Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA RTX-Remix 0.1 Released For Adding Path Tracing To Classic Games

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by dimko View Post
    No, not screw up, too lazy to implement. why fix something that ain't broken?
    Too lazy to implement? Like how they're too lazy to implement anything else from the start?

    Only issues I've seen so far have been relating to performance and not re-doing the lighting properly when it's been added in after the fact. What's happening now is that it's being added in from the start instead of traditional bodge solutions like pre-baked lighting and traditional global illumination.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdedetrich
    replied
    Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post

    The code can be licensed under diffrent licenses, just they have to be compatible in certain aspects.

    Zlib license isn't "contagious" license like GPL, so you can license part of project under one license and part under another, as long as they are not directly conflicting (and MIT and Zlib aren't). Also Nvidia does fit all requirements of Zlib license as they did that by cloning DXVK repo with all license files/commit messages/commit history. So all alteration notices are there, and Nvidia doesn't misinterpret it as orginal software (project name/purpose etc are diffrent). In nutshell Nvidia codebase fills requirements of Zlib and MIT.

    The only problem is there is no clear indication what parts of nvidia code does touch zlib license parts and this is why mixed licensing is difficult. But there is 0 dick move here by Nvidia just wierd they didn't make everything under zlib as it makes things more difficult.
    As someone that had to go through similar/same issues with licensing on a major open source project this is indeed correct. In the worst case scenario git can resolve any legal concerns (and yes this can be done legitimately).

    Regarding using a different license, it's probably legal reasons. It's the same reason why companies prefer Apache 2.0 when possible and then fall back to other licenses like MIT.
    Last edited by mdedetrich; 16 April 2023, 04:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdedetrich
    replied
    Originally posted by dimko View Post

    uhhu, does it allow for FSR as part of it? DLSS is allowed all right.
    yeah right...
    Massive facepalm. FSR/DLSS is completely seperate/orthogonal to Ray tracing.

    Leave a comment:


  • piotrj3
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

    MIT and zlib aren't compatible. The latter requires alteration notices, whereas the former does not.
    The code can be licensed under diffrent licenses, just they have to be compatible in certain aspects.

    Zlib license isn't "contagious" license like GPL, so you can license part of project under one license and part under another, as long as they are not directly conflicting (and MIT and Zlib aren't). Also Nvidia does fit all requirements of Zlib license as they did that by cloning DXVK repo with all license files/commit messages/commit history. So all alteration notices are there, and Nvidia doesn't misinterpret it as orginal software (project name/purpose etc are diffrent). In nutshell Nvidia codebase fills requirements of Zlib and MIT.

    The only problem is there is no clear indication what parts of nvidia code does touch zlib license parts and this is why mixed licensing is difficult. But there is 0 dick move here by Nvidia just wierd they didn't make everything under zlib as it makes things more difficult.

    Leave a comment:


  • avis
    replied
    Originally posted by Amaranth View Post

    Was this meant to say Vulkan RT extensions or did you just confirm it only works on nvidia cards?
    Vulkan RT naturally, sorry.

    Leave a comment:


  • avis
    replied
    Originally posted by dimko View Post

    uhhu, does it allow for FSR as part of it? DLSS is allowed all right.
    yeah right...
    Grasping at straws, amigo? There's no requirement to use DLSS either.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeisom
    replied
    This will work perfectly fine on RDNA 2/3. The AI part I believe is for the remastering step, not actually running it. So actual modders will have better support on an Nvidia card, but when playing a game it should work fine on any RT capable gpu whether AMD, INTEL or Nvidia as long as they have reasonably powerful RT capabilities.

    Also, they said when they announced PORTAL RTX that it used DXVK.

    Leave a comment:


  • dimko
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post

    2. Again, wrong, compatible with any GPU which supports Vulkan and Vulkan RTX extensions.

    Maybe read into it a little bit more before screaming about a vendor lock.
    uhhu, does it allow for FSR as part of it? DLSS is allowed all right.
    yeah right...

    Leave a comment:


  • Amaranth
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post

    RTX remixes so far have been 100% playable and complete.

    Let me just rephrase everything you wrote this way: "I've not tried it but I will accuse them of this and that".

    "Cant help but wonder, if its going to be:"
    1. Remixed games can be played on any GPU which supports Vulkan and Vulkan RTX extensions.
    2. Again, wrong, compatible with any GPU which supports Vulkan and Vulkan RTX extensions.

    Maybe read into it a little bit more before screaming about a vendor lock.
    Was this meant to say Vulkan RT extensions or did you just confirm it only works on nvidia cards?

    Leave a comment:


  • dimko
    replied
    Originally posted by NeoMorpheus View Post

    Knowing them, I can almost guarantee that something in there will screw up AMD.
    How is FSR 2.1 screwed up?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X