Originally Posted by Wishmaker
In a cost control environment, not everyone has unlimited resources. This decision was taken due to a badly polished product and not because RTX is the devil.
This was the one thing they could give up to avoid community backlash.
They have a crap ton to polish. I'm staying with AC that's for sure, ACC=AC2 was so much more arcade/console like and wouldn't even let me rebind keys, they hardcoded even more stuff than they did in AC.
I think the community has simply stayed with AC as ACC has nothing to offer really, it's a money grab to push it to consoles and masses. Tweaked AC physics, no modding, at times worse graphics (that stupid AA and sharpness in ACC), runs better CPU wise because Unreal, no mathmaking, only boring GT3 and crap ton of features missing that make sim a sim.
Originally Posted by Mand12
Same thing could have been said about the first 3D accelerator hardware.
New features are important, even if they don't run as fast as the old paradigm. Raytracing is a fundamentally superior rendering technique for image fidelity.
Tracing is more easily more realistic, so it's easier to create both the engine and virtual world design.
Although I still think that if developers cared they could achieve very close graphics using voxels with better performance.
Originally Posted by ejb222
RTX is or other GIPT techniques? ive seen just as good without rtx and hardware agnostic
What do you even mean by RTX? RTX is "Nvidia branded RT hardware acceleration and software suite/middleware that you may but do not have to use".
What the hell is GIPT.
Tracing works on any hardware, Nvidia is simply the first to offer decent HW acceleration and implemented the available APIs. Anyone can use those APIs in DXR, Vulkan. AMD doesn't want to because their performance would suck big time as it does on NV GTX.
NV's solution is more hardwired, where as AMD is pursuing a more hybrid/flexible hardware solution.