@@2kliksphilip you have two types of subscribers, the ones who sub for cs and the ones who sub for you, some of my favorite videos from you are non cs related, you are one of the most unique personalities on this site and should never feel the need to justify uploading something you find entertaining, keep it coming philip and take the comment seriously that someone left about a 3kliksphilip minecraft survival series! that would be too good.
Damn that looks nice under water and Love the reflections, I just hope they at least enable a path tracing version for those who cannot afford getting a new graphics card to run it.
I know that raytracing is a great technology, but I think the way current shaders such as sildurs vibrant simulate light looks way better than the current raytracing shaders. I can see where raytracing can bring us in the future but for me currently other shaders simply look much better.
This is so amazing. I hope this video raises awareness about the technology and helps as a basis for the developers to improve it, so even more people get to see its true potential.
"Or something goes terribly wrong and I end up in a tesseract with a million bookshelves" Interstellar reference lol Edit: Wait, he actually did it at 36:21
I do love philip And this video was very entertaining and i watched it all And I do think that rtx is the future But the thing is: -The shaders are for bedrock only and most players play java or want the shaders for java for mods -The colours are too bright if you want cartoony nice looking shaders that is ok but making colours bright as fuck doesn't make it cartoony if you like it that is ok but it is not perfect and someone will probably make cartoony shaders that don't hurt my eyes -Most rtx cards run the shaders really badly compared to what they can do in general and a lot of (even ray tracing) shaders for java work faster than the nvidia ones -Buying a rtx card is still not worth it due to their price the only reason most people get rtx cards is for them being better than most gtx ones and having stable drivers Other criticisms: -Nvidia is giving money to content creators to advertise their product not review it until now i have not found a big youtuber who got sponsored by Nvidia who didn't just say how good it is and in the same time mention cons -I always liked Philip but this video and the other one felt very odd due to how honest Philip is in general and now he is just advertising rtx cards without stating any problems other than the performance takes a hit which is mentioned only a few times and only seems mentioned for honesty rather than actual criticism The game looks beautiful but we have other options for shaders and i am not gonna buy a rtx card just for these shaders I am happy for Philip getting sponsored and getting money by being RU-vidr but i would have loved if he was honest during his review Tbh i should have posted this in the original video but I am too lazy Btw i am not saying get amd instead They do have some good gpus for the prices we can't argue about that but the drivers are fucked they are fixing them though but if i upgrade my pc i will probably get a nvidia card due to stability but not for ray tracing Sorry if i seemed salty but i really just wanted to state some problems the shaders have because weirdly enough i didn't see a lot of criticism in these videos
@@2kliksphilip i did state i enjoyed the video I did also state that i should put the reply in the other video That doesn't justify what i did and i will post the comment in the other video right now and change up some stuff And also thanks for responding Philip most creators who do respond to these comments just insult the commenter I would like to apologise again for this comment I wrote this after getting bombarded the last week with nvidia sponsored videos Still doesn't justify what i did If you would like me to delete the comment i will as it is unnecessary in this kind of video I didn't mean to seem toxic but i was very annoyed with the video recommendations and letted out my frustration here which is the least place i could have thought to comment in Apologies Philip And with the drivers i do have an amd card and it did have some bugs before most of them have been fixed I did hear from other amd gpu users that there is still some bugs though Edit: I am not gonna lie i do feel like a dumbass and dick after reading comment But i think apologising was better than defending my pride I do feel a bit embarrassed but i guess it is better than using pity arguments in a video showing off maps in rtx minecraft
Something really sucks with this beta compared to Sonic Ether's shader : the NVidia beta is not doing a hybrid rendering : classic rendering for far chunks & ray tracing for close chunks. So we end up with a shitty view distance...
Yes! Philip doesn't really have the typical calming voice. But even then, every single video he makes, his voice is surprisingly calming and nice to listen to. If you read this Philip, you seriously have a great voice!
Am I the only one here who just wants to see kliksphilip use this in a normal survival minecraft playthrough? EDIT: A lot of people seem to think I meant an actual let's play. I don't think anyone wants Philip to turn into that type of youtuber, I'm thinking something more along the lines of the Odgrub videos documenting his experiences, not him switching to live commentary.
I actually like the water texture. Maybe not in these showcase worlds, but in normal ones I think it's better than the "classic" shader's water as it preserves the vanilla feel..
Noting this because of CP2077. I think its less about people who are ignorant of ray tracing, and more that people just HUGELY overhype it. Sure there are some instances of RT being used fairly well, like that underwater scene. But that is few and far between. People are claiming that RT in CP2077 is night and day, and makes the game infinitely more beautiful. When in reality, the ONLY thing that RT is doing is making the reflections more clear. Instead of pretty green lights in the one puddle on the street, you can read the sign from those lights. The technology itself is really cool, and I have high hopes for it in the future. However, in the same way that "Haters" are ignorant, I think the people "All for ray tracing" are ignorant in the fact that they think every beautiful light source they see is ray tracing. When in fact, its only very few things that are being caused by RT.
@@Fractured676 You are literally one of the ignorant people philip were talking about, ray tracing in CP2077 include the following: Diffuse illumination, Reflections, Ambient occlusion and Shadows. That's a lot more than "it's just more clear reflections" which it isn't either if you knew anything about RT, it can also do reflections on rough surfaces with distortions which is the actual heavy computing of RT reflections like on marble or polished concrete, RT can also reflect what's behind you, SSR can't do that at all. Ray tracing is the future indeed.
7:33 common misconception but raytracing is significantly easier to implement than rasterization (esp. when taking shaders into account), and in fact, the very first 3D games used raytracing already. The biggest problem with raytracing has always been getting decent performance, but thats exactly what RTX makes so much less of a problem.
Well let's be honest, the results Ray Traycing in video games are just mediocre. You'll get plus-minus 10-20% better quality for a big performance hit. On top of that, this isn't true Ray Tracing, as you might expect, but just an augmented shader. So why bother with a super expensive graphics card, if you can get close to the same level of quality with a cheap one? I personally think, that Ray Traycing is way too expensive, for the very little (but pretty cool) quality it delivers!
@@2kliksphilip 2kliksphilip Thanks for the interview recommendation! Just to clarify, coming from a low-level graphics programmer: (Warning: Wall of text ahead) A lot of game devs (and gamers) are used to purely rasterized render engines, most game engines have shadow maps built-in, for example, so shadows look the same in most games, and have the same quality and performance problems, and RTX technology is still very experimental (there's a lot of research to be done still), but once we get past that, once there are render engines and game engines that support ray tracing and once RTX-enabled hardware becomes cheap enough and gets a large enough market share, there will be a lot more amazing looking games and games that might use ray-tracing in creative new ways. Reasoning about light in terms of rays will just always be easier than thinking about it as millions of distorted triangles projected onto a partial pyramid with sides of infinite length. There's still lots of optimization that developers have to implement even when using ray-tracing, as the Digital Foundry interview shows, but no matter how you look at it, RTX will make the lives of game developers a lot easier. I've already seen demo's that calculate shadow-maps using ray-tracing, or use ray-tracing as a special case for certain types of reflections.
@@papamettwurst9603 For current gen gen cards, ray tracing is just an extra. But in the future games will be fully rendered in raytracing. Easier to develop and much more realistic. Now we only need GPUs that can handle it in.
@@lampenpam I agree with you, but I don't think Games will be fully rendered on Ray Traycing for the next 20 years, as it is way too processing heavy. I think in a few generations of new graphics cards, it will be a lot cheaper and with some noticeable improvements. ^^
Why does this feel normal to me when I obviously never played it with RTX let alone have a card that supports it. Maybe that's just a nostalgia thing or because it's so close to real light but it feels so familiar to me.
It's so close to the real thing, RTX will be something we will take for granted in 4 years. Because it's so close to realism we can't appreciate how much time and effort it takes. Bit sad.
@@Thebrabander1 disagree. I think we don't even need RTX. It looks good in games like these, because Minecraft never had good lighting. But when you compare Metro Exodus with RTX on vs off, the difference isn't that big. Games like Horizon Zero Dawn and RDR2 don't even need RTX imo.
@@BlackParade01 SomeOrdinaryGamers had a good point for rtx, it was about how rtx can breathes new life into games, especially with games like Minecraft where its base lighting isn't as good as other games. And whether you think you don't need it or not, rtx is a new emerging, developing technology and as it gets, its gonna get used more in other games.
Diamonds already felt like they had some sort of glow to me, maybe because they’re such a special and rewarding ore to find. But now that they actually emit light it makes them feel even more special, I think because there aren’t that many natural light blue lightsources in real life 32:02
Could you maybe make a comparison video between Nvidia RTX and SEUS PTGI (java edition raytraycing)? It would be really interesting to hear you talk about the differences, what part you prefer about which and why RTX is/isn't better. I mean if Nvidia allows that, they seem to kinda suppress info about the SEUS PTGI shader. I have only used the java edition one which looked absolutely stunning, but I don't really have any direct comparison to RTX.
you actually don't need an rtx card for rtx voice, but u need at least a 10 / 16 series card. look up on google rtx voice without rtx card. I dont really remember the process but you need to modify 3 strings of code on an .nvi file to get it to work. as for ray tracing, you obviously need a 20 series card.
@@Joey099 ibxtoycat did an extra video talking about some of the downsides, and iskall did another video on it even though he wasn't being sponsored for the second one.
AlexDoesStuff YT Now at first, I would have agreed with you but RTX is better than PTGI. Did you see the ores in rtx? The ores reflect light. They look absolutely beautiful. If you go under water in rtx, the way the light shines through the water is completely phenomenal. The textures are completely realistic.
I agree 100% with your "rant" on people who dismiss a graphics technology as gimmicky or pointless because they dont get it or cannot GET it. These people want to be spoon fed everything and want something for nothing, if these people were CEO's of companies... well they would be CEO of blockbuster video...and we all know what happened to them. Im absolutely excited for this technology to progress and flourish in future games.
I just tell them to go back to using their CPU & Gouraud shading, since that was faster before we got to the model + texture GPU era, although they'll probably realise that a single colour per surface does in fact look pretty boring :P
I just want to see actual gameplay of a normal minecraft playthrough, but i couldn't find any. I want to know if it actually looks good while playing or is just useful for screenshots, but i guess it's because it's still in beta.
I don't think it's fair to criticize people who reject this particular implementation of raytracing as people who reject this technology in general. If raytracing would be raytracing while also doing a better job of complimenting Minecraft esthetic like some more mature shaders do, I really would love it. I am so jealous of the advanced light behavior demonstrated in this video, but sometimes it still looks like a crapy lego game ripoff because of how plasticky and oversaturated everything suddenly got. Raytracing is great and all but the game still needs proper artists and designers looking at it and being happy with its the state now undermines the fact that graphics is most often than not technology serving a clear direction and not the reverse.
If I were you, I would drop the "40 Minutes" part in the title. I intentionally avoided the video the first two times it was recommended to me specifically because of the length (40 minutes is intimidating), but it's turning out to be very entertaining.
Minecraft runs pretty good on the 2060, but once you go underwater you WILL dip below 50 fps. I just use a custom resolution at 1440x810, and it gets 60 fps everywhere with DLSS. I'm pretty sure if the DLSS 2.0 implementation gets 540p (performance mode) support, performance will be much better. Right now it's only upscaling from 720p if you play at 1080p. The developers in an interview with Digital Foundry said that motion vectors (Needed for TAA and DLSS) isn't implemented that well right now in the beta, and that's probably why they don't let you use the performance mode, it'll probably not look good since it's not getting the best information from the game on what to AI upscale.
but why? you could have waited a few months for the 3000 series to come out and then you could have gotten a 2070 super for the price of a current 2060 smh
I love ray-tracing and there are beautiful effects you can achieve with it, which already are utilized for beautiful pre-rendered stuff. But I am not convinced that we need it for games, at least for most games. Already, I have a hard time noticing most effects with modern graphics, since they often are either too subtle, or "too realistic". I usually only notice them when they go wrong, which isn't great. What is great with ray-tracing, is that you don't need to write complicated custom shaders, that require a lot of tweaking to make them look right. That way more games, especially games with a smaller budget, could look as great as only AAA titles can today. A possible problem might be that the rest of the graphics can not match the quality of the lighting, making the world look less realistic, since no amount of ray tracing makes your meshes more detailed or your textures more realistic. That sort of mismatch of quality already is a problem most modern games try to avoid, by specifically going for overall less realistic, but more consistent, graphics. All that said I am looking forward to seeing what sort of experiences people will create with real-time ray-tracing, but I am not convinced that all games will be fully ray-traced in 10 years.
Can we push RTX to the side for one moment and appreciate how GOOD Minecraft's soundtracks are? I honestly lose myself in hearing it every time and the calm and peaceful voice of Philips makes me love this video even more
I think, rtx amplifies the feelings given off by the soundtrack. Imagine hearing Sweden, while sitting inside a cave near the surface with a shower of light pouring in from above.
This is what the cool graphics features should be used for. Nobody is going to appreciate them if they are used in games that try to look realistic, because there's 'so many of them lumped together, sometimes hiding their own true potential. I hope we get some indie games with triple A budgets that will look as beautiful as Minecraft with RTX
It feels like Eighth games tend to head straight into the bottom of the uncanny valley, and I'm not talking about the corpse-like people. Im stalking about Uncanny realism. PS3 was not doing much to imitate realism hard on because it was well not equipped to handle such a task, so the character models are mostly handcrafted, the lighting tech is majorly generalized, baked, or a combination of the two with some fancy smoke and mirrors to cover up its shortcomings. At their worst PS3 AAA graphics look either plasticine or a corny washed out "gritty fps", but it doesnt take much for them to avoid entering the uncanny valley. The Eighth gen however had the graphical power so relatively impressive that when those game companies saw that tech demo of the freakishly realistic celebirty face actually climbing out of the uncanny valley, something clicked in their heads that made them go "lets make our characters have photo-realism". It's hard for me to say why, but the "unreal engine/frostbite" graphical feel of games feels unnatural to look at. When the ninth gen finally comes and the devs get accostumed to it, we're probably gonna see some very interesting things happen especially with Real-Time Raytracing. And even without concerning the neverending drive to achieve true "photo-realism" in gaming, more casual stuff like cartoon-based graphics and 2d is gonna have to get creative at this point, because I believe somehow at that Seventh gen (ps3, and 360 and shit) happened, 2D gaming has practically hit what i think is it's graphical edge. Everything is possible now. Truecolour transparent pngs, free room for over an hour of FMVs, ect. And as the gens go by, their only improvements from what i can see are higher quality sprites, more memory for more picturz and sounds, and physics department.
I think some people were upset that Nvidias shocases dismissed already existing shaderpacks and compared their RTX shaders to vanilla graphics and thereby misrepresenting the difference an RTX card really makes. Especially since there are already PTGI and raytracing shaders out there that DONT require an RTX graphics card. But obv nothing quite reaches the quality their custom blocks and shaders can achieve, atleast interms of realistic lighting.
It is funny that a lot of people think sharp shadows, atrocious SSAO, incorrect reflection and complete lack of indirect color lighting looks better, it is really hard to sell correct lighting to gamers. In the end it doesn't matter what people think, RTRT is the next logical step in the evolution of GPU, it will allow for much larger geometry budget, robust lighting in dynamic environment and more complex visual effects. Next gen consoles have it and pretty much every new GPU coming out in the future will have it.
I'd buy an rtx gpu if the dies weren't so massive, if they were a lot fast than then are (only slightly faster than pascal, and pascal is bloody ancient at this point), and if they were reasonably priced. To be honest i think ray tracing looks amazing in games like control, but i'd rather play minecraft without it.
as Indian we had a unforgettable place called jannat. No one see it. People are just talk about it. That place is different for different people. this is my jannat. Thank you saw me this jannat. BTW jannat is beautiful place and it is also imaginary. .
If I could get the Barebones texture pack with good and updated PBR characteristics like we see in the RTX textures I would have the perfect texture pack.
Looks beautiful, but my biggest "issue" with RTX is how it makes every surface look wet, yeah it looks great, but I keep wondering who keeps spreading vaseline all over the place.
Its the texture artists. There is a special hidden texture that is used to mark how reflective each block is, and where its reflective. Theres nothing wrong with the raytracing, its the texture artists who need to pull their shit together and stop marking every other block as soaking wet.
i like these ingame shaders, but they really don't stand up to the seus shaders with the texture pack. while it does kill fps, it is the best looking thing in minecraft, and might be for a long while.
Looks great. But you need to get the 2080ti to play at 1440p at decent framerates, and microsoft has chosen to remove the option of upgrading minecraft java to minecraft windows 10 since apr 2020. so players who are still stuck on java (like me) , cant play minecraft with RTX. Id say this RTX feature is still highly dependent on the size of your wallet, and not obtainable by the majority.
I know this is an old video, but there's a really simple texture pack fix to get rid of the ugly rectangle particles that appear in the water, making even regular shader packs look really, really good. I have forgotten where I downloaded it though...
I tried playing the quake rtx demo and was kinda underwhelmed. It was laggy and I couldn't really tell the difference. But with the familiarity of Minecraft it looked incredible at 1440p and with ray tracing. I now know why I paid 1400NZD :^|
