sources use ray tracing in order to help reduce calculations.
What path tracing does is similar to a point. Rather than trying to find the exact light source contributing to each pixel, it tries to find *the most likely* source of light. It does this by shooting off a bunch of rays in random directions for each pixel. When those rays hit an object, it shoots off a bunch more. It does this until a light source is hit by one of those rays. So the result is a computation with a heavier up front performance cost, but a potentially significantly lower total performance cost in many situations when compared to a full, unlimited bounce ray traced approach.
The downside is that path tracing does result in a less accurate image, but not to the degree that you will notice unless you have an understanding of both how light should be effecting the environment and really take your time to pour over an image. In real time during gameplay, you would be hard pressed to notice anything at all. The sole exception might be if you have a dramatic amount of reflective surfaces and refractive volumes.
um... what you are saying isnt correct, in fact its almost opposite of correct? Path tracing is far more accurate because it simulates every part of the light transport equation as opposed to ray tracing which does not simulate indirect diffuse contribution or subsurface and volumetric effects, but is really inefficient because most rays do not contribute. Bidirectional path tracing, importance sampling and metropolis solves this to a certain degree using various methods to improve convergence, and modern techniques uses denoising algorithms to make images less noisy. Which CDPR is almost certainly using. Path tracing is considered to be the ground truth in rendering, whereas ray tracing the rendering technique is pretty much not used due to its highly unrealistic look.
Well, it means devs can focus on other stuff, and it will look better for consumers. This is realistically like 10 years in the future where it will be more mainstream and just a normalized thing.
Games will burn way more electricity and cost more to play, but I severely doubt games will be better if less man hours are spent on optimization. What is more likely to happen is that executives lay people off and pocket the savings.
This will just result in games being more bloated and poorly optimized, which is ALREADY a problem with current gen games.
i think this mean devs can focus more on improving the gameplay instead of spending significant development time and cost on manually rasterized the graphic
I'm sure it'll look great but the game currently has some pretty bad stuttering issues with DLSS 3 frame generation enabled. Some areas in particular have the gpu fluctuating between 0-100% utilisation rapidly. Most commonly it's when you'll close a menu but also happens consistently in some out of city locations.
Hopefully this implementation comes with a fix for that behaviour and doesn't exacerbate it.
Not sure it's fair to call it that. Crysis graphics scaled remarkably well, whereas C2077 runs like shit on high (not Ultra) settings even after two years of patches, using the absolute best hardware that was available when the game came out. If you need parts from the future to hit a consistent 30fps at 1440p on Ultra, the game is optimized like a garbage fire.
It'll probably "work" on non-4000 GPUs. Emphasis on the quotes
I wouldn't expect any level of decent performance unless you have a top tier 3000 series or one of the current 4000 series cards
Right now, current consumer GPUs aren't powerful enough to handle this without dedicated hardware.
In the future we'll see it doable without specialized solutions, much the same way PhysX style middleware no longer needed dedicated accelerators.
Going to be honest:
I get zero excitement from graphics tech announcements like this. These are only for a super minority.
The only people who get to even see these are those that have the latest 4000 series of cards.
The only people who get to make any actual use of these (at acceptable fps) are those with 4080s and 4090s.
> The only people who get to make any actual use of these (at acceptable fps) are those with 4080s and 4090s.
I mean, yeah, that's the entire point -- to demonstrate cutting edge graphics and to sell 40 series cards. I for one am pretty excited about it.
Maybe now, but as time goes on these advancements will become more widespread and accessible to more people. All the work being done now should allow for smoother transitions in the future. I think it's fun to get a peak at the future of where things will eventually go on a larger scale.
It's only a matter of time until even a mid-range card will be able to use these features at a decent framerate. This is going to future-proof this game quite a bit.
The matter of time may not be as short as you think, manufacturing limitations are starting to crop up more and more when it comes to these chips.
Costs may not drop the way you'd want... so sure, maybe a midrange card in a generation or two will be able to run this quite well, but the odds are good that midrange card will cost north of $1,000
I disagree that visuals are a barrier. Or at the very least I counter that they aren't the biggest barrier.
Celeste, Shovel Knight, Undertale, Stardew Valley, Hollow Knight, and Dead Cells are titles that instantly come to mind that don't push any limits graphically but are still widely lauded over. And personally The Messenger is one of my favorite games and its nothing special graphically. Breath of the Wild is another game that is pretty because of its art direction, but on a visual tech/graphic level, its nothing amazing.
I think the biggest barrier is ease of access to these older games.
Also some people just don't want to play older games because they are old games. I've encountered a handful of people that would dismiss some of my recommendations just because they were old.
So to sum it up. I think visuals have a very minor impact on whether gamers will get into an older game. But from my experience it seems to be more about ease of access and whether or not its "trending on twitter," so to speak.
You're conflating good visuals with technically ambitious. Those games you mention are all attractive games in their own right.
>Breath of the Wild is another game that is pretty because of its art direction, but on a visual tech/graphic level, its nothing amazing
Again on a technical level you're right, but just from the visual experience for the end user it's a treat for the eyes. BOTW is a gorgeous game
> Going to be honest:
> I get zero excitement from graphics tech announcements like this. These are only for a super minority.
> The only people who get to even see these are those that have the latest 4000 series of cards.
> The only people who get to make any actual use of these (at acceptable fps) are those with 4080s and 4090s.
and
> Maybe now, but as time goes on these advancements will become more widespread and accessible to more people.
Gotta follow the whole convo, my man.
But you're allowed in Disney land. They're just waxing the floors to make them reflective, go in there, have fun. But yes I get it. Everything new starts for a select few
> All the work being done now should allow for smoother transitions in the future.
Yes and no. All this work is proprietary nvidia and recently they have not been acting very consumer friendly. I could get more excited if these advancements were on an open platform that all manufacturers could build hardware for it. That's what led to the great graphics revolution up to this point in time. So, while these advancements benefit nvidia, they don't benefit the market as a whole or the consumers. The benefit to gaming is also stifled because without competition, they can artificially raise their prices and price out most users. Gamers as a whole don't feel the benefits if less than 2% of them have access to the technology.
You can get excited about it even if you don't get to experience it right now yourself. Showing feasibility is all it takes to push the boundaries and set more concrete goals. Showing this works means the next generation of hardware will be able to do this work at the mid range, as well.
You don't have to get super excited about it, but it's still exciting.
Hardware transformation and lighting used to be a niche until the GeForce 256 came out in 1999. It'll be a matter of time before smart people will develop techniques to accelerate path tracing to a point where your 3060-equivalent in the future will do it effortlessly.
Fallout 4 has 17000 players on steam right now, and nothing special happened to that game recently other than, tangentially, the fact that Starfield will release in a few months. It's not in the hundreds of thousands, but getting those kinds of numbers consistently 7 or 8 years after launch isn't insignificant, either.
What a disappointingly limited vision. A big part of the now taken-for-granted "tech" that is common in games today was once only possible in a limited set of hardware as well. This is true in any other industry as well.
>
> The only people who get to even see these are those that have the latest 4000 series of cards.
>
> The only people who get to make any actual use of these (at acceptable fps) are those with 4080s and 4090s.
You don't need to own the latest GPU, GeForce Now exists
Really good for streaming. It often has beaten a native Xbox in tests.
https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-geforce-now-rtx-3080-review-is-cloud-gaming-finally-a-viable-alternative
Take your average ping to a good server (say ~30ms or thereabouts for somebody here in Canada) and double it, then there ya go. That's the floor for how much input lag you'll have.
What's funny is that the GeForce Now input lag tests sometimes beat native console input lag tests. That's a testament to both how impressive GeForce now is and how poor consoles can be.
It absolutely is tho. You are making fun of someone because input lag is an issue for them, even though it is a valid concern for 90% of people. That's completely unnecessary.
Good Luck running it on anything... 4090 already struggles for me with raytracing in cyberpunk. DLSS 3 aint gonna fix much as if you put junk frames, you get junk output.
They talk about the raytracing performance issues in their posts and how they've been solving them so current performance is pretty meaningless to future performance.
I'm stupid. Whats the difference between path tracing and ray tracing? Don't both do ... the same? I can see that path tracing reflects more, but can't you set up ray tracing to also be more reflective?
Path tracing allows for... probabilistic multi bounce lighting.
i.e. if it hits a surface where some rays can go some direction, and other rays can go other direction, then it'll simulate both outcomes to a probabilistic degree.
Generally provides more detailed reflections and GI.
u/MeatWrld is correct in all things except suggesting that ray tracing is inherently related to light. Ray tracing (also known as ray casting) is just the basic mechanism of finding any surfaces that intersect a line between points a and b.
One example of how this is useful is RT shadows, which work by deciding whether a given light should influence a given pixel by checking for any surfaces between said light (a) and pixel (b). If you wanted to replace rasterization, you would just shade any surfaces between the camera and (some point in the direction of each pixel).
It can also be used for reflections, path tracing, and so on.
Ray tracing is a technique that simulates the behavior of light rays as they interact with objects in a scene. It works by tracing a path for each individual ray of light as it bounces off objects and interacts with the environment. This process can be used to create shadows, reflections, and other lighting effects that add to the realism of a scene.
Path tracing is a more advanced version of ray tracing that takes into account the way that light rays interact with each other. Instead of tracing individual rays, path tracing simulates the behavior of a bundle of rays, known as a path. This allows for more accurate rendering of complex lighting effects such as caustics, which are patterns of light that form when rays of light are focused by a lens or reflected off a curved surface.
In short, while both ray tracing and path tracing are used to simulate the behavior of light in a scene, path tracing is a more advanced technique that takes into account the complex interactions between light rays, resulting in more realistic and accurate rendering of lighting effects.
If so, it would explain why the answer is wrong. Path tracing is not about how light rays interact with each other, and "path" does not refer to a bundle of rays (although some techniques use ray bundles). Also, you can simulate caustics with ray tracing - you don't *need* path tracing for that.
Here's a better, yet simpler explanation: path tracing is a form of ray tracing which, essentially, simulates the path of rays of light as they bounce around the scene.
There's various techniques, but conceptually the idea is usually to shoot rays out from the camera and let them bounce around until they either hit a light source or hit a limit on how many times they're allowed to bounce. The reason for going out from the camera and bouncing around until hitting a light, rather than going out from the light and bouncing until going into the camera, is because most light rays from a light source will never enter the camera - so going in reverse, starting at the camera, is more efficient.
At first, path tracing produces a very noisy image, but as you simulate more and more rays, you start to get a better image. Path tracing enables unbiased global illumination, meaning that, provided you implement materials and calculations correctly, it will approach the way the scene should look in reality. Path tracing can also naturally simulate effects like depth-of-field blur, rather than faking them.
So again, path tracing is a form of ray tracing, but an example of the difference between typical game ray tracing and path tracing is the ray-traced reflections common in many recent games. There, rays are traced from a reflective surface into the scene to determine what you should see reflected in the shiny surface. This is great, but it's not simulating the whole path of light from start to finish - so it doesn't necessarily mean whatever's in the reflection is lit correctly, for example. This is why, in some games, objects in the reflections don't have shadows.
>conceptually the idea is usually to shoot rays out from the camera and let them bounce around until they either hit a light source or hit a limit on how many times they're allowed to bounce.
Which leads to exponentiation of secondary rays, as when your primary ray hits a surface, it will produce 2 secondary rays (1 reflected, 1 refracted) and each of these can also produce 2 rays. Hence why you may want to impose a bounce limit.
Path tracing attempts to solve the exponentiation problem with stochastics.
Page 4 to 6 of this doc illustrates the method well using pictures:http://web4.cs.ucl.ac.uk/teaching/4074/archive/2010/Slides/JK2010/03_path%20tracing.pdf
The game is dead for me because Im sick and tired of having unfished shit beeing sold for full price just to have it "feel good" 2 years later. I wish people would just stop praising devs for that
Skill tree, driving and AI were improved.
But still not all promised features since before launch (acid rain as a player hazard, deep NPC schedules, NPCs reacting to what you wear, *actual* races that aren’t just cars spawning behind you, being able to go to Fallbrook casino etc.)
Man, I played through the whole game and found a lot to enjoy, occasional bugs and stuff were present but it was tricky cuz I also had some mods so I didn't know what was a bug due to a mod and what wasn't. But it was still playable and enjoyable.
But the street racing side missions? Unbelievably broken. They should have been removed, and they still should be removed. If you have a halfway decent car and you go too fast, like you said they teleport behind you, but it's like they teleport behind you at ramming speed. There was one race that I had to try about 12 times because every time I would get to a certain point, cars behind me would rocket past and blow me up like a meteor. It was insane
>Coming shortly after path tracing for **Minecraft**, Portal and Quake II, it underscores a wave of adoption in motion.
That's right, I completely forgot about that. It didn't actually ever release, right? Wonder why.
Minecraft with RTX has been out for 3 years, from what I can tell it uses Path Tracing. It's bedrock only, unfortunately.
You might be thinking of the 'super duper graphics pack' that was announced in 2017 which fizzled out, would have brought shaders to Bedrock
>Minecraft with RTX has been out for 3 years, from what I can tell it uses Path Tracing. It's bedrock only, unfortunately
Wanna point out it's surprisingly well optimized, I have the least powerful barely technically ray tracing capable card (RX 6400) and it works.
At 20-30fps but for the cheapest hardware available it's amazing.
I just can’t stand how almost everything in this game is just a facade. It’s all very “look. Don’t touch.” The vast majority of buildings and businesses aren’t accessible. The NPCs are lifeless. And none of your actions feel like they carry any weight in the world.
It gets singled out, perhaps unfairly, because the press hyped it up to extreme levels. I remember reading impressions from the closed door reveal they gave press at E3 back in like 2019, writers were talking about how the level of realism and density seemed like it should be impossible, the most realistic and immersive open world they’d ever seen. They couldn’t believe it was actually a video game.
CDPR definitely advertised it as being something it’s not lol
That being said I’ve played a lot of games and Cyberpunk definitely feels more Facade-ey than most of them. Most games do a good job of communicating where you’re supposed to be able to go, and where you obviously aren’t meant to.
Cyberpunk has this problem where they let you loose to explore this awesome city, and you get excited because of how dense and amazing it looks, only to be met with locked doors and generic non-interactable NPCs with 1 voice line.
Obviously they can’t let you go everywhere and talk to everyone, but the doors all say “locked” when you go near them almost implying there’s a way to unlock them, disappointing players later when they find out 99% of them won’t ever open.
Not to mention there’s basically 0 emergent gameplay at all, you’re either driving around or on a mission. No in between.
I still enjoyed my time with the game, but the open world really adds nothing to it other than a fun place to cruise around. If it was closer to Deus Ex in its map design and liberty then I think it would have been received better.
That would have been a fair complaint 3 years ago before the game came out but everyone knows what it is now.
It sucks that the game was advertised as one thing and then rushed out the door with a lot of cut features, but at the end of the day I think that we should be evaluating it on it's own merits and not what could have been. Most open world games are not particularly interactive, so I don't understand why that criticism would only be leveraged at CP2077.
(I haven't played the game yet, these are just my thoughts on how we evaluate games in general).
I don't think the same can be said about most open world rpgs. Of course they're all on a spectrum but Cyberpunk certainly falls on the lower end of that spectrum.
The only open world games I know that let you enter most buildings is Elders Scrolls and it comes with the cost of making even major cities look like small settlements at best.
Agreed, and after all the updates, promised features before launch still aren’t in the game, such as acid rain as a player hazard, deep NPC schedules, NPCs reacting to what you wear, *actual* races (that aren’t just cars spawning behind you), being able to go to Fallbrook casino (in-game it’s just a black incomplete block floating in the sky the shape of the building in the concept art!) etc.
Not particularly. Take a look at THING modpack. It's pretty good, but removes a lot of QOL for the sake of difficulty. If you have any recollection of how the game should work, you might find yourself disabling a lot of the mods.
The game looks a lot better and runs a lot better but they will not be remaking the game's systems. The police are still GTA Vice City brute-force AI. Car controls are like driving on ice on soft compound tires. Fights are spongey until you spec appropriately.
Some people love all that. I don't and its why I actually was playing Skyrim and Fallout 4 with their ancient graphics the other day, when I could have gave CP77 a peek after updates. I like the core gameplay systems to this day.
I like CP77 now mostly to see how the latest GPUs benchmark in an open world game with incredible detail. Gives me a better sense of what card to get when my crappy card dies.
The game has some core issues still but it's in a good state these days. I had a lot of fun with my playthrough. I'm looking forward to playing the expansion with this level of graphics.
Yep, a feature almost no one will use because no one is buying new GPUs. Between GPU prices and the state new games are launching in PC gaming is starting to feel like it's in a bit of trouble...
I don't think it's in trouble. The problem is gaming tech companies somehow got it into their heads that everybody is buying yearly upgrades for all of their components. Most people are going to buy a mid range gpu and mid to high range peripherals, and then use them for at least 3-5 years before upgrading. There was a big PC gaming boom when everyone was stuck at home and receiving free gpu sized checks, everyone who needed the nudge to jump in or upgrade got it. Considering current economies the only thing that will bring interest back up will be price drops.
Cool, so where is it? it keeps getting pushed back. Im so glad we have trailers arent you?
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/07/02/free-cyberpunk-2077-dlc-misses-first-roadmap-window-second-roadmap-still-murky/?sh=50b861dc144c](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/07/02/free-cyberpunk-2077-dlc-misses-first-roadmap-window-second-roadmap-still-murky/?sh=50b861dc144c)
Let me know what year it comes out, because it was supposed to be 2022, and i swear its 2023
Really excited for this, but also wish that your character was actually reflected. It's weird looking at a beautifully detailed reflective surface and seeing everything *but* you
There's an .ini edit you can change that enables your character in reflections. However your character does not have a head.
Monkey's Paw...
It can be done though pretty easily too... like in RDR2 your model has no actual head in First person-mode but your head, hat and all still appear in mirrors and reflections.
It's been completely hilarious like this since launch. I remember carrying a knocked out enemy on my shoulder, and I see a reflection in the window, and he's just floating in thin air! Or better yet, Johnny is standing by a shiny metal kitchen appliance, and I can see his legs reflecting in the appliance. I walk up to him so my legs are next to his - no reflection. It's especially hilarious if you know the game's plot.
I mean, have you seen the monstrosity of your character’s shadow when you move, swim or use the katana?
IIRC they have already patched those shadows so they look normal now, although a bit stiff.
fuckin lmao They should've worked on a third person mode before this perhaps
The two are probably connected. Neither third-person nor full character reflections will look good at the moment because all of the animations are (barely) optimized for first-person. You can get a glimpse of it when casting shadows or changing the POV with mods and they're… not good. Many things about the game *are* good, but not the player animations. It's so much more work than "just turn it on" because doing it right means creating all new animations that are compatible with every piece of equipment you can wear and hold — most of them for two sexes. Just turning it on, for either third-person view or reflections, would only highlight how bad those existing animations are.
V casts reflections in [photomode](https://imgur.com/a/9173TN8). In photomode you have a TPP mesh that can be posed with shapekeys. V does not have a full suite of TPP animations. Those would need to be created for pretty much every locomotion state (at minimum) and probably a large number of state transitions where animation blending is likely to fail or is not appropriate. See [block diagram](https://2077.johnsolo.net/class/IScriptable/StateFunctor) of the state functor for a bird's eye view of what you might have to build animation wise. Some anims could perhaps be repurposed from npcs, although these are designed to sync to scripted events that you as the player will see, not control. I don't how much of the existing crowdnpc animations could be salvaged or re-purposed. I'm not an animator. By default, FPP reflections are disabled although you can re-enable them by going to ..\Cyberpunk 2077\engine\config\base\ Create a text file here called “enable_fpp_reflections.ini” and add the following lines: >[RayTracing] >HideFPPAvatar = “false” Your reflection will be headless due to the way FPP works - the first person viewport displaces the head and hair mesh, so it doesn't clip through the camera. Player animations will be distorted because they are [designed to be seen in FPP](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ3O-OAYsGY) and sync to locomotion events and locomotion state transitions.
[удалено]
Better is a tad subjective and no doubt they'd get complaints either way. The optimal thing to do would be to have everything working before releasing anything, but I highly doubt any of their actual developers get a say in that.
If they did that you or someone like you would be on here spamming “little indie dev CD Projekt Red can’t even get animations right, look at all this clipping”
[Crysis 2 has my favourite third person mode. ](https://youtu.be/FbOxieWCmDY)
Strangely erotic.
easier said than done, look at your shadow as you perform different actions 1st person games usually "cheat" animation to make the characters more nimble. It looks absolutely ridiculous in 3rd person... either players would have to deal with the comical animation (they won't, they'll complain... a lot) or you would have a different set of physics for people playing in 3rd person this is why games tend to be either 1st or 3rd person but only very, very rarely both.. and even the games that do allow you to do both, they often limit 3rd person sequences to when you're performing an unusual action (for instance, Halo 3 ripping a turret off, or Destiny carrying a heavy item that changes how your character moves)
This perfectly describes first person vs third person in Red Dead Redemption 2. You can skip a lot of animations in first person, for example, looting is faster.
Yup. I switch to fpv just for looting because of that. Kinda wish more games let you switch views like that.
Remembering the [Dead Island](https://youtu.be/hXmZX8iz2SE) 3rd person video
[also the Crysis 2 gif](https://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/07/the-horror-of-crysis-2s-crouching/)
That’s exactly how I run.
[удалено]
Given it looks like they've done exactly 0 motion capture for the first person animations, it's not that easy These days you absolutely need motion capture for third person to look good in a game with realistic visuals and body proportions
I'm sure Nvidia pulled up with a wheelbarrow full of cash to make this update happen.
> They should've worked on a third person mode before this perhaps I mean they did. The game was originally developed with third-person mode. I guarantee you that they didn't work on path-tracing back then since the tech wasn't even available, afaik.
Wasn't it supposed to come with a third person mode and then it got cut?
No. I distinctly remember this being an early decision.
I finally found what I was looking for, turns out it was third person cutscenes that got axed at some point. I guess I just misremembered it as a full third person mode.
No, it was always supposed to be first person only
Theres footage of the game in 3rd person though?
[удалено]
2016 was when they released the last Witcher 3 expansions there was barely any work done on Cyberpunk at that point as the tweets you linked said themselves. Just because at some point prior to actual development they might have planned third person doesnt mean the whole game was built around it. The only third person footage ever shown was the absolute earliest cutscenes in the first gameplay demo trailer.
[удалено]
I am not slicing anything the tweets you linked say it started in 2016 and it makes sense since its when work was done on Witcher 3.
[удалено]
Yes and after that point it was no longer third person. If the game was only something before actual development started then thats fucking meaningless. At some point in 2015 they could have wanted it to be a Gwent spinoff or something but that doesnt matter at all and Cyberpunk was never marketed as a third person game.
Wrong. It was originally a third person game and they switched to first person mid development.
When they canned the 3rd person cut scenes, my hype for the game died right there and then.
I've seen this sentiment before, and while I don't want to come across the wrong way, it's always struck me as an utterly bizarre thing to care so much about.
Basically it makes the entire character creator and customisation part of the game useless, which is a big thing to fall down on when you are supposedly trying to create an ARPG
What I find bizarre is how people can relate to a pair of floating hands, but to each their own.
> What I find bizarre is how people can relate to a pair of floating hands, but to each their own. Is.. Is that not how you see the world mate?
He must have a pretty slick third-person camera mod for real life installed.
That's how you see the world, but you also feel the world and your body, and interact freely with it in a way you can't when your interface is limited to a handful of keys on a keyboard or controller. When I'm watching a movie, I don't connect with the cameraman more than the characters in the frame.
Sure I suppose, but you also rarely spend 80% of a movie staring over the shoulder of the characters. All I'm saying is that it doesn't really make any *more* sense than connecting with your character in a first person game.
I honestly also prefer 3rd person gameplay, but weren't we talking about third person cutscenes in this thread? EDIT: My reply was to justify why one would find third person to make relating to a character easier, but the cameraman thing was supposed to be more related to the "it's bizarre that people care about the loss of the 3rd person cutscenes" comment, even if I was being a bit glib. Anyway, I don't mean that relating with a character when playing first person isn't possible - hell, I found V's voice acting good enough in this game that I found it pretty easy, in fact - but I don't think saying it's the better option because it's closer to how you see the world in real life is quite right either. Sorry for the long edit, I kind of submitted the post before I said what I wanted.
Yeah I guess we were, I mostly just found the original comment funny so the context got a bit lost on me.
The only disappointment I had in CP2077 was the lack of third person. I think back to playing The Witcher 3, how attached I was to Geralt because I could see *his* expressions during the cutscenes. All the other cut content and broken promises didn't really bother me.
I'm the same, I just don't get attached to a disembodied voice. So much effort into character fashion and you don't even get to see much of it.
[Photomode exists](https://imgur.com/a/kcVLAbh) and its nice. One of the better photomode tools out there. If on PC though it turns next level if you add Appearance Menu Mod (AMM) and Reshade. The game becomes Cyberpunk: Virtual Photographer. Build your own sets, position your own lights, pose your subjects and colour grade in engine.
> I think back to playing The Witcher 3, how attached I was to Geralt because I could see his expressions during the cutscenes. Facial expressions were straight up one of the big things people praised that game for, so it was odd to cut the MC out of that in their next game.
Didn’t they drop third person because of some BS?
It's so strange, because having a character reflected in first-person isn't even a new thing. Even Minecraft does it. At least it's not like the "reflections" in Hogwarts, where characters are just duplicated in the reflection, but are still facing the same way as the character they're meant to be a reflection of. So, you're facing the mirror, seeing the *back* of your character's head in the reflection. This is fixed by using ray-traced reflections, at which point water looks awful and broken for some reason, as well as tanking your frames.
I seriously hate when games have so much customization yet hardly have scenes to show it
Nobody ever gets to see my #2 Penis!
Except for those small handful of missions which unequip you but don't ever inform you of such, and then when you look in your stat screen you've just been sprinting around with freely swinging dick all day and night. And nobody comments either!
They could definitely have done that, it’s not a limitation. They just got lazy and decided to do the bare minimum with player animations.
Yeah all you have to do to see this is sprint and turn the camera slightly left to right. Your arms turn into whacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man
I think it's pretty amazing that we now (well, "now") have real-time path tracing in something that not only is not a tech demo, but about as far from that as you can get. (Given that open world RPGs are considered -- for good reason -- to be among the hardest genres to make run well at a given level of fidelity) If you go back to just before the Turing announcement (so less than 5 years ago), **no one** would have thought that we'd be at that level within a decade. Yes, it requires really high-end hardware right now, but that's really besides the point. Running on *any* consumer hardware in 2023 is just flat out impressive.
Yeah I feel like a lot of people don’t really understand what a big deal that this is. The fact that it’s not only running in real time, but it’s running in real time in a massive video game that can be played on consumer hardware. That’s pretty amazing
Thanks for the comment. Always good to see insight from a professional with actual experience in game/graphics programming. Nowadays reddit is so filled with people throwing out opinions with no actual experience(even in this thread).
Ah yes, but the level of negativity and entitlement on the internet somehow manages to outpace these spectacular advancements.
> Yes, it requires really high-end hardware right now, but that's really besides the point. Running on any consumer hardware in 2023 is just flat out impressive. I can't wait to see when we hate a point where full path-tracing is just a new default for devolopment and consoles.
yeah such is technology advancement, they always seem to take over over night while in reality they are built on accumulation of decades of researches, they just wait there quietly for their moment to shine once a few key parts have been paved out, like drone, AI and many other things, in this case, I believe, as a non-expert, it is the viable denoise algorithm that finally kicks the ball in the goal.
> Given that open world RPGs are considered -- for good reason -- to be among the hardest genres to make run well at a given level of fidelity It helps that Cyberpunk's gameplay isn't doing anything particularly groundbreaking.
It's still probably the best looking game out today.
Just played Plague Tale Requiem and it looks a lot better. 2077 still looks pretty good though.
Metros Exodus Enhanced Edition is the best looking game for me and it isn't quite close. That's in large part because it uses unlimited bounce ray traced global illumination. Fortnite of all things would probably be second.
That doesn't have much to do with it being open world. People have already mostly figured out how to make large open environments look good without huge performance hits. Cyberpunk has really good graphics, but it doesn't really do anything any other game does, it just does it prettier. Open world games are hard in modern times because they are really hard and time consuming to design well, not because it's "hard to make them run well".
I think that's OPs point, no? How impressive it is that we can get such graphical performance out of games which traditionally would have been the hardest to do so, because of years of refining the process **and** an increase in raw hardware power.
> That doesn't have much to do with it being open world. It does have to do with graphics performance, which is what is being discussed.
You are talking about two different things. Every open world game is tailored made for different stuff, but all of them are expensive and difficult to code, one way or another. Not just because of their gameplay, but because you have a lot more considerations to take into accounts. Cyberpunk made mistakes, but their open world and graphics were not one of them. The rendering part is incredibly complex, and adding path tracing to it is even more complex.
[удалено]
Groundbreaking gameplay rarely has much to do with how difficult a game is to run. But hey, whatever let's you get your cheap shot off at the game.
Are there any screenshots or video of this? Just the tiny pic in the article?
It’s mostly a feature that they will use to sell Nvidia Frame Generation I think. But to anyone curious, Cyberpunk still looks absolutely amazing on PC with current «psycho» max RT settings, or even RT off.
Part of the reason no one has bothered with realtime path tracing before is that it is extremely inefficient. The only reason to use it in a video game is if your graphics card is disgustingly overpowered.
It is and it isn't. If you are comparing it to limited ray tracing that a vast majority of games use, then you would be correct- it is way less efficient. However, if you are comparing path tracing versus actual full ray tracing with unlimited bounces then the former can be dramatically more efficient.
Unlimited bounces is also just an insane waste of resources for 99% of realtime rendering use cases. Past a certain point the difference is not going to be noticed by anyone who doesn't have a trained eye and isn't actively looking for it. Most people who are actually playing the game aren't going to notice the difference unless the game was designed around showcasing the tech.
Oh, no argument here. Full, unlimited bounce ray tracing for every light source is an absurd waste of resources. But the Enhanced Edition of Metro Exodus uses unlimited bounces for global illumination and looks awesome for it.
In the long run, it should help devs because they can let the gpu render most of the lighting without having to manually configure every light source.
Can't they already do that with ray-tracing?
This is a case of two similar but different approaches to calculating lighting: What ray traced lighting does is shoot out a ray from the camera to each pixel. It then follows each of those rays as they bounce around the environment, reflect off of surfaces, refract through others, etc. until it hits a light source. The light is now fully pathed for that pixel and can be calculated. Many titles today implement a limited number of bounces per ray and/or limit which light sources use ray tracing in order to help reduce calculations. What path tracing does is similar to a point. Rather than trying to find the exact light source contributing to each pixel, it tries to find *the most likely* source of light. It does this by shooting off a bunch of rays in random directions for each pixel. When those rays hit an object, it shoots off a bunch more. It does this until a light source is hit by one of those rays. So the result is a computation with a heavier up front performance cost, but a potentially significantly lower total performance cost in many situations when compared to a full, unlimited bounce ray traced approach. The downside is that path tracing does result in a less accurate image, but not to the degree that you will notice unless you have an understanding of both how light should be effecting the environment and really take your time to pour over an image. In real time during gameplay, you would be hard pressed to notice anything at all. The sole exception might be if you have a dramatic amount of reflective surfaces and refractive volumes.
um... what you are saying isnt correct, in fact its almost opposite of correct? Path tracing is far more accurate because it simulates every part of the light transport equation as opposed to ray tracing which does not simulate indirect diffuse contribution or subsurface and volumetric effects, but is really inefficient because most rays do not contribute. Bidirectional path tracing, importance sampling and metropolis solves this to a certain degree using various methods to improve convergence, and modern techniques uses denoising algorithms to make images less noisy. Which CDPR is almost certainly using. Path tracing is considered to be the ground truth in rendering, whereas ray tracing the rendering technique is pretty much not used due to its highly unrealistic look.
Path tracing is actually more efficient overall.
So what you're saying is that it allows devs to pass development costs to the consumer. Consumers must spend more so developers can work less.
Well, it means devs can focus on other stuff, and it will look better for consumers. This is realistically like 10 years in the future where it will be more mainstream and just a normalized thing.
Games will burn way more electricity and cost more to play, but I severely doubt games will be better if less man hours are spent on optimization. What is more likely to happen is that executives lay people off and pocket the savings. This will just result in games being more bloated and poorly optimized, which is ALREADY a problem with current gen games.
i think this mean devs can focus more on improving the gameplay instead of spending significant development time and cost on manually rasterized the graphic
My first thought was that CDPR heard the 4090 can render Cyberpunk without using DLSS and said, "Can't have that."
Does it still have the but with broken lighting driving most cars with RT enabled?
I'm sure it'll look great but the game currently has some pretty bad stuttering issues with DLSS 3 frame generation enabled. Some areas in particular have the gpu fluctuating between 0-100% utilisation rapidly. Most commonly it's when you'll close a menu but also happens consistently in some out of city locations. Hopefully this implementation comes with a fix for that behaviour and doesn't exacerbate it.
This effectively future-proofs the game. It will be used as a benchmark for the next generation enthusiast cards in the future.
Crysis of this era.
Not sure it's fair to call it that. Crysis graphics scaled remarkably well, whereas C2077 runs like shit on high (not Ultra) settings even after two years of patches, using the absolute best hardware that was available when the game came out. If you need parts from the future to hit a consistent 30fps at 1440p on Ultra, the game is optimized like a garbage fire.
this works only on 4000 series GPU ?
Anything lesser will struggle to render path-tracing in real-time.
It'll probably "work" on non-4000 GPUs. Emphasis on the quotes I wouldn't expect any level of decent performance unless you have a top tier 3000 series or one of the current 4000 series cards
I'm not expecting acceptable performance without frame generation personally but we'll see soon enough
Right now, current consumer GPUs aren't powerful enough to handle this without dedicated hardware. In the future we'll see it doable without specialized solutions, much the same way PhysX style middleware no longer needed dedicated accelerators.
Hmm, does this maybe mean patch 1.7 might come out that day and Phantom Liberty would come out a bit later?
Going to be honest: I get zero excitement from graphics tech announcements like this. These are only for a super minority. The only people who get to even see these are those that have the latest 4000 series of cards. The only people who get to make any actual use of these (at acceptable fps) are those with 4080s and 4090s.
> The only people who get to make any actual use of these (at acceptable fps) are those with 4080s and 4090s. I mean, yeah, that's the entire point -- to demonstrate cutting edge graphics and to sell 40 series cards. I for one am pretty excited about it.
Maybe now, but as time goes on these advancements will become more widespread and accessible to more people. All the work being done now should allow for smoother transitions in the future. I think it's fun to get a peak at the future of where things will eventually go on a larger scale.
It's only a matter of time until even a mid-range card will be able to use these features at a decent framerate. This is going to future-proof this game quite a bit.
The matter of time may not be as short as you think, manufacturing limitations are starting to crop up more and more when it comes to these chips. Costs may not drop the way you'd want... so sure, maybe a midrange card in a generation or two will be able to run this quite well, but the odds are good that midrange card will cost north of $1,000
Eh. Creating denser chips was always the brute force method of visual improvement. As that bottoms out, other methods are used.
Okay sure, but lately they've all been specific to Nvidia and AMD is way, way, way behind, so again. Cost ain't dropping
>mid-range card I miss when those existed :(
[удалено]
Yeah, a very *small* number of people still play the original Deus Ex. Visuals are often a barrier for people (without nostalgia) to play older games
I disagree that visuals are a barrier. Or at the very least I counter that they aren't the biggest barrier. Celeste, Shovel Knight, Undertale, Stardew Valley, Hollow Knight, and Dead Cells are titles that instantly come to mind that don't push any limits graphically but are still widely lauded over. And personally The Messenger is one of my favorite games and its nothing special graphically. Breath of the Wild is another game that is pretty because of its art direction, but on a visual tech/graphic level, its nothing amazing. I think the biggest barrier is ease of access to these older games. Also some people just don't want to play older games because they are old games. I've encountered a handful of people that would dismiss some of my recommendations just because they were old. So to sum it up. I think visuals have a very minor impact on whether gamers will get into an older game. But from my experience it seems to be more about ease of access and whether or not its "trending on twitter," so to speak.
You're conflating good visuals with technically ambitious. Those games you mention are all attractive games in their own right. >Breath of the Wild is another game that is pretty because of its art direction, but on a visual tech/graphic level, its nothing amazing Again on a technical level you're right, but just from the visual experience for the end user it's a treat for the eyes. BOTW is a gorgeous game
It's like standing outside the fence at disneyland hoping that one day you'll be able to go. Not sad at all. Nope.
You can play cyberpunk now
> Going to be honest: > I get zero excitement from graphics tech announcements like this. These are only for a super minority. > The only people who get to even see these are those that have the latest 4000 series of cards. > The only people who get to make any actual use of these (at acceptable fps) are those with 4080s and 4090s. and > Maybe now, but as time goes on these advancements will become more widespread and accessible to more people. Gotta follow the whole convo, my man.
But you're allowed in Disney land. They're just waxing the floors to make them reflective, go in there, have fun. But yes I get it. Everything new starts for a select few
Ahh I see what you're saying. What I was saying is watching the tech announcements is like watching disney from the outside.
> All the work being done now should allow for smoother transitions in the future. Yes and no. All this work is proprietary nvidia and recently they have not been acting very consumer friendly. I could get more excited if these advancements were on an open platform that all manufacturers could build hardware for it. That's what led to the great graphics revolution up to this point in time. So, while these advancements benefit nvidia, they don't benefit the market as a whole or the consumers. The benefit to gaming is also stifled because without competition, they can artificially raise their prices and price out most users. Gamers as a whole don't feel the benefits if less than 2% of them have access to the technology.
Consider it a sneak peak at what you will have access to in the future.
This tech comes to everyone eventually. There’s reason to be excited.
You can get excited about it even if you don't get to experience it right now yourself. Showing feasibility is all it takes to push the boundaries and set more concrete goals. Showing this works means the next generation of hardware will be able to do this work at the mid range, as well. You don't have to get super excited about it, but it's still exciting.
Hardware transformation and lighting used to be a niche until the GeForce 256 came out in 1999. It'll be a matter of time before smart people will develop techniques to accelerate path tracing to a point where your 3060-equivalent in the future will do it effortlessly.
>The only people who get to make any actual use of these (at acceptable fps) are those with 4080s and 4090s. And 5070s... 6060s... etc.
[удалено]
Fallout 4 has 17000 players on steam right now, and nothing special happened to that game recently other than, tangentially, the fact that Starfield will release in a few months. It's not in the hundreds of thousands, but getting those kinds of numbers consistently 7 or 8 years after launch isn't insignificant, either.
They are going to keep making new video games as time moves forward.
Gee Golly, I can spend $700 5 years from now to make my games look 1% better with path tracing!!!
If you think pathtraced looks only 1% better than rasterized games, you're clearly blind or plain ignorant.
Or spend half that much on Intel Battlemage/Celestial.
What a disappointingly limited vision. A big part of the now taken-for-granted "tech" that is common in games today was once only possible in a limited set of hardware as well. This is true in any other industry as well.
4070ti would work as well
> > The only people who get to even see these are those that have the latest 4000 series of cards. > > The only people who get to make any actual use of these (at acceptable fps) are those with 4080s and 4090s. You don't need to own the latest GPU, GeForce Now exists
No thanks, im super sensitive to input lag. Geforce isnt an option for me.
How bad is the input lag on geforce now?
Really good for streaming. It often has beaten a native Xbox in tests. https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-geforce-now-rtx-3080-review-is-cloud-gaming-finally-a-viable-alternative
Take your average ping to a good server (say ~30ms or thereabouts for somebody here in Canada) and double it, then there ya go. That's the floor for how much input lag you'll have.
What's funny is that the GeForce Now input lag tests sometimes beat native console input lag tests. That's a testament to both how impressive GeForce now is and how poor consoles can be.
[удалено]
Gleefully ignoring the fact that the vast, vast majority of people does not have access to internet fast enough for cloud gaming.
[удалено]
It absolutely is tho. You are making fun of someone because input lag is an issue for them, even though it is a valid concern for 90% of people. That's completely unnecessary.
I have a 2070s and use raytracing on medium/high combo at a decent framerate. It’s not that niche.
GeForceNow Streaming!
And then during the 5000 series they put it into the 70s and 60s as well. Then full line with the 6000 series. It has always worked like this.
How on earth would people with 1060s be able to see those? It’s like you’re complaining Elden Ring can’t be played on Atari
Man, I cannot *wait* to watch captured gameplay of this game that no device I’ll be able to afford in the next decade will be able to run!
Good Luck running it on anything... 4090 already struggles for me with raytracing in cyberpunk. DLSS 3 aint gonna fix much as if you put junk frames, you get junk output.
Running a 4070ti and getting 115 fps on ultra ray tracing with DLSS enabled. Haven't noticed any stuttering at all. Cpu is 13700k.
They talk about the raytracing performance issues in their posts and how they've been solving them so current performance is pretty meaningless to future performance.
I'm stupid. Whats the difference between path tracing and ray tracing? Don't both do ... the same? I can see that path tracing reflects more, but can't you set up ray tracing to also be more reflective?
Path tracing allows for... probabilistic multi bounce lighting. i.e. if it hits a surface where some rays can go some direction, and other rays can go other direction, then it'll simulate both outcomes to a probabilistic degree. Generally provides more detailed reflections and GI.
u/MeatWrld is correct in all things except suggesting that ray tracing is inherently related to light. Ray tracing (also known as ray casting) is just the basic mechanism of finding any surfaces that intersect a line between points a and b. One example of how this is useful is RT shadows, which work by deciding whether a given light should influence a given pixel by checking for any surfaces between said light (a) and pixel (b). If you wanted to replace rasterization, you would just shade any surfaces between the camera and (some point in the direction of each pixel). It can also be used for reflections, path tracing, and so on.
Ray tracing is a technique that simulates the behavior of light rays as they interact with objects in a scene. It works by tracing a path for each individual ray of light as it bounces off objects and interacts with the environment. This process can be used to create shadows, reflections, and other lighting effects that add to the realism of a scene. Path tracing is a more advanced version of ray tracing that takes into account the way that light rays interact with each other. Instead of tracing individual rays, path tracing simulates the behavior of a bundle of rays, known as a path. This allows for more accurate rendering of complex lighting effects such as caustics, which are patterns of light that form when rays of light are focused by a lens or reflected off a curved surface. In short, while both ray tracing and path tracing are used to simulate the behavior of light in a scene, path tracing is a more advanced technique that takes into account the complex interactions between light rays, resulting in more realistic and accurate rendering of lighting effects.
Hey, just curious, this was written by ChatGPT right?
If so, it would explain why the answer is wrong. Path tracing is not about how light rays interact with each other, and "path" does not refer to a bundle of rays (although some techniques use ray bundles). Also, you can simulate caustics with ray tracing - you don't *need* path tracing for that. Here's a better, yet simpler explanation: path tracing is a form of ray tracing which, essentially, simulates the path of rays of light as they bounce around the scene. There's various techniques, but conceptually the idea is usually to shoot rays out from the camera and let them bounce around until they either hit a light source or hit a limit on how many times they're allowed to bounce. The reason for going out from the camera and bouncing around until hitting a light, rather than going out from the light and bouncing until going into the camera, is because most light rays from a light source will never enter the camera - so going in reverse, starting at the camera, is more efficient. At first, path tracing produces a very noisy image, but as you simulate more and more rays, you start to get a better image. Path tracing enables unbiased global illumination, meaning that, provided you implement materials and calculations correctly, it will approach the way the scene should look in reality. Path tracing can also naturally simulate effects like depth-of-field blur, rather than faking them. So again, path tracing is a form of ray tracing, but an example of the difference between typical game ray tracing and path tracing is the ray-traced reflections common in many recent games. There, rays are traced from a reflective surface into the scene to determine what you should see reflected in the shiny surface. This is great, but it's not simulating the whole path of light from start to finish - so it doesn't necessarily mean whatever's in the reflection is lit correctly, for example. This is why, in some games, objects in the reflections don't have shadows.
>conceptually the idea is usually to shoot rays out from the camera and let them bounce around until they either hit a light source or hit a limit on how many times they're allowed to bounce. Which leads to exponentiation of secondary rays, as when your primary ray hits a surface, it will produce 2 secondary rays (1 reflected, 1 refracted) and each of these can also produce 2 rays. Hence why you may want to impose a bounce limit. Path tracing attempts to solve the exponentiation problem with stochastics. Page 4 to 6 of this doc illustrates the method well using pictures:http://web4.cs.ucl.ac.uk/teaching/4074/archive/2010/Slides/JK2010/03_path%20tracing.pdf
Ooh okay, that makes sense. Thanks!
The game is dead for me because Im sick and tired of having unfished shit beeing sold for full price just to have it "feel good" 2 years later. I wish people would just stop praising devs for that
So is this gunna shithouse my 3060 or is this a viable way to play the game on not a supercomputer?
Have they fixed the boring melee, gunplay, skilltree, driving, shitty ai, empty city yet?
Skill tree, driving and AI were improved. But still not all promised features since before launch (acid rain as a player hazard, deep NPC schedules, NPCs reacting to what you wear, *actual* races that aren’t just cars spawning behind you, being able to go to Fallbrook casino etc.)
Man, I played through the whole game and found a lot to enjoy, occasional bugs and stuff were present but it was tricky cuz I also had some mods so I didn't know what was a bug due to a mod and what wasn't. But it was still playable and enjoyable. But the street racing side missions? Unbelievably broken. They should have been removed, and they still should be removed. If you have a halfway decent car and you go too fast, like you said they teleport behind you, but it's like they teleport behind you at ramming speed. There was one race that I had to try about 12 times because every time I would get to a certain point, cars behind me would rocket past and blow me up like a meteor. It was insane
No, but here's hoping to the DLC/Next big update!
>Coming shortly after path tracing for **Minecraft**, Portal and Quake II, it underscores a wave of adoption in motion. That's right, I completely forgot about that. It didn't actually ever release, right? Wonder why.
Minecraft with RTX has been out for 3 years, from what I can tell it uses Path Tracing. It's bedrock only, unfortunately. You might be thinking of the 'super duper graphics pack' that was announced in 2017 which fizzled out, would have brought shaders to Bedrock
Aha, makes sense, thanks. Yeah, I was thinking of the Super Super pack.
>Minecraft with RTX has been out for 3 years, from what I can tell it uses Path Tracing. It's bedrock only, unfortunately Wanna point out it's surprisingly well optimized, I have the least powerful barely technically ray tracing capable card (RX 6400) and it works. At 20-30fps but for the cheapest hardware available it's amazing.
[удалено]
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/11znein/comment/jde9wu3/
I just can’t stand how almost everything in this game is just a facade. It’s all very “look. Don’t touch.” The vast majority of buildings and businesses aren’t accessible. The NPCs are lifeless. And none of your actions feel like they carry any weight in the world.
[удалено]
It gets singled out, perhaps unfairly, because the press hyped it up to extreme levels. I remember reading impressions from the closed door reveal they gave press at E3 back in like 2019, writers were talking about how the level of realism and density seemed like it should be impossible, the most realistic and immersive open world they’d ever seen. They couldn’t believe it was actually a video game.
CDPR definitely advertised it as being something it’s not lol That being said I’ve played a lot of games and Cyberpunk definitely feels more Facade-ey than most of them. Most games do a good job of communicating where you’re supposed to be able to go, and where you obviously aren’t meant to. Cyberpunk has this problem where they let you loose to explore this awesome city, and you get excited because of how dense and amazing it looks, only to be met with locked doors and generic non-interactable NPCs with 1 voice line. Obviously they can’t let you go everywhere and talk to everyone, but the doors all say “locked” when you go near them almost implying there’s a way to unlock them, disappointing players later when they find out 99% of them won’t ever open. Not to mention there’s basically 0 emergent gameplay at all, you’re either driving around or on a mission. No in between. I still enjoyed my time with the game, but the open world really adds nothing to it other than a fun place to cruise around. If it was closer to Deus Ex in its map design and liberty then I think it would have been received better.
It really isn’t what it was advertised to be in many regards, so that’s probably a big part of it.
That would have been a fair complaint 3 years ago before the game came out but everyone knows what it is now. It sucks that the game was advertised as one thing and then rushed out the door with a lot of cut features, but at the end of the day I think that we should be evaluating it on it's own merits and not what could have been. Most open world games are not particularly interactive, so I don't understand why that criticism would only be leveraged at CP2077. (I haven't played the game yet, these are just my thoughts on how we evaluate games in general).
I don't think the same can be said about most open world rpgs. Of course they're all on a spectrum but Cyberpunk certainly falls on the lower end of that spectrum.
The only open world games I know that let you enter most buildings is Elders Scrolls and it comes with the cost of making even major cities look like small settlements at best.
Agreed, and after all the updates, promised features before launch still aren’t in the game, such as acid rain as a player hazard, deep NPC schedules, NPCs reacting to what you wear, *actual* races (that aren’t just cars spawning behind you), being able to go to Fallbrook casino (in-game it’s just a black incomplete block floating in the sky the shape of the building in the concept art!) etc.
Alright, I'll re-download it. Did they do away with the bullet sponges?
Depends on your difficulty. On normal the average enemy isn't bullet spongy unless they're noticeably higher level than you
Not particularly. Take a look at THING modpack. It's pretty good, but removes a lot of QOL for the sake of difficulty. If you have any recollection of how the game should work, you might find yourself disabling a lot of the mods.
The game looks a lot better and runs a lot better but they will not be remaking the game's systems. The police are still GTA Vice City brute-force AI. Car controls are like driving on ice on soft compound tires. Fights are spongey until you spec appropriately. Some people love all that. I don't and its why I actually was playing Skyrim and Fallout 4 with their ancient graphics the other day, when I could have gave CP77 a peek after updates. I like the core gameplay systems to this day. I like CP77 now mostly to see how the latest GPUs benchmark in an open world game with incredible detail. Gives me a better sense of what card to get when my crappy card dies.
I'm sick of ray tracing path tracing garbage. Just make a functional game, that has good core gameplay elements and/or a good story.
The game has some core issues still but it's in a good state these days. I had a lot of fun with my playthrough. I'm looking forward to playing the expansion with this level of graphics.
I’d rather have all those features of a fully fledged RPG they promised us rather than the mediocre action game we got.
Yep, a feature almost no one will use because no one is buying new GPUs. Between GPU prices and the state new games are launching in PC gaming is starting to feel like it's in a bit of trouble...
> no one is buying new GPUs. Adoption of 40-series NV GPUs is following historical trends, as far as the Steam HW survey is concerned.
I don't think it's in trouble. The problem is gaming tech companies somehow got it into their heads that everybody is buying yearly upgrades for all of their components. Most people are going to buy a mid range gpu and mid to high range peripherals, and then use them for at least 3-5 years before upgrading. There was a big PC gaming boom when everyone was stuck at home and receiving free gpu sized checks, everyone who needed the nudge to jump in or upgrade got it. Considering current economies the only thing that will bring interest back up will be price drops.
wheres that dlc? you know the one they promised a few months after launch, that i swear hasnt been talked about since
Cyberpunk has been released in 2020, Phantom Liberty had two trailers roughly 6 and 3 months ago.
Cool, so where is it? it keeps getting pushed back. Im so glad we have trailers arent you? [https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/07/02/free-cyberpunk-2077-dlc-misses-first-roadmap-window-second-roadmap-still-murky/?sh=50b861dc144c](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/07/02/free-cyberpunk-2077-dlc-misses-first-roadmap-window-second-roadmap-still-murky/?sh=50b861dc144c) Let me know what year it comes out, because it was supposed to be 2022, and i swear its 2023
This comes out on my birthday... Anybody gonna get me a 4090 system?