Because many signing up for war are doing it for money due to the severe poverty they're experiencing:
chryan
joined 1 year ago
I'm not a graphics engineer so I only have cursory knowledge of the topic.
The biggest benefits that ray tracing brings is the accuracy of lighting your scenes and being able to forego the "tricks" that you mentioned. These are almost always going to be screen-space lighting techniques and effects e.g. reflections (SSR) and ambient occlusion (SSAO).
Unfortunately, the bad news is that you'd still need to understand the 3D math and shader knowledge regardless of whether you can take advantage of ray tracing or not. The good news is there are numerous game engines and resources out there to help!
Hope you make something cool from the hobby!
Game devs are apathetic to ray tracing.
Traditional rasterization will never go away in our lifetime because ray tracing hardware will never advance broadly enough to replace it.
Ray tracing also doesn't replace the work needed to achieve the desired atmosphere through lighting and fixing performance related issues - which is most of the work.
The games that do support it right now are primarily using it as a marketing tool, and developers are often paid by Nvidia or AMD to spend the time and resources to implement it.
The most broadly successful games are ones that run on the widest variety of hardware to gain the largest reachable audience. Given that Nvidia is pretty much the only competent ray tracing solution for hardware, that market is extremely small compared to the industry at large.
The technology in its current state is not an exciting prospect because it simply means devs have to spend more time implementing it on top of everything else that already needs to be done - purely because the publisher/studio took Nvidia's money so they could slap the RTX label on the game.
I can only recommend what I've owned, so this is primarily a "here's what I've used before and how I've used them".
I started with the Fuji XT2 and absolutely loved it. It was compact enough so I was always encouraged to take it around with me wherever I went. Fuji's out-of-the-box color profiles are awesome too especially if you don't do any post-processing.
The physical dials feel great and really make the camera - it felt like it was made by photographers. The Fuji lenses are optically some of the best around, but can be a little pricey. The upside is that Sigma and Tamron make lenses for the X mount now (they weren't available back then), so you have a lot more options these days! The autofocus was generally pretty slow, but the newer XT3, 4 and 5 have substantially improved on that if you're concerned about it.
I eventually switched to a Sony A7III because I needed better quality portraits and headshots with a full frame sensor, and I've also come to love Sony's mirrorless system so far. Sony's FE prime lenses are really good value for what you get, and are really compact for what they are.
Sigma and Tamron also make excellent glass for E mount at a much more affordable price than Sony's GM lenses (some at nearly equivalent quality).
My current daily driver is a Sony A7CII (but the A7C is also really good if you want something more affordable). The reason I picked this up over the A7III was because I found myself not wanting to carry it around as much. I love street photography and the A7III's screen didn't articulate in a way that allowed me to shoot in the incognito way I did with the Fuji XT2.
So far, I've been really surprised at how good the A7CII is, especially for how compact it is. I've also started using it for my portraits and headshots and haven't missed the A7III at all.
It's quite an investment for any camera system (cameras and lenses), so make sure you spend time looking at the range of lenses that you want/need, and if possible rent them for a little bit to get a feel for them.
Fuji will be the more affordable option purely because of the smaller sensor size and the lenses that go along with it, but if you're interested in full frame quality (especially for better low light shots), then I'd recommend looking at Sony.
Good luck with your hunt and I hope you find something that fits you perfectly!
You're welcome and I hope things work out well for you!
Relationships are hard, both platonic and romantic. Maintaining them in a healthy way is really difficult and no one can give you a map for how to navigate the issues.
Sometimes, you'll find that despite your best efforts, relationships can wane or end over time. Your best friend might suddenly have to move halfway across the world for a job - while they'd still be your best friend, you won't be able to get coffee/beer like you used to. Or a close friend could unfortunately lose their life at the drop of a hat, and you'd never see them again.
I've learned to focus more on and appreciate the time that you do have with a person, however long or brief it may be, because you never know when it's the last time that you spend the most time with them.
It's hard to understand the full context of your situation because there's a lot of details missing, so I'm going to make some assumptions based on what you've said.
I think your mistake was to go straight to running when you haven't even started crawling.
You've described yourself as not having been a very sociable person over the years, so planning a massive party of 30-50 people for people that you haven't had regular contact with was likely to never have worked out the way you expected, regardless of how much effort you put into planning and setup.
My advice to you is to start small and take it in steps.
Firstly, don't bog yourself down with thinking about how a) badly the party seemed to have gone, and b) how many relationships you've let erode.
Second, instead of focusing on those that didn't show up, celebrate that you had 5 people who cared enough to come to it. Spend time cultivating relationships with them, because those were the ones who bothered to be there.
Lastly, for those you felt were important and let you down, you have to understand that people tend to treat big parties as optional. If someone is important to you, inviting them to a large party where they're just one-of-many doesn't really tell them how important they are to you does it? I know I'd feel a lot more important if someone invited me to their small and intimate party!
Additionally, you should reach out to them and let them know how you felt - no one can read your mind. You have to communicate how you feel and give people a chance to respond. If they respond positively, great - you've kept an important friend! If they don't, then you've learned that your relationship with them wasn't a healthy one.
You don't have to pretend like it didn't hurt you, but the onus is on you to communicate that to those you felt slighted by.
Also, don't plan massive parties for yourself with over-the-moon expectations, especially not for your first birthday party!
Because the truth is worth knowing
This is the defacto argument that gets pulled into reporting, good or bad.
What is the in the point in the truth in this article's reporting? What about this story told you anything, or anyone, about what's ravaging the industry? What message does a supposed $400 million cost tell you other than Concord failed? Do you think 160 developers worked on this project over 8 years with the intent to 'chase the trend'? Do you think they spent 8 years of their lives building a bad product they didn't believe in? Or was Sony and the entire leadership team able to fool all 160 people that they were building something special when all they really wanted was a trend chaser?
If this article has enlightened you in a way that has somehow eluded me, I would very much like to learn what you've gleaned.
Unless someone from Sony AND ProbablyMonsters confirms the real numbers, I would have nothing concrete to add to the validity of the claims, other than I think it's bullshit.
But even if I did have this bulletproof info, why would I do what you suggest? So that games journalism can continue to beat a dead horse?
News like this doesn't do the industry and the people who work in it any favors other than to serve the masturbatory curiosity of people who claim "I can't believe they spent this much on a game that was clearly going to fail!"
All this kind of reporting does is continue to pull money away from investors who are willing to take chances on new teams making new games (regardless of how derivative they might seem), and cause anguish for the passionate developers who poured their lives into what they believed would have succeeded.
The games industry is in absolute shambles now thanks to years of psychopathic ravaging from large corporations with milking profits, studio shutdowns and layoffs.
Contributing to unconstructive reporting will only worsen it, and I would instead encourage you to ignore news like this.
view more: next ›
You're giving Musk too much credit here.
He bought Twitter because a) he's addicted to it, and b) he rushed into a buying agreement he didn't get his lawyers to vet properly (probably due to his massively inflated "I understand more than anyone else" ego).
He wanted to back out of it, but faced a lawsuit that he was almost certainly going to lose, so had no choice but to go through with the sale. The lawsuit happened because the shareholders at the time realized the company was worth nowhere close to the inflated $44 billion he offered for it, so they weren't going to back down either.
Everything else that happened after the sale is a result of a man-child feeding his addiction and recuperate from the dumb deal he was legally forced to uphold.