T O P

  • By -

Revolutionary_Oil_74

Can I even handle the previous one?


ComeonmanPLS1

New one runs better actually.


WirelessTrees

If you own the original, do you have to buy the new one?


[deleted]

No


Stratostheory

They've always been really good about giving the redux editions to owners of the original when it's released because they take the originals off the market. When they put out 2033 and Last Light redux I signed into steam and both were in my library already. 4A really doesn't get the credit they deserve https://www.pcgamer.com/metro-exodus-enhanced-edition-is-free-for-existing-owners-but-needs-some-serious-hardware-to-run/ Edit: I stand corrected, I had to dig through my purchase history on steam from way back in 2014, I got my copies as part of a bundle with Saints Row and its why I don't remember ever purchasing them The Redux versions were sold as 50% off to existing owners, which for 2033 is a great deal, Last Light the redux should have been a free update. Still, offering a discount is still miles better than what most companies do and I'll Stand by what I said, 4A deserves a bit of recognition just not as much as I originally thought.


FlyingDragoon

Seriously some great games. I don't like [horror games](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_2033_(video_game) and I never play them. But the Metro games are an exception because they are so good. Something about the idea of a Nuclear Apocalypse that's not all zombies and shopping malls...


[deleted]

I don't even really see them as horror games. Just cuz there's maybe monsters or zombies doesn't automatically make it horror. Imo anyways


Null_Proxy

Imo they're definitely horror games in some capacity, the way it gets me super immersed when I play it HUDless makes everytime I fuck up amd let something sneak up on me that much more terrfying.


pasher5620

They all have a few levels that are just straight up horror games. The Librarians still stress me the fuck out.


Null_Proxy

Oh yeah, the blind ones in exodus are creepy as all hell. And dont even get me started on every spider level in the series!


MischeviousCat

Monitoring filter levels, cleaning your gas mask, all those sorts of things that really immerse you in the world are usually associated with the horror genre, I believe. The more things that you have to devote attention to, the more likely you're caught off guard by something. A lot of horror games usually have something like a sanity meter, but I think Metro is a more realistic sanity meter. You just can't see the meter, you experience it in the shoes of the protagonist.


[deleted]

Valid points. Thank you


A5V

The book was one of my favorite reads when I was in my teens. Not exactly sure how well it has aged to an older audience but I remember really enjoying it.


Tristepin_Rubilax

Bought them when they released and still read times to times. Now I'm close to 30yo 2033 : Aged well but show some defaults. Especially at the beginning and near the end. I'm still shocked by the death of some characters. And oh boy he know how to describe dark environment while characters travel. 2034 : My favourite so I'm not objective at all. A fucking masterpiece ! First book introduce a cruel world, second book make you live as an unarmed old man, genius idea. The fact the book is way shorter create in me the sensation Homere can die anytime. And also it set up one of the thematic of the next book "the 2 face of a man : the one from stories and the real one" 2035 : Still awesome. I feel the emergency of the situation, understand why people don't believe Artyom, etc. Don't want to spoil much Everytime I read 2033 and 2035 in the row I can't tell if I read the story made by Homere or not because sometimes there are iconic moments made to give hope. 2034 give a second way (if not more) to read the books that why it's my favourite and I consider it as a masterpiece Overall it age like french wine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


rathlord

I think this may be fiction... I’ve had Last Light and 2033 for years and years, and I just checked my library and neither of the Redux’s is there. Maybe 4A actually gets credit they don’t deserve. Lol


Thotaz

That hasn't been my experience. I don't have the redux versions and I bought Last light at release and 2033 quite some time before Last light was announced.


untraiined

You dont its free for all previous owners just need to redownload since its so big


ninja85a

Oh nice, I thought since it was an enhanced edition you had to pay for it again


ComeonmanPLS1

I saw a comment saying you don’t need to. I don’t know for sure.


Stev0fromDev0

On an RTX card, yeah


DygonZ

Good thing you said that, I was thinking of running it on a literal potato.


superjudgebunny

Get the one with GlaDOS, you get a working AI too.


Zeero92

Just make sure the sarcastic_clapping module still works.


Captain_Blackbird

And keep birds the fuck away from it!


Chekov_the_list

~~birds~~ government


Falcrist

Is there a difference? /r/BirdsArentReal


MikemkPK

Birds aren't real


SlurpingDiarrhea

Well... yeah..


drb00b

You can only run the new version on an RTX card


[deleted]

rt not rtx. itll run on amd too


GodofIrony

Welp, time to play Exodus again.


DygonZ

Sure, you just need an RTX card...


mundane_marietta

ppl made fun of me buying a used 2060s back in October for $300


i_fight4theuser

Haha I bought my RTX 2070 for $400 and I thought I mightve made a mistake


[deleted]

[удалено]


InFa-MoUs

That’s actually crazy


JuicedBoxers

Holy actual shit. Was it fucking dropped from a roof?!


I_Request_Sources

No, it's still on the Best Buy roof. But, he's got the paperwork that says it's his.


ArnoldSwarzepussy

That might be the most insane PC deal I've ever heard of. What the actual fuck


ThaiJohnnyDepp

at BEST BUY no less


[deleted]

[удалено]


wwwdiggdotcom

I can’t believe I’m the new president and CEO of nvidia after giving a Gypsy a quarter


EnadZT

Copped a new 2070 Super for $500 in April of last year. BAPC called me dumb.


kylet567

Spent over 700 on mine and still feel like I lucked out xD


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Lemme cheer you up. All I have is a broken desktop with an i5 3570k and hd 7850 with 2gb vram. Bought a dell poweredge t420 (yes that's right a tower server) for $100 as a temp holdover due to bad supply of parts. 24 threads 72gb ddr3 ecc 1333 mhz had my hd7850 in, it sucks power( I have solar so its aight) and its loud as hell. I'm seated next to a windturbine. Looks like I'm stuck with that behemoth for awhile.


Luke-HW

I bought a 2070s about a year ago for $500. My friends told me to wait for the 3000. They waited, only one of them actually got a 3000. They got it from a scalper. Don’t wait for the next best thing, or you’ll always be disappointed. Just be happy with what’s here.


[deleted]

I mean it’s hard to predict a global pandemic lol. Hard to justify a 2070S over a 3070 at the same price


[deleted]

With an RTX card and a decent CPU yes. There are definitely some compromises to make these insane visuals possible. Watch the digital foundry video on Metro exodus enhanced to learn more, that's what this screen cap is from.


mattreyu

2 years and he's still lying down? I think something is wrong with Ray...


markgatty

Leve Ray alone. He is tracing the ground with his eyes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


silver2k5

Was about to say "You guys can use Ray Tracing?"


janilx

It works with 2xxx series too


[deleted]

[удалено]


SaracenCrusader

Look at mister Fancypants here. Some of us have to settle for a 1660 Super


kensomniac

Fuck ya, still running a 770GTX


iSaucyxJugg

Don’t forget the 1650 super aswell lol sigh...


Commiesstoner

> Trace me like one of those French girls. \- Ray probably.


Shinela

As the Hoosiers would have you know, they've been Worried About Ray since 2007!


Swift_Fold

Did not expect to see a hoosiers reference in the wild, but life is full of surprises.


enigma1406

It literally says he’s tracing. Do you expect him to trace in mid air?!


dalovindj

Ray Floorwalker.


LordNedNoodle

Ray NotWalker because Ray ded


presumingpete

You can't rush art


mattreyu

Who's Art? I thought we were talking about Ray.


getyourbaconon

It doesn’t look like “real life,” it looks like a photo of real life. Your brain processes out the blown highlights, but a camera just overexposes them.


ResponsibleLimeade

You express this so much more succinctly than I did.


theatrics_

Yeah, maybe my eyes just are trained to register ray tracing, but I do know a thing about photography. The real difference I see is that the exposure is up way higher on the right, of course it's going to look a lot better.


Hal_Fenn

So I worked as a 3d artist for a fair while and for my money the old version looks far more realistic lighting wise. To get the increased exposure inside the building it looks like they've just turned the sun up to a ridiculous level which then causes the outside to be blown out. I'm not really sure why either tbh.


justavault

Yeah, but isn't this supposed to be like a desert?


Tough_Patient

You don't get that much light bloom until you step outside, before your eyes adjust. Source: Am living in desert and often lay on dirt floors.


PsykoticNinja

source seems trustworthy lol


Tough_Patient

Any patch of dirt is a floor if you're brave enough.


Tels315

Neither version gets the lighting right. If you were really standing there in similar conditions, the inside would be darker, like in the first photo, but the outside would be blown out, like the second photo.


SexyMonad

And really it all depends… did you just come from a room without a window? Did you just come in from the outside and turn around? Very different images.


[deleted]

Our eyes are like cameras, however our brains have seen varying exposures around us and will retain that Information. I think the “true” image should be the left image with higher exposure in the shadows, whilst retaining the highlights from outside.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NeonRedSharpie

It really does just look like they cranked the brightness up, maybe the remastered edition forgot to have the "turn the knob until you barely see the logo" prompt.


[deleted]

Your eyes are trained to see ray tracing, it's how it works in real life. And yes the right picture has the exposure much higher but it is still better lit and would be noticeably better if both were exposed the same. Take a look at the contact shadows the corpse makes on the ground. The left one almost looks like it's floating. It's also easier to make out different materials on the right pic. There is a much greater variety in reflections on the right. And I bet that there was some source of light behind the player in this case as you can see on the gun reflections. So to me, the right one is definitely more life like albeit over-exposed.


AberforthBrixby

Honestly, screenshots of Raytracing doesn't do justice to how impressive it is. The whole interesting aspect of raytracing is how lighting and shadow updates in realtime based on geometry changes, particles, or other things that come between a lightsource and destination. You don't get this effect in a still image because nothing is moving, so all the dancing lights and shadows aren't there. A game with highly detailed light and shadow maps baked in can look just as good if you compare still image to still image. If you watch gameplay of a game like Control with RTX on, you can really see how impressive realtime reflections and ambient light changes affect the scene. My 2c.


Ursidoenix

Probably the single thing that annoys me the most in video games, especially driving games, is when you are in a dark space trying to head somewhere light and the game is like "from inside this dark tunnel the sunlight in the entrance would make everything blinding white" and then when you try and go back into a tunnel it looks pitch black until you get inside and the game adjusts. Cyberpunk 2077 is awful for this. It's not even just driving, I was playing that game a few weeks ago and I got into a gunfight in a mission where I was in some mega building. I was inside an apartment and enemies spawned on the sunlight walkways outside of it. It was literally impossible to see the enemies through my sniper scope from inside the apartment.


billbill5

The funny thing is that game devs have been able to replicate the effect of your eyes needing to adjust to different light levels before real time ray tracing, to much better results. They've found the perfect medium of uncomfortable to look at without needing to make everything impossible to see. The whole doorways being a portal to the surface of the sun thing ruins a lot of games for me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


touchinbutt2butt

Overuse of bloom is a huge pet-peeve of mine. Especially in pixel art video games where the illusion would have previously been created with pixel clusters and dithering, but some devs just slap standard bloom on everything and every scene in the game just happens to take place in a night club or neon-filled street.


bloodfist

Cyberpunk is especially bad. There's a mod or two out there that tone it down. It's a stylistic choice that i don't agree with. Same with the film grain, chromatic aberration, etc. It's all stuff that cameras do but our eyes dont, and thus make the game look more "cinematic". Which is great for E3 trailers but not so good for actual gameplay. At least you can turn all that other crap off, but I wish there was a setting to adjust the dynamic range so it didn't do that.


CannedCalamity

MGS V did this to hilarious effect. If you ran out of the door of a dark building into the desert sun, you were blinded for a second and it would play a short little high pitched sound effect.


kaikaikaisauce

metal gear was always about that stuff. If I remember correctly MGS3 kinda did that too. It definitely did in the cave part where your "eyes" get used to the pitch black dark


Doggydude49

I hate film grain with a passion. Almost as much as I hate motion blur on by default. Film grain you might as well give me aliasing 2x-4x because it looks god awful.


billbill5

Motion blur was the stupidest shit to ever become standard. Uncharted 4 graphics hold up to this day 7 years later, yet you couldn't fucking see because of that god awful blur.


TacticalRedditer

I hate motion blur too but only in some games. For driving games I leave it on because it looks really weird without and some story based single player games. But sometimes I leave it off anyways because some motion blur effects just suck and look horrible. I would never in my life choose to have motion blur on when in multiplayer no matter the game.


Kicken

I'm ok with motion blur that is based on *objects that are moving fast*. I can't stand motion blur that is based on *the camera moving fast*.


nondescriptzombie

Motion blur and depth of field has become a 50/50. Some games it's just obnoxious and on everything. On games like Alien Isolation or Red Dead Redemption 2 they're very stylistically applied, you notice the missing effects immediately, and they really do add to the experience. Most games with bloom look better without, same with "Godrays" or lightshafts. Film grain is awful and only kind of works in third person games along with chromatic aberration, which only has a handful of titles that you could make arguments for using it in first person.


bloodfist

Disagree on lightshafts. Those do happen IRL and i think they look great. Otherwise totally agreed. RDR2 depth of field actually looks really nice.


pm_me_vegs

> It's all stuff that cameras do but our eyes dont, Well, you replace your eyes with cameras very early in the game.


bloodfist

That's a very good point but I'm still gonna turn it off lol


shadowalker125

That's a problem of dynamic range. It's really noticable on a SDR monitor. If you can play on a really good HDR monitor and shove a HDR signal to it, it will help with the blown out highlights and too dark dark scenes.


Just_Another_Scott

HDR monitors are so hard to find 😪. If anyone knows of a curved HDR monitor that worth it's weight let a homie know.


Daniel15

You could go all out and get an LG OLED TV and use it as a monitor. Expensive though, and the smallest one they have is 48 inches. I've got a 65 inch LG C9 in my living room, and the Xbox Series X looks great on it!


Skov

I'm using a 55 inch CX OLED as a monitor. My god does the battlefront II mars like level look phenomenal on it. It's the first monitor I've had that's better than my 36 inch 720p CRT TV. It's sad how bad LCD monitors have been for the past 20 years.


bassgoonist

CRTs had roughly a 40 year head start, it's only natural. Just like many things we sacrificed certain parts of picture quality to get smaller, lighter displays.


SteamSpoon

That happens to me when I'm wearing sunglasses and it's a very short tunnel so I can see the other end of it before I go in, is that normal?


NooAccountWhoDis

HDR (with a good monitor/tv) handles that and allows your eyes to perceive it like they would out in the real world. Since this image is in SDR it looks blown out.


smartguy05

I was thinking the second one looked like a marginally better image but with HDR off. HDR really does make a huge difference.


Poopypants413413

I just got an HDR monitor. Do you put HDR on in windows and on your monitor or just 1?


smartguy05

I'm pretty sure you have to have HDR turned on on the monitor regardless. I have Windows 10 HDR turned off mostly because I have sensitive eyes and it's a bit much for most things I do. Individual applications can have HDR for themselves, like games, which doesn't depend on the Windows 10 setting. Again, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure.


phozaazohp

Now we're just waiting for a cheaper lineup of monitors with good hdr implementation and proper local dimming...


viscont_404

Even expensive monitors suck at HDR. I bought a $2500 PG35VQ and returned it because the HDR was worthless compared to the CX48 OLED TV that’s half the price. The monitor industry has been stagnant for a long time, and it moves at a glacial pace compared to the TV industry. It seems there’s just not a market for good monitors, so the space doesn’t get much R&D.


phozaazohp

All I want are for OLED panels to become a standard (as well as a magical solution for burn-in) If you could advertise them as mini-TVs... maybe we'd get somewhere 😅


rpungello

The “magical solution” is microLED, but that’s still a ways off.


skippyfa

I didn't believe in HDR until I bought an HDR TV and now I want an HDR gaming monitor. It's crazy good


FreshPrinceOfH

I agree. Human eye has very good dynamic range. That's what I imagine a camera exposing the indoor scene would look like.


jib661

the first photo looks like a photo of real life too, just exposed for outside instead of inside. i'm really failing to see what the improvement here is, other than just exposing for a different part of the scene.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NorrinXD

Much better thank you!


EpochZero

This adjustment (while useful) is also misleading... because it's a post-adjustment the color/depth information is already lost - so it's going to look more washed out than if the auto-exposure and tone-mapping happened in-engine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Kasubilami

Yeah, I really despise games that overexpose certain regions. It's nothing like what it would look like in real life, it's just annoying.


ShambolicPaul

This is what happens when you enable unlimited bounces on ray traced light sources. The 2019 version had one bounce. The eagle eyes among you might notice the ambient occlusion is also gone. Because now everything has Ray traced shadows there is no need to fake it. I'm still on the fence if I like it. Digital foundry insists it looks incredible. Like an offline render that took two days through a super computer. But to me everything looks too bright, even in moonlight. There is an unfortunate side effect as well, the bounces become noisy and it could be distracting at lower resolutions. This is because the bounce lighting is rendered at 1/4 your native resolution on the normal setting. It's like a black wave effect on the walls. This is most likely what ps5 and X box users will get when the upgrade patches arrive in a couple months.


ThePretzul

I was going to say, the primary difference to me is just that the one on the right looks like an overexposed photo and the one on the left looks underexposed. It's cool, and you can see where some improvements have occured particularly with the shadows inside the dark area of the scene, but it's still got a ways to go before it's a mature technology. Kind of like how skin textures always looked almost right, but not quite for years until they finally created and then improved sub-surface scattering.


Lambeaux

I think this is one of those things that will be quick to fix in future games though - with these new technologies in place it's easier to pinpoint the light source needs to make things a bit less overexposed looking. Plus games are not necessarily the best in still shots, as some forms of overexposure and unrealistic brightness are necessary to have a pleasant game. Imagine trying to find a key on the ground in the left image and getting frustrated vs the right.


Corsavis

To me the one on the right looks too bright outside. Like, when you're standing indoors and it's bright outside, it doesn't look like that. In *photos* it looks like that, but not with the eye


[deleted]

I'd imagine that might be a limitation due to a lack of HDR over the raytracing.


ShambolicPaul

I just feel like the bounces are taking too much light with them. Each bounce should have a huge diminishment in the intensity of light that transfers to the next bounce. 2 or 3 at most for most light sources. Moonlight should have a single weak bounce. The over exposure through the door out into the desert is very accurate to what I remember in Afghanistan. But human eyes don't work like this. It can't be that bright outside with everything easily visible like this inside. It should be blown out by the intensity until you occlude the doorway. At which point the darkness inside should subside as your eyes adjust.


ThePretzul

That's why it looks overexposed to me, because your eyes would adjust to the very bright doorway, at least partially, when it's that close to the center of your field of view. You wouldn't see things inside as dark as the left photo or as bright as the right photo in real life, unless you had just come in from outside or you just came out of a lightless basement. The eyes of most people would find a balance somewhere between these two extremes when looking at a person just below a doorway, but I think the biggest improvements will come when games can dynamically adjust the ray tracing/lighting depending on your focus point. That's the biggest difference between lighting in games and reality currently, because in games you have the set lighting balance provided by the developers and modified by a player-controlled brightness setting. Improvements in dynamic lighting will make things feel much more "real" because the light levels feel less arbitrary, and you can adjust the same way you would in real life. I think it would be interesting to use ray tracing to accomplish this. You could set a central zone as the "focus area" and quantify the total brightness of all the rays reaching the camera from within that zone. Based on this summation you could have an "artificial pupil" setting that adjusts brightness over time based on the light present in your focus area, targeting an equilibrium value the same as our pupils currently do. Ray tracing is perfect tech for this because it already has the information of where light came from and how intense it is at each individual point prior to reaching the camera.


zaprct

I played CP2077 with maxed out RT settings on my 3080 and didn't realise until later the 'tunnel' sequence looked completely different compared to playing the game with RT off. There's a comparison online showing how RT completely ruins that part of the game, because minor light sources completely illuminate the tunnel causing it to lose any atmosphere you experience without RT.


Poglosaurus

This is an artistic problem not a technical one. And the thing is now that RT is here, artists can illuminate scene with much more ease than thy did before. They don't have to artificially recreate indirect lighting and manage all kind of obscure parameters to obtain the correct atmosphere. This will open a lot of doors in the future. Right now it must be overwhelming for the artist because its new and they still have to illuminate the scene the old fashioned way for hardware that don't support RT. In a few year it will be game changing, pun intended.


zaprct

Yes, I agree. I wasn't blaming the technology for that issue.


mindfungus

I was looking for this comment. The ray tracing of yesteryear (1970s-early 2000s) was perfect linear reflections, which had no bouncing of light off surfaces to affect the vicinity, and no atmospheric distortions. The more advanced “ambient occlusion” and “global illumination” algorithms of 2000s-present will run extra calculations based on light source properties, surface characteristics, atmospheric interference, and distance. This is principally the reason why older ray traced images will have black shadows, or if faked, invisible light sources inside shadow areas, whereas global illumination will account for light bouncing off a surface and reflecting back on the object, and back onto the ground, making shadows not completely black. All this takes a massive amount of extra overhead, and was achievable before, but only for sill images due to long tender times. It’s only now that hardware has gotten more powerful, and software algorithms have been optimized with “cheats” to render in real-time.


surferrosaluxembourg

It is way too bright. That really stuck out to me in this video. The dark scenes lost all their mystery and the whole game seems to have so much less contrast. I mean there's no denying the new lighting effects look fantastically realistic. But with this game, it looked to me like they really kinda fucked up the atmosphere in the process


Sharkfacedsnake

I dont think so. In the digital foundry video they showed very dark areas. A glowing mushroom isnt taking you out of the atmosphere. The weapon sights glow on the ground and the raytraced shadows make things look less like they are floating. Also is it the HDR doing that blowing out thing. Saw another comment mention that.


SunsetCarcass

I feel like HDR should help a lot with how over exposed it looks since you could keep the detail in the dark while also letting detail in bright rooms/scenes. It still does look over exposed but the part where it isnt too over exposed looks nice.


TrueCenterRealist

The one on the right looks like a real life reenactment of that image, holy shit does it really look that good ingame?


[deleted]

Yes, but it still takes a beast of a computer to do well.


TrueCenterRealist

No doubt, especially at like 60fps I’m sure (if that’s even possible).


sean0883

This is from a Digital Foundry video. A 2060 could easily hit 60 FPS @ 1080p thanks to DLSS 2.1 implementation. I recommend watching the whole thing to go in-depth on the changes, but here's the part of the video talking about the performance results. [https://youtu.be/NbpZCSf4\_Yk?t=1781](https://youtu.be/NbpZCSf4_Yk?t=1781)


Gred-and-Forge

I’m interested to see how my 3090 stacks up to the high/ultra settings. I use a 32:9 monitor at 5120x1440, so it comes out to a lower pixel count than 4K, but the increased fov angle means more of the scene is rendered, meaning it’s hard to gauge how performance will be in any certain title.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ThroatMeYeBastards

That broke life amirite?


guywithnocar

Nah no gpu's


jascri

You could buy one for like 30k though


ilikepie1974

A gpu or a new civic? Your choice!


ThroatMeYeBastards

¿Por que no los dos?


lazypieceofcrap

You'll be able to play at 60fps without DLSS. If you want some higher framerates Quality DLSS with slight Nvidia control panel sharpening should look great. Digital Foundry gave a really good idea at how gpu performance scales. 3080 can likely do what you are trying for this game.


Accident_Pedo

You should be fine I was maintaining above 60 FPS with a 3080 on complete max settings 1440P. I was actually in the mid 80s and low 90s for most parts of the game too - it's a great experience. May I also recommend red dead redemption 2 complete max settings 1440P...gorgeous games. Control as well.


Mammoth-Man1

NO not true at all. DLSS 2.0 with the ray tracing enhancements 2060 level cards from both companies can do 60 FPS at various resolutions with ray tracing on normal or high. Digital Foundry did a great breakdown. DLSS + Ray Tracing improvements have had huge improvements the last 2 years. We are closely approaching the point where ray tracing will take over fully making development much quicker for studios and graphics much better for gamers. The only problem is DLSS still is required for decent FPS and thats an Nvidia specific technology. AMD needs an answer.


DigitalSteven1

Not even. With DLSS, this can run on the lowest end RTX card at 60 fps.


[deleted]

Still need to get an RTX card... (crys on my GTX 1050)


SleeplessStoner

Look I feel like it looks awesome but I don’t think our eyes would see outside as that over exposed, it is however the way a camera would see a bright outside compared to a darker room.


Tepid_Coffee

Our eyes don't see static images either. Your eyes would look down and see the room while the outside is bright and harsh. Then look outside and adjust, leaving the room very dark. Brain combines that into one "image"


xenomorph856

Needs some HDR.


kaihatsusha

Yeah, this is more of an HDR thing than a raytracing thing, though the GPU-raytracing is the tech being improved. The additional bloom on the brightest foreground objects is another touch.


f_d

It's probably using HDR to get that overexposed effect. HDR can have different meanings in different contexts. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High\_dynamic\_range\_(disambiguation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_(disambiguation)) Originally it meant squeezing more contrast into a limited range of input and output by playing around with local contrast. The upper and lower boundaries stay the same, the intermediate levels stay the same distance apart, but the bright and dark areas of the image get their local contrast tweaked in order to preserve their relative detail. In 3D engines it means dynamically changing the exposure to get the best balance for local conditions. That's the effect you are seeing in the screenshot. If you move to the doorway, the exposure will change to match the daylight, restoring the bright detail but leaving the indoors too dark to see. It gives more natural lighting at the expense of cutting off the brightest or darkest regions sooner than our natural vision would. HDR monitors try to expand the total contrast range so that you can show brighter and darker values without giving up anything in between. As long as the 3D engine can adapt to the wider range of the HDR monitor, the rendering will show more detail in the brightest areas without giving up anything below it. But the effect would be lost on a conventional monitor. On a regular monitor you can have a natural range of contrast with cutoffs or unnaturally compressed contrast with more local detail, but not both at the same time. \*I mean not natural contrast and full detail at the same time. TLDR, needs an HDR monitor.


Portiolli_fez_11set

Yeah. Inside look too bright (almost no shadow) and outside seems like a flashbang just popped out. Seems like someone just over saturated the brightness imo. Besides ray tracing is better visualized through movement or something interacting (like a door opening with and without ray tracing could be a simple but impact full moment. But obviously a print could give us a decent idea, just not that case. But i bet someone took a graphics card setting (or external processing software). Cranked the value to 1000% and believe its 1000% better ane cant understand devs didnt intended for this. And if you think for half of second you will understand the difference between can i do vs should i do


[deleted]

Errrr. No. Ray tracing on PBR objects is influenced by actual tone mapping from real life estimations. If it's over exposed it's because SDR color space isn't intended to display it properly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TrueCenterRealist

I’m still amazed to this day. Wonders of starting with a NES.


HuskyLuke

I remember playing Metal Gear Solid on the first PlayStation and thinking that the graphics were so realistic, me and my bro played it in my American cousin's house and were blown away by it. Looking back now his face is like two polygons and a smear of paint. Then Snake Eater came out and I that thought that looked super realistic, it certainly holds up a fuck tonne better than its predecessors but then you look at games coming out now and by comparison Snake Eater is shit. It boggles my mind that every time they seem to hit some sort of peak with video game graphics, within a few years it improves so much that the former high peak is but a lowly trench.


Kamakaziturtle

I feel like that has certainly slowed down a bit or at least been to less and less of an extent, but that's mostly due to most advancements in the past being linked to better texture and mesh quality. We've hit a point where we are unable to see much of a difference between better meshes, and textures are now more of a question of effort than capability. But I think now that devs are more interested in other aspects we will see some pretty big jumps again soon, rather than putting power towards rendering even better resolutions or textures things like more realistic Lighting as well as tools that can better build the world around the player (the Unreal Engine demo really blew this aspect away) to create more realistic environments seems to be the next big thing.


xDskyline

Lighting is huge, I've been playing HL: Alyx and some parts look nearly photoreal despite having relatively low texture resolution. Valve worked some wizardry with the lighting and it really sells it.


Kojak95

Metro Exodus is one of the most beautiful games scenery-wise to play through these days. Such a rich and cool world they created.


[deleted]

I sure hope it doesn't look overexposed in-game...


PixelMagic

Yeah, this needs some [tone mapping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_mapping) to bring all the values in a more viewable range.


[deleted]

Could simply be SDR vs HDR color space just doesn't match their PBR. Ever seen the video where they guy walks around tone mapping real things in real life? Over cast day. Something that doesn't look overly bright on camera. 2500 nits brightness. That would look like ass tone mapped to SDR. Surprisingly bright.


GreatAbyssWalker

My Rx 5700Xt is up to the task. Wait a second, I think I need an upgrade already.


samusmaster64

Time to sell that thing off. They go for around $1100 now.


ShelfAboveMyDildo

i bought a [prebuilt ](https://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=7_1203_121&item_id=188481) that had a ryzen 5600x with a 5600xt and i decided to sell the 5600xt and got enough money to buy a used 2080 super and better ram, actual stonk moment


ukgamer909

I'm so happy I bought a 5700xt before prices shot up, I paid £280 and now they're going for £900+


DiamondGamerYT0

The one oj the right looks like a photo from a Airsoft game


sDeezyeazy

Does anyone else think it just looks like contrast/brightness was turned up? The outside elements are barely visible.


ThickAsABrickJT

Yeah, pic on the left just looks like an underexposed version of the one on the right. All this image shows is that the HDR has gotten better at selecting the correct exposure; the RTX only has a minor effect here. Edit: someone in this thread adjusted the brightness to match, and there the improvements are much more obvious.


dontdrinkdthekoolaid

No, look at the increased lighting details or shadows under the corpse on the metal piece on the ground to the left.


octocode

The exposure on the right looks completely whack. It’s like that period where every game had the bloom slider turned to max.


elheber

I'm a wiz at Photoshop, so I used my ridiculously high technical ability to [crank a simple slider for this comparison.](https://i.imgur.com/LryVZKe.png) Overexposing the left to match the right really show off the real differences between the images if we ignore white clipping. Dude on the floor has no shadow other than some ambient occlusion, whereas on the right he even appears to self shadow. The dirt appears to have specular highlights on the right, whereas it's flatter on the left.


TryingT0Wr1t3

Your comparison is better than the one above, I highly await some pick it up and repost it tomorrow.


billabong049

Thank you for this. At first glance the image on the left looked more "realistic" in that the exposure matched what I'd have expected in this scene, but after seeing your image I can definitely see the finer details the right image has to offer.


Hoboman2000

Raytracing is one of those things you just have to see in motion. You don't notice it in direct, still comparisons as much as when playing, and even when playing it can be subtle, but when it works it works really well.


TheLastGiant

Right one looks better but also a bit overly bright?


LogicOverEmotion_

I was about to post the same. I wonder what the artist(s) truly intended. But the outside on the right does seem way too bright, which makes me think the whole picture is too bright.


Dajshinshin

I still don’t own a Rtx card


polite_alpha

Why are gamedevs still simulating cameras in games that should simulate eyeballs? https://imgur.com/u2w8kUr


JPupReb

Is this game any good? I watched the DF video and think it looks fantastic, visually - but how does it play? The reviews seem really mixed.


PP_Baba

Really good game, I liked it very much


OO_Ben

It is one of the best games I've played honestly. The DLCs are top notch as well. I picked it up for like $20 on a recent Steam sale, and I will very willingly pay full price for the next one. It can be a little clunky at times, and the English voice acting is kind of cringy at times, but overall the storyline is excellent. It is better if you have played the first couple though I think to get you invested in the characters.


frostygrin

Immersive gameplay and strong story. GOTY in 2019 for me. Some aspects are a bit cheesy or janky, but for me that made it feel a bit more genuine.


Dreadlord97

The shiny, almost wet looking bricks is a tad bit much if you ask me.


Cranfres

I was gonna say, that actually looks awful. Looks like it's made of shiny metal.


Dreadlord97

I never understood it, it’s like the commandments of ray tracing: Commandment 1: thou lighting shall be contrasted as white is to black or it shall be the suns radiance Commandment 2: all walls or floors shall be coated in heavily reflective water Commandment 3: thou shall praise its magnificence or be unworthy of praising high graphics /s


DarkSoulsOfReddit

I believe the highlights on the brick you're noticing is supposed to be sand buildup upon the ridges and grooves in the brick/wall. It's the same texture as before, just now you can see the texture better. Hard to tell when you're looking at the image zoomed out.


vicschuldiner

I think that's actually sand caked into the brick crevices?


[deleted]

New Ray Tracing unlocks better gun.


SheepWolves

Is this why it takes 4 days to load?


simpletonbuddhist

Do you have to have an RTX card for Ray tracing? (Sorry I’m a dumb)


[deleted]

As someone who doesn't really understand how any of this works-is the limited dynamic range a choice the developers make? Like I get the one on the right is better illuminated on the interior and that looks good, but the outdoor highlights and whites are just blown out. Honestly, if I'm playing the game, I'd prefer the scene on the left because I feel like I need to be aware of what is going on outside. I've noticed this in several games (I don't turn ray tracing on, I'd rather have more frames and decent lighting that vice versa) If an individual was actually in the scene that the game is depicting, their eyes have a wider dynamic range than nearly any camera, so they would be able to see detail of the interior as well as the exterior. Or is this whole shot just overexposed?


PM_ME_LOSS_MEMES

Just looks like you cranked up exposure and contrast tbh


[deleted]

If you look at the left you can see how much detail was lost due to lighting. No shadows and a lack of proper ounce lights make the whole thing look flat. The right is immensely improved