Tracing will not die off since it's an evolution of graphics (that has happened in other graphical industries already) or do you want to stick to the overly fake graphics we have now forever?
You don't need DX to to tracing. Nor do you need a GPU for that matter. The method is as old as computers really and much simpler to implement than overly the fake graphics full of tricks and hacks that we have now.
With hardware acceleration yes it starts to get doable finally in real time, low quality but doable.
No one should be using DX11 anymore, or OGL.
Originally Posted by ToTheSun!
Have you ever wondered why you need DXR in order for RTX to work?
If I remember right RTX is nothing more than a wrapper/library using DX or NVAPI offered by NV to developers, gameworks really. Or one can use their OptiX but that seems more for apps than games. Or Vulkan.
NV has defined the way RT is in DX12 along with M$ and has an extension for Vulkan. etc.
AMD maybe had some say, who knows, but they will be stuck with how ever DXR is whether they like it or not. Vulkan, ... they probably have to make their own extension. Unless Vulkan adds it without extensions universally.
Navi not offering Variable Rate Shading... and AMD instead of having Texture/Texel space shading on their GPUopen, well guess what Nvidia has that too. Honestly the NV developer pages have been the go to for decades as they offer explanations, examples, SDKs, Nvidia being more of a software company at it's roots where as AMD is more of a hardware company that lacks this reach to software developers and while they do try in recent years to offer more on their web this has not been the case much before if at all. Not counting the sending developers to other companies/corporations that NV does. Or Intel's investment in optimizing OSS for their hardware. Sadly Navi lacks what Turing already has. Giving away a few cards to developers to use isn't going to save AMD.
There are some nice faster solutions from AMD than the gimpworks solutions.