Відео

True, but I turned RT Ultra on my wife's 3060 PC in cyberpunk with Ray Reconstruction and DLSS balanced and it hits a steady 60fps and looks great. It isn't for only high end, 1080p is still the most used resolution lol.

@DieAnotherDayTD sadly no. Ray reconstruction helps smooth out the raytracing and makes it more consistent, but it can't increase the speed of raytracing. The reason it lags in the instance I mentioned in the video is because the the ambient light needs to quickly change color, and the ray tracing pipeline can't do that instantaneously. Ray reconstruction is simply an AI that denoises ray tracing more efficiently and effectively than other denoisers, so it can't fundamentally change hard coded aspects of the ray tracing like the speed rays are produced. The reason ray reconstruction can sometimes look like it stops things from lagging behind is because it was the old denoiser that was lagging not the raytracing itself. For this example, it is the raytracing that is lagging not the denoiser.

@nathanlamaire I agree. I just personally, similar to you, still rather ray tracing even with those drawbacks. The only thing is that Starfield doesn't even have ray tracing, so the muddy look is all thanks to DLSS, and possibly some other aspects of the game

drives me insane and gives me a headache after a while. For slow moving, static scenery, it can be really nice though.

@Hybred I see your point. The only problem I have with some games being built around raster and having RT added later, is that sometimes the raster lighting would take president over ray traced lighting even if that aspect of lighting is fully under the ray traced pipeline. Before Cyberpunk had the path tracing mode, light sometimes leaked in areas when ray tracing was on max settings. This is because ray tracing was used as a layer over rasterized lighting. This issue was only really solved when they added an option to replace all of the rasterized lighting with ray tracing. Both ray tracing and rasterization have benefits and drawback, but I personally rather the blurry but more accurate image of ray tracing than the less accurate but cleaner and clearer image of rasterization

@@artoflegends yeah cleaner and clearer and free of artifacts is way more important to me. Ray-Tracing a lot of the time falls apart in motion, a game is suppose to actually be played so that's a deal breaker for me.

Raytracing can fully replace rasterization, you don't need rasterization to render a scene. Offline renders like Blender's Cycles don't use rasterization at all.

@@GreenDave113 no... Fake.. Without rasterization you can't see pixels on your screen. Every screen make rasterization... Polygons 3D to Pixels... I think people this days think rasterization is light without RT or PT. Like Dynamic or Static Light... That's a bad concept of raster I can agree that the light can be all RT.

@@McLeonVP I am a university student studying computer graphics. I know what I'm talking about. You can look up "rasterization vs raytracing". Rasterization is a way to figure out what pixels a triangle covers. Raytracing is a way to figure out what triangle covers a specific pixel. They both fullfill the same role in that way.

@@GreenDave113 I'm studying the same thing + system analysis xdd Even the calculator make rasterization.. Raytracing is not just a term for computer thing, is more an geometric and art concept.. RT is light with real physics the thing you call "raster" is a fake light. In all cases, you need raster to convert 3d information in 2d pixels.

@@GreenDave113 ​ @McLeonVP fight fight fight

@McLeonVP I got an RTX 4070 before ray reconstruction was in Cyberpunk or FSR 3 was released, so that's why I said that in the video, but I could probably run it today if I still had an RTX 2080 Super. I still much rather the experience on my RTX 4070 though since I can run full path tracing with DLSS Balanced and DLSS Frame Generation, which I think is better than FSR 3 Frame Generation. Best case scenario, if I still had an RTX 2080 Super, I'd run path tracing on DLSS Performance or Ultra Performance with FSR 3 Frame gen with either variable framerates, horrible image quality, or both. When I did my first play through of the game on my RTX 2080 Super, I had a mix between high and medium raster setting with med. ray traced lighting plus rt shadows and reflections on DLSS Performance. Even then, I commonly had frame rate dips into the low 50s or even high 40s sometimes. In my opinion, even if you can run path tracing with DLSS Ultra Performance and FSR 3 Frame Generation, I'd recommend upgrading if you want a good experience. Even though I'd rather ray tracing with those compromises than no ray tracing at all, I still much rather more playable frame rates and image quality. That's the main reason I upgraded to an RTX 4070 in the first place.

@@artoflegends maybe, but Ray Reconstruction + Path Tracing =Helps the dlss image..

@McLeonVP I see what you mean. When I play a game that only has SSR for reflections, I am commonly taken out of the experience when I look down or towards the reflection. Even though I much rather ray tracing in any game, even those without SSR, I do not see other reflection methods like cube maps or planar reflections to be as emersion breaking. Even though they have less detailed reflections than ray tracing which lowers continuity, I am more forgiving of those methods because at least they are more consistent and don't disappear when I look in the wrong direction

@@artoflegends sometimes i disable the reflections because of that. Cube map isn't dynamic or detailed. Planar it is, but is not dynamic for objects Dead Rising was so good or the scope in cod4 Cube map was more used for weapons i think

My main gripe with the PC port is that it doesn't have native 1440p and 4k support. If it wasn't for that , I honesty wouldn't really have any issues with it. Obviously a modern PC will run a 7th gen game better than 7th gen consoles. I haven't played it on 7th gen consoles, but from what I've seen, it seems to run fine given the hardware and how well other games ran about that time. I just wish that especially with the new found interest in the game that the developers would allow native support for higher resolutions. It is inconvenient to install a mod for what I would argue is a basic necessity on PC, and the mod even comes with the caveat of glitched out HUD elements which if the higher resolutions were officially implemented might not have occurred. I'm also upset about how I had to re-record multiple sessions of gameplay because of the GeForce Experience issue. That was probably over 30 minutes extra of gameplay just because of that one issue. I mentioned at the end of the PC Port section that one thing I really liked about it was that it contained all of the DLC. I would agree that the PC version is objectively the best way to play this game, but that isn't an excuse for this game to have problems that most PC ports at the time didn't have

@Dalroc I understand and agree with some of your points, but in my opinion the positive aspects outweigh the negative ones. Although I rather a fast paced game to a slow paced one in general, I do not inherently have anything against slow paced games. My third favorite game is Red Dead Redemption 2, and I would argue that it's a slower paced game than Cyberpunk. I personally enjoyed the gunplay although I was not the biggest fan of how enemies are bullet sponges, but I knew going into it that it would be more like an RPG in that aspect, so I wasn't really surprised or anything. I'm just more used to traditional first person shooters in that aspect, but the gunplay has grown on me a bit, so I'm mostly neutral towards it now even if I possibly would have slightly enjoyed it more if the gun play was closer to traditional first person shooters. I enjoyed the story, but I was a little let down that, at least for the base game (I haven't completed Phantom Liberty yet, but I heard that there is more consequences for your choices there), that your choices don't really have any significant outcome on the ending (I like how you can save Takemura and let Oda live which effects the Corpo ending, but that's about all the variation you have besides just picking an ending). I definitely agree that the AI was bad at first, but although it still isn't perfect, I believe that the AI has significantly improved. I personally don't have anything against dark themes or serious storytelling. I didn't find that the themes were just dark for the sake of being dark, but everyone has their own opinions, so I can't really fault you for not being a fan of that sort of storytelling approach. I was hyped from the moment the gameplay demo released in 2018, but when the game got delayed for a third time only a month from release, I put my expectations in check, so I wasn't really disappointed when the game finally came out, and I honesty thought that it was good despite all of its flaws. Even if you still don't love the game after reading this, I hope you can at least understand why some people, including me, love this game

It can probably run it at 1080p minimum settings with DLSS Ultra Performance, if you are ok with between 30 and 60 fps. I would personally rather the game to have even lower settings than its minimum ones, but I don’t know how realistic it would be to achieve that without completely removing the path tracing altogether

I will probably play Portal 2 once I have shortened my catalog of unfinished games I already started playing, but I will probably post a review similar to this one once I complete it if enough people would want it

@@artoflegends i really want it