Sony PS5 Pro rumors circulating

[crispy4000]

3 hours ago, imthesoldier said:

 

RT is just this generations version of Blast Processing. 

 

 

But seriously, besides saying, "Better shadows, better lighting, better reflections!" what is the actual mainstream draw for Ray-Tracing? CG Animators know what it is as they've been using it for almost two decades now. We know what it is because we're enthusiasts, but the general populace? Like you said, how you convince the public that "Improved Ray-Tracing!" is a big selling point? (Spoiler: It's not) 

 

Now saying things such as "8K Ready!" or "120FPS, or 240FPS modes included!" Now those have more sway I think in terms of what the mainstream would look for. The age of prettier graphics just doesn't have the same ring to it like it did back in the 2000s, let alone in the 80s, and 90s when things like 8-Bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit graphics was all the rage in advertisements. 

I’d venture to say that the mainstream doesn’t care about VRR displays and 8k, and won’t for some time.  It’s a case of diminishing returns.  Plus I think the industry will want to push for better quality visuals once 4K60 is truly baseline.  And beforhand too, as this gen continues.  That would fit also within the whole ‘post resolution’ idea DF has theorized about, where 8k isn’t worth the trade offs.

RT is more marketable, IMO.  For the simple reason that you can show whipepan comparisons on YouTube and see differences on pretty much any display.  Yes, it’s had some bumps in the beginning, but we’ll be seeing more games take fuller advantage of it over the coming years, and less “selective” in how they do.

 

If it all RT needs a is marketing schtick that resonates, then its ‘path-traced.‘ That statement could definitely need some qualifications, similar to how 4K gets thrown around for games (and other media) that doesn’t reach it.  But we’ll start seeing more devs mention it soon on the PC side.  Maybe even on new consoles.
 

[Spork3245]

19 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

You can replace the internal 2230 m.2, you don’t have to use the rear expansion. But you can get adapters for that as well, which works with the short m.2’s . 

Conversion Adapter Lets You Install Short M.2 SSDs Into Xbox Series X, S | Tom's Hardware

WWW.TOMSHARDWARE.COM

---

Cheap Xbox Series X|S storage upgrades possible with conversion adapter.

 

 

still some limitations in which you can use, but better than having to buy their SSD expansion.

Unfortunately, (for the expansion) this requires a very specific m.2 that’s not easy to get and (with the cost of the adapter/shell) winds up pricing the same as the proprietary ones - it’s not worth the hassle and is only “fighting the system”. For the internal, messing with the internals of a console is never worth it.

 

18 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Is that brand reputable? Never heard of them but that price is good might just get the 2tb.

 

It’s Phison, which is owned by Sony.

[imthesoldier]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

I’d venture to say that the mainstream doesn’t care about VRR displays and 8k, and won’t for some time.  It’s a case of diminishing returns.  Plus I think the industry will want to push for better quality visuals once 4K60 is truly baseline.  And beforhand too, as this gen continues.

RT is more marketable, IMO.  For the simple reason that you can show whipepan comparisons on YouTube and see differences on pretty much any display.  Yes, it’s had some bumps in the beginning, but we’ll be seeing more games take fuller advantage of it over the coming years, and less “selective” in how they do.

 

If it all RT needs a is marketing schtick that resonates, then its ‘fully path-traced. ‘ That statement could need some qualifications to some degree, similar to how 4K gets thrown around for games (and other media) that doesn’t teach it.  But we’ll start seeing more devs mention it soon on the PC side.

 

 

Hot take of the day: RT isn't the next-gen leap in graphical fidelity we all think it is. When I see those comparison shots folks like Digital Foundry post, yeah there's a difference, but generational leaps and bounds difference? Fuck no. 

 

Part of the issue imo is graphical artists are so good these days in faking lighting, and shadows when needed that some of the differences don't stick out as a "OMG! t3h MEGATON!" type thing. I could even see artists (if they haven't already) use RT as a template on what a room, or piece of scenery can look like with baked in lighting in order to save on resources.

 

The only real advantage I see over the long term for RT is it means less work for the artists during development. Like you said, diminishing returns, and we're already seeing it. I'd like to be proven wrong though. I'd like to think RT will become the new Shaders like how that was a big deal in the mid-2000s. I just have skepticism, and that we're overselling what RT can do, or what it ought to do. 

 

 

Now, going back to the actual topic, I'm all for a PS5 Pro, though I personally would be fine with a PS5 Slim. But if both Sony, and Microsoft feel they need these mid-gen refreshes in the same generational cycle, and gamers will buy them, then there's a market for it. 

[Spork3245]

3 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

Hot take of the day

Indeed. You’re looking at limited RT usage as if it’s the peak. PortalRTX and RacerRTX show what full path traced RT (zero games besides these use path traced RT and only two or three have full RT (meaning every light source, shadow, and reflection) but they aren’t using path tracing) can be, and it’s night and day.

[BloodyHell]

38 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Unfortunately, (for the expansion) this requires a very specific m.2 that’s not easy to get and (with the cost of the adapter/shell) winds up pricing the same as the proprietary ones - it’s not worth the hassle and is only “fighting the system”. For the internal, messing with the internals of a console is never worth it.

 

 

It’s Phison, which is owned by Sony.

Tge internal on the xbox is incredibly simple, no different than changing it on your PC. You do need an SSD cloner, but they are pretty cheap.30 to 40$. 

 

i haven’t looked into prices on the SSD’s for the adapter, I just bought a regular terrabyte drive from xbox/seagate. 2tb is far more than I will ever use at one time in a console. Did the same with the PS5. 

[crispy4000]

42 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

 

Hot take of the day: RT isn't the next-gen leap in graphical fidelity we all think it is. When I see those comparison shots folks like Digital Foundry post, yeah there's a difference, but generational leaps and bounds difference? Fuck no. 

 

Part of the issue imo is graphical artists are so good these days in faking lighting, and shadows when needed that some of the differences don't stick out as a "OMG! t3h MEGATON!" type thing. I could even see artists (if they haven't already) use RT as a template on what a room, or piece of scenery can look like with baked in lighting in order to save on resources.

 

The only real advantage I see over the long term for RT is it means less work for the artists during development. Like you said, diminishing returns, and we're already seeing it. I'd like to be proven wrong though. I'd like to think RT will become the new Shaders like how that was a big deal in the mid-2000s. I just have skepticism, and that we're overselling what RT can do, or what it ought to do. 

I don’t think RT gives diminishing returns the harder it’s pushed, at least not yet.  We’re not at that point.  If anything it’s the opposite, with developers having to be so careful with their cutbacks on consoles.  There’s only so much that can be done, and only a select few developers seemed equipped to make a strong case.  

 

I look at Portal RTX and see a generational leap, absolutely.  From the little we’ve seen, I think Cyperpunk’s Overdrive RT will do so as well, especially in providing a direct comparison to a rasterized-only alternative.  Even the marbles at night tech demo makes the case.

 

 

[imthesoldier]

59 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Indeed. You’re looking at limited RT usage as if it’s the peak. PortalRTX and RacerRTX show what full path traced RT (zero games besides these use path traced RT and only two or three have full RT (meaning every light source, shadow, and reflection) but they aren’t using path tracing) can be, and it’s night and day.

 

26 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I don’t think RT gives diminishing returns the harder it’s pushed, at least not yet.  We’re not at that point.  If anything it’s the opposite, with developers having to be so careful with their cutbacks on consoles.  There’s only so much that can be done, and only a select few developers seemed equipped to make a strong case.  

 

I look at Portal RTX and see a generational leap, absolutely.  From the little we’ve seen, I think Cyperpunk’s Overdrive RT will do so as well, especially in providing a direct comparison to a rasterized-only alternative.  Even the marbles at night tech demo makes the case.

 

 

 

Great points the both of you. 

 

I have played Portal RTX, and the difference is huge for sure, and admittedly looks absolutely gorgeous (when you're card can run it well), but we're also comparing a game that in vanilla form came out back in 2007, and we're slapping ray-tracing on it without improving any of the Geometry or textures, which can also have a profound effect. Not to mention Source traces its roots back to the early 2000s, so it's already using an outdated feature set. I'd like to see what a Source 2 version of Portal look like with, and without RT. 

 

And you both are also right that developers have had limited opportunities to really utilize this, even though the technology itself has been available for Animated studios in Hollywood for years now. There are also other use cases for Ray-Tracing, including but not limited to: Sound, AI, and Physics. I'd like to see how developers can utilize all those. I, for one, have been yearning for developers to improve AI, and Physics in particular for nearly two decades now, and for the most part, it's been relatively held back. 

 

The last game to truly wow me in terms of physics was Half-Life 2 back in 2003, and F.E.A.R. for Enemy A.I. Supposedly, the later Killzone titles such as 2, and 3 used a more sophisticated Enemy A.I, but I don't remember it being THAT good. And Killzone Shadow Fall was so forgettable, improved A.I. wouldn't have saved it anyway. 

 

 

[ShreddieMercury]

I like the optimism of some posters in giving examples of how developers might utilize this tech to create interesting gameplay, but I'm much too cynical to think that all of the sudden we're going to see creative applications of lighting once the hardware is powerful enough.  Maybe if we get to the point that Nintendo cares about RTX then we'd see something genuinely interesting from a gameplay perspective, but my guess is that this will be mere window dressing for the same slate of games that we see endlessly in the AAA space.

 

To be clear, I have seen cool examples of this tech and I don't disagree that it can make a difference.  And plenty of people have money to burn on new consoles that offer only marginal differences, so have at it.  But comparing RTX to other similar graphical advances in prior console generations, I can't see this having anything but a minimal visual effect for the foreseeable future.

 

[stepee]

Nothing gameplay wise will be introduced via ray tracing, it’s for graphics not gameplay. There are things you could point to like oh you can use reflections to see such and such but I mean there are planar reflections and other things that can work well enough for gameplay.

 

Any gameplay advancements you are looking more at cpu and bandwidth and memory. Physics could be something tackled on gpu end that would change gameplay, but not ray tracing. It’s just a better rendering technique. I like it a lot because it makes games look better and closer to cg movie quality but if you don’t care about graphic only advances and only gameplay then not caring about ray tracing makes sense. Not everything matters to everyone.

 

Honestly if I was looking for new gameplay experiences right now I’d be focusing on vr the most.

[imthesoldier]

18 minutes ago, stepee said:

Nothing gameplay wise will be introduced via ray tracing, it’s for graphics not gameplay. There are things you could point to like oh you can use reflections to see such and such but I mean there are planar reflections and other things that can work well enough for gameplay.

 

Any gameplay advancements you are looking more at cpu and bandwidth and memory. Physics could be something tackled on gpu end that would change gameplay, but not ray tracing. It’s just a better rendering technique. I like it a lot because it makes games look better and closer to cg movie quality but if you don’t care about graphic only advances and only gameplay then not caring about ray tracing makes sense. Not everything matters to everyone.

 

Honestly if I was looking for new gameplay experiences right now I’d be focusing on vr the most.

 

I could be wrong, but considering RT uses the dedicated cores on the silicon for Ray-Tracing, I can't see any reason why they can't be used for things besides graphics. I mean, it's possible to use CPU resources for graphics, though it's typically not recommended. Same with the tensor cores for AI upscaling. Why couldn't they be used for other AI-based uses besides resolution scaling, and frame interpolation? 

 

It's all down to how you use the hardware from my understanding. 

[stepee]

8 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

 

I could be wrong, but considering RT uses the dedicated cores on the silicon for Ray-Tracing, I can't see any reason why they can't be used for things besides graphics. I mean, it's possible to use CPU resources for graphics, though it's typically not recommended. Same with the tensor cores for AI upscaling. Why couldn't they be used for other AI-based uses besides resolution scaling, and frame interpolation? 

 

It's all down to how you use the hardware from my understanding. 

 

I think that would probably be wasteful since those are purpose built for specific tasks and they likely would not be efficient at processing something like physics if that is even possible.

 

The cpu, ram, bandwidth, and ssd upgrades came with the new gen already though, that is the part that we haven’t seen the full potential of yet because of the extended cross gen. That’s the part that doesn’t scale as easily by just reducing resolution, effects, etc.

 

Pro updates to consoles wouldn’t be for that, they will run the same games so that part won’t be built around them. They will be there to push up IQ and performance and graphical features like ray tracing and that’s it. Mid gen refreshes are purely for graphics.

 

On the cpu end if and gets frame gen on them then that will help push 60fps over 30fps which affects gameplay though. But everything else in the game will be designed to the specs of a series s and then scaling outwards with better graphics.

[stepee]

Honestly the best thing for games to move forward is if devs start targeting 900p/30fps as the maximum performance profile on Series S.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, imthesoldier said:

 

I have played Portal RTX, and the difference is huge for sure, and admittedly looks absolutely gorgeous (when you're card can run it well), but we're also comparing a game that in vanilla form came out back in 2007, and we're slapping ray-tracing on it without improving any of the Geometry or textures, which can also have a profound effect. Not to mention Source traces its roots back to the early 2000s, so it's already using an outdated feature set. I'd like to see what a Source 2 version of Portal look like with, and without RT. 

 

 

Who said anything about comparing it to the old version?

 

The lighting in it looks next gen compared to the console games we’re seeing now.  

[best3444]

I mean if the Pro is as difficult to get as the original, I'm not making huge efforts to get this. It's essential for me though once next gen really hits hard with unreal5. So it being really expensive and difficult to find, I will need @stepee or @Brian to buy me this. 

[crispy4000]

57 minutes ago, stepee said:

Honestly the best thing for games to move forward is if devs start targeting 900p/30fps as the maximum performance profile on Series S.

Some are already targeting that, Plagues Tale Requiem being the most notable.

 

How low can you go.

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, stepee said:

Honestly the best thing for games to move forward is if devs start targeting 900p/30fps as the maximum performance profile on ignoring the Series S.

FTFY

[best3444]

3 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

FTFY

 

So true.

[legend]

8 hours ago, imthesoldier said:

 

RT is just this generations version of Blast Processing. 

 

 

But seriously, besides saying, "Better shadows, better lighting, better reflections!" what is the actual mainstream draw for Ray-Tracing? CG Animators know what it is as they've been using it for almost two decades now. We know what it is because we're enthusiasts, but the general populace? Like you said, how you convince the public that "Improved Ray-Tracing!" is a big selling point? (Spoiler: It's not) 

 

Now saying things such as "8K Ready!" or "120FPS, or 240FPS modes included!" Now those have more sway I think in terms of what the mainstream would look for. The age of prettier graphics just doesn't have the same ring to it like it did back in the 2000s, let alone in the 80s, and 90s when things like 8-Bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit graphics was all the rage in advertisements. 

 

Blast processing is at best a hardware architecture (and in reality more a marketing term). Ray tracing is a categorically different rendering methodology that better simulates how light actually works. It is the standard for all pre-rendered movies for a reason. But it seems you know this, so I'm not sure why you would draw the comparison!  

 

3 hours ago, imthesoldier said:

 

I could be wrong, but considering RT uses the dedicated cores on the silicon for Ray-Tracing, I can't see any reason why they can't be used for things besides graphics. I mean, it's possible to use CPU resources for graphics, though it's typically not recommended. Same with the tensor cores for AI upscaling. Why couldn't they be used for other AI-based uses besides resolution scaling, and frame interpolation? 

 

It's all down to how you use the hardware from my understanding. 

 

 

Tensor cores can, and are, used for more than than just image upscaling. For games, they've primarily been used for AI upscaling, but in research they're used to accelerate any AI models that use deep learning methods (which is almost all of modern AI), and even could be used for anything that involves very large matrix operations. As games integrate more AI technology, they'll absolutely benefit from tensor cores.

 

RTX cores I'm less certain about it. If you can cast an operation as ray intersection, they're probably useful for it! But maybe less general than tensor cores.

[imthesoldier]

47 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Blast processing is at best a hardware architecture (and in reality more a marketing term). Ray tracing is a categorically different rendering methodology that better simulates how light actually works. It is the standard for all pre-rendered movies for a reason. But it seems you know this, so I'm not sure why you would draw the comparison!  

 

 

 

Tensor cores can, and are, used for more than than just image upscaling. For games, they've primarily been used for AI upscaling, but in research they're used to accelerate any AI models that use deep learning methods (which is almost all of modern AI), and even could be used for anything that involves very large matrix operations. As games integrate more AI technology, they'll absolutely benefit from tensor cores.

 

RTX cores I'm less certain about it. If you can cast an operation as ray intersection, they're probably useful for it! But maybe less general than tensor cores.

 

Given that practically anything that has waves, or particles can be simulated using ray-tracing techniques, I can't see why other things besides just graphics fidelity can't be calculated using the hardware. If Ray-Tracing is here to stay, then it has to a lot of ground to cover before it's the standard across the board. Graphics alone imo is not enough to make Ray-tracing relevant. 

[legend]

1 hour ago, imthesoldier said:

 

Given that practically anything that has waves, or particles can be simulated using ray-tracing techniques, I can't see why other things besides just graphics fidelity can't be calculated using the hardware.

 

Plausibly, but I would still guess fewer than tensor cores. What do you have in mind?

 

1 hour ago, imthesoldier said:

If Ray-Tracing is here to stay, then it has to a lot of ground to cover before it's the standard across the board. Graphics alone imo is not enough to make Ray-tracing relevant. 

 

I think dividing games into "graphics" and "gameplay" and bemoaning that raytracing only impacts "graphics" is an overly simplistic way to critique games. Graphics have an enormous impact on the entire experience. Have you ever played a game with developer art? It doesn't hit the same way at all. Graphics are inherently entwined in games because they're the medium by which feedback, rewards, etc. are conveyed to players. And even if you want to talk about the artistic angle and how "low tech games" can have good art direction, new technology gives artists new tools to do things they couldn't' do before. Minimizing graphics technology as this less important auxiliary aspect would be like telling film directors the lighting doesn't matter. Of course it does. Again, there is a reason ray tracing is the standard in CGI movies. It's maximally enables artists to realize their vision.

 

And even putting all that aside, you have more explicit impact of graphics on the "gameplay." It's easy to imagine how things like reflections affect how you play in an environment and how shadows impact stealth and horror games. 

[imthesoldier]

8 hours ago, legend said:

 

Plausibly, but I would still guess fewer than tensor cores. What do you have in mind?

 

 

I think dividing games into "graphics" and "gameplay" and bemoaning that raytracing only impacts "graphics" is an overly simplistic way to critique games. Graphics have an enormous impact on the entire experience. Have you ever played a game with developer art? It doesn't hit the same way at all. Graphics are inherently entwined in games because they're the medium by which feedback, rewards, etc. are conveyed to players. And even if you want to talk about the artistic angle and how "low tech games" can have good art direction, new technology gives artists new tools to do things they couldn't' do before. Minimizing graphics technology as this less important auxiliary aspect would be like telling film directors the lighting doesn't matter. Of course it does. Again, there is a reason ray tracing is the standard in CGI movies. It's maximally enables artists to realize their vision.

 

And even putting all that aside, you have more explicit impact of graphics on the "gameplay." It's easy to imagine how things like reflections affect how you play in an environment and how shadows impact stealth and horror games. 

 

"What do you have in mind?" 

 

A great question. I already mentioned briefly about things like Sound in video games because of waves. But what also has waves? This ties more into physics, but a physical thing such as water could be calculated like it since it's both waves, and particles like any fluid is. But take a step further, and gravitational waves. So physics interactions that are dynamically tied to the environment you sit on. 

 

Another "particle" based one could be the use of Wind in a game, which we haven't really seen yet. Wind, Water, and Gravity all tie into Physics calculations, but in a more ray-traced way, they could all be completely dynamic in ways we haven't seen before. That said, fluid simulations themselves are nothing new in the realm of enterprises such as the engineering side, so how that truly differs than what I'm imagining for a ray-traced version (or maybe that's how fluid simulations work? I'm not sure. I don't do engineering design), I'm not sure. 

 

 

As far as your second part, I'm glad you brought up things such as gameplay elements tide to Stealth, and Horror because that was the first thing I thought Ray-Tracing could truly have a benefit in gameplay design. Someone else also mentioned above concerning how the use of SSDs in PS5, and XSeries would also have effects. Mark Cerny even detailed how such things could work with say no longer needing duplicate assets to save on file sizes, which is a good thing. Loading times could also be a eliminated practically entirely, and level design could be dynamically changed without having to account for "loading" between sections (i.e. Elevators, small corridors, etc). I'm sure there are other gameplay elements that could be "improved" wit ray-tracing, but stealth, and horror were the first ones I thought of. 

 

Going back to SSDs, it does go without saying that only the drives themselves are only one part of the picture. The issue then comes with decompressing all that information, which is where "Kraken" comes in for the PS5. Hardware-based decompression is the secret sauce for SSD tech, and how it'll be utilized in future titles that are built from scratch around it. I'm excited to see what developers have in mind with it, and same on XSeries. 

 

So factoring in Ray-tracing + the use of SSDs w/ HW Decompression will I think have a much bigger impact. Wonder if developers may have to almost relearn some aspects of game and level design because they will no longer be tied to, "Oh, I need this small hallway to hide in streaming assets," or "This elevator is crucial to load the next bit of data." How that'll also reflect (no pun intended) on the use of Ray-Tracing I'm excited to see. 

 

So yeah, I'm more concerned on how Ray-tracing will affect gameplay vs. simply how pretty will the game look. We're already approaching that plateau in photorealism where the differences are getting more and more minute every generation. PS2 era was a massive step up from PS1, and PS3 was a huge leap from PS2. But PS3 to PS4? The difference was less, and PS5, and PS4? Well, we're just starting to get out of cross-gen, so you can make your own interpretation. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1)  This is a thread about PS5 -- Nvidia's GPUs have dedicated RT/tensor cores, Sony consoles don't.

2)  AMD GPUs struggle at Ray Tracing (because of their lack of dedicated RT/tensor cores), Sony/MS talking about ray tracing is more about marketing blogs and very limited implementations than actual meat.

3)  Consoles have an obscenely low amount of memory and a relatively incapable GPU.  Continually improving those is what is important to push gaming forward.

[stepee]

Right now graphics are held back by technology more so than gameplay. If you want new gameplay experiences never done before you need developers to start developing those games. It’s more about time and willingness to go outside of the standard gameplay templates we have than tech. They have barely touched the new possibilities of what ssd/cpu improvements from this gen could bring. I’d let them actually use the new tech they have now first and see how that goes before feeling the need to reduce graphics in order to move processing power over to some kind of back end physics processing or whatever.

 

The one area I can see is with ram they could maybe devote more to system ram and less to vram in a way that would prioritize gameplay systems over resolution/texture quality but this would mostly just mean you want games to be muddier which idk if anyone actually wants to see that. But overall ram is probably the part that holds these back the most imo.

 

But yeah, we are talking about console upgrades here, as in, systems that will not have games specifically designed for them. So by default they cannot introduce anything that affects the gameplay. So graphic advancements are the only thing to expect here.

 

The only way to use the new systems to allowing more processing towards physics or whatever people think they need more power to achieve on the gameplay front is to ask for devs to scale down iq/fps as low as possible on the base systems so that the rest of the games baseline is as high as possible and then ran at a decent iq on the new systems only. Which, I’d be cool with, but I don’t think that’s what all the people saying it’s too soon actually want to see happen.

 

Edit: Tldr: If you don’t care about graphics and only want to see new gameplay advances then you already have what you need. Pro consoles are for people who do care for graphics and won’t be for you, so rest easy just saving the money. But there is nothing inherently wrong with caring about graphics so let people who do have that.

[TwinIon]

When it comes to ray tracing, I think the effects are by far most noticeable in games with full day-night cycles, which tend to be the more open world titles. If you're running through a level in a linear game, you can bake the lighting and make everything look good for a fraction of the computational load. For open world games with more dynamic lighting, that's a really hard thing to do. Horizon FW does it pretty well by shifting between a few different presets, but games that try for a more fully dynamic lighting system often end up looking worse. I think RT can make a really big difference in those kinds of games, though Cyberpunk is the only good example I can think of right now.

 

On the other hand, I almost universally find RT shadows and reflections to be underwhelming. I notice the reflections in Spider-Man and Cyberpunk, but other than that I've rarely found it an impressive feature.

 

As for a PS5 Pro, I'd expect it to basically run quality mode at performance frame rates or better. Maybe some extra RT bits here and there for games that push it. For current games, I don't think that's a very big deal, but I think once we move to proper UE5 games and other games built only for this new generation of hardware that the delta between performance and quality modes to widen, and a PS5 pro could start to shine.

[AbsolutSurgen]

The Ray Tracing in Control was phenomenal.  The real-time reflections added so much atmosphere to that game.

[legend]

13 hours ago, imthesoldier said:

 

"What do you have in mind?" 

 

A great question. I already mentioned briefly about things like Sound in video games because of waves. But what also has waves? This ties more into physics, but a physical thing such as water could be calculated like it since it's both waves, and particles like any fluid is. But take a step further, and gravitational waves. So physics interactions that are dynamically tied to the environment you sit on. 

 

Another "particle" based one could be the use of Wind in a game, which we haven't really seen yet. Wind, Water, and Gravity all tie into Physics calculations, but in a more ray-traced way, they could all be completely dynamic in ways we haven't seen before. That said, fluid simulations themselves are nothing new in the realm of enterprises such as the engineering side, so how that truly differs than what I'm imagining for a ray-traced version (or maybe that's how fluid simulations work? I'm not sure. I don't do engineering design), I'm not sure. 

 

Light is well described by wave functions as well as particles (in fact, you need to model it as both for complex physics!), but to my knowledge the RT cores are not going to help with wave calculations. It's just line intersection and bouncing calculations on geometry (which are normally very computationally hard to do, but that's its limiting function all the same). Given that, I'm not sure some of your examples would really benefit. Sound could be plausible because 3D sound and propagation can be well simulated by bouncing particles.

 

13 hours ago, imthesoldier said:

 

As far as your second part, I'm glad you brought up things such as gameplay elements tide to Stealth, and Horror because that was the first thing I thought Ray-Tracing could truly have a benefit in gameplay design. Someone else also mentioned above concerning how the use of SSDs in PS5, and XSeries would also have effects. Mark Cerny even detailed how such things could work with say no longer needing duplicate assets to save on file sizes, which is a good thing. Loading times could also be a eliminated practically entirely, and level design could be dynamically changed without having to account for "loading" between sections (i.e. Elevators, small corridors, etc). I'm sure there are other gameplay elements that could be "improved" wit ray-tracing, but stealth, and horror were the first ones I thought of. 

 

Going back to SSDs, it does go without saying that only the drives themselves are only one part of the picture. The issue then comes with decompressing all that information, which is where "Kraken" comes in for the PS5. Hardware-based decompression is the secret sauce for SSD tech, and how it'll be utilized in future titles that are built from scratch around it. I'm excited to see what developers have in mind with it, and same on XSeries. 

 

So factoring in Ray-tracing + the use of SSDs w/ HW Decompression will I think have a much bigger impact. Wonder if developers may have to almost relearn some aspects of game and level design because they will no longer be tied to, "Oh, I need this small hallway to hide in streaming assets," or "This elevator is crucial to load the next bit of data." How that'll also reflect (no pun intended) on the use of Ray-Tracing I'm excited to see. 

 

So yeah, I'm more concerned on how Ray-tracing will affect gameplay vs. simply how pretty will the game look. We're already approaching that plateau in photorealism where the differences are getting more and more minute every generation. PS2 era was a massive step up from PS1, and PS3 was a huge leap from PS2. But PS3 to PS4? The difference was less, and PS5, and PS4? Well, we're just starting to get out of cross-gen, so you can make your own interpretation. 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the SSD is great. It's probably my favorite hardware choice in the PS5 because of how important streaming is to gaming! But I don't think we have to have direct "gameplay mechanic" differences from ray tracing for it to be valuable, because as I described, graphics are important for the entire game experience even when they are not changing how you behave.

[TwinIon]

14 hours ago, imthesoldier said:

 Wonder if developers may have to almost relearn some aspects of game and level design because they will no longer be tied to, "Oh, I need this small hallway to hide in streaming assets," or "This elevator is crucial to load the next bit of data." How that'll also reflect (no pun intended) on the use of Ray-Tracing I'm excited to see.

Playing games like TLOU or GOW I really felt like those "hidden loading screen" segments are pretty carefully weaved into the pace of the storytelling. Honestly, I think that most of the climbing segments in the Uncharted games are only half a tick away from loading screen pace gameplay-wise, even when I seriously doubt that's what they're actually there for loading. They're just put in to pace out (and pad) the game.

 

Which is all to say that even as I've been really hopeful that the SSD generation could have some real gameplay second order effects, I'm leaning towards the idea that there aren't many gameplay features that have been held back by technology at this point.

 

[stepee]

8 hours ago, TwinIon said:

When it comes to ray tracing, I think the effects are by far most noticeable in games with full day-night cycles, which tend to be the more open world titles. If you're running through a level in a linear game, you can bake the lighting and make everything look good for a fraction of the computational load. For open world games with more dynamic lighting, that's a really hard thing to do. Horizon FW does it pretty well by shifting between a few different presets, but games that try for a more fully dynamic lighting system often end up looking worse. I think RT can make a really big difference in those kinds of games, though Cyberpunk is the only good example I can think of right now.

 

On the other hand, I almost universally find RT shadows and reflections to be underwhelming. I notice the reflections in Spider-Man and Cyberpunk, but other than that I've rarely found it an impressive feature.

 

As for a PS5 Pro, I'd expect it to basically run quality mode at performance frame rates or better. Maybe some extra RT bits here and there for games that push it. For current games, I don't think that's a very big deal, but I think once we move to proper UE5 games and other games built only for this new generation of hardware that the delta between performance and quality modes to widen, and a PS5 pro could start to shine.

 

RT GI will also be really good for non open world games made by smaller studios that don’t have the talent/staff of some of the big AAA studios who are really good at pre-baking GI.

[stepee]

Lazily playing Spiderman just now on deck and hit the carnival part so I had to switch to moonlight so that I would have ray traced reflections for the fun house. 

[Spork3245]

When someone thinks that ray tracing doesn’t actually add anything to a game.

[PaladinSolo]

Its more that techniques to make shadows look realistic have gotten really good so ray tracing just isn't super noticeable other than the massive frame hit you take, like sure stop and stare at some bolls with a candle you'll notice it but when you're running around actually playing the game it adds almost nothing, but a performance loss.  At some point it'll be a non-issue because everything will have it once performance stuff is smoothed out since it just easier on devs.

[Spork3245]

This was when pixel and vertex shaders were new and running on the original GeForce 3:

 

Take note of the hair. It was a step up from previous immovable blocks of polygons of the PS2 and prior, but it was chunky and looked like shit overall.

This is pixel shaders rendering hair now:

 

Do you like games having full fields of grass and vegetation rendered vs it being a flat texture with occasional 2D sprites popping up as grass patches here and there? That’s pixel shaders. Are we pretending these rendering techniques didn’t advance games via immersion?

With ray-tracing, compared to the evolution of pixel shaders, we’re barely past that real-time Final Fantasy Spirits Within tech demo.

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, PaladinSolo said:

Its more that techniques to make shadows look realistic have gotten really good so ray tracing just isn't super noticeable other than the massive frame hit you take, like sure stop and stare at some bolls with a candle you'll notice it but when you're running around actually playing the game it adds almost nothing, but a performance loss.  At some point it'll be a non-issue because everything will have it once performance stuff is smoothed out since it just easier on devs.

 

Raytracing is about much more than how realistic shadows look.  Here's the future we're headed towards:

 

(full video)

 

No way we're getting there with traditional techniques, no matter how good developers have gotten at them.

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

[PaladinSolo]

34 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Raytracing is about much more than how realistic shadows look.  Here's the future we're headed towards:

 

(full video)

 

No way we're getting there with traditional techniques, no matter how good developers have gotten at them.

Like this is all good an all, but when people turn it on and they're getting less than half the frames they were they're going to turn it off.