Alan Wake 2

7900 XTX should be similar to 3090 RT performance in this game, according to Techpowerup.

Also, AMD has Fluid Motion Frames in their preview drivers. So, they have a framegen option for this game. Its an Nvidia sponsored game, so it makes sense it doesn't have all of the AMD features built in. But, hopefully they add FSR3 frame gen as an official feature. And also do some work to improve FSR specifically for the game. It turns out, FSR doesn't have to be a general effect library. It can be customized, to great results.
 
Last edited:
Dion said:
idk man RTX lighting looks quite a bit better..

View attachment 609331 View attachment 609332
Click to expand...
IMO, this particular shot is splitting hairs. While neither looks perfect; Real shadows aren't sharply defined, etc.

For this game in particular, I think the most meaningful RT effect, are the reflections and some of the indirect lighting. However, I'm not sure you can turn only those on, with the current graphics settings. Maybe an .ini config option would do it?

The RT Ambient Occlusion can be pretty nice. But, there are also lots of spots where its only a teensy bit better than the shader based AO. If the options were granular enough, I would probably turn that off and only run RT reflections and lighting.

As far as DLSS Vs. FSR in this game: With Ray Reconstruction turned on, think its a wash. FSR can be noisy on some things and have a bit of breakup. The AA isn't as good.
DLSS squashes out the Rain effects, as usual. and it looks like it diminishes the film grain. Also with Ray Reconstruction turned on, there is added ghosting and motion trails with DLSS.
 
chameleoneel said:
Real shadows aren't sharply defined, etc.
Click to expand...
Depend on how far the shadow is from the object, light source, I wonder if our brain has not been affected by year of movie with artificial light and video game imagery for what to expect when looking at screens.

Like would we find game shadow like those unrealistic, too precise, should that last one exact details of the rope that turn on itself so clearly seen on its shadow or should it be not more softer like the tree leaf that are father away, I could not have tell before seeing the picture:
Right-Dock-for-Your-Waterfront-Property-4-Tips-min.jpg
Docks_flooring.jpg
IMG_0848_1.jpg

Often when I look at RT vs non RT I am not certain which is more realistic (does reflection on cars or water on road from that angle that perfect of a mirror), I feel like it is too much and want I search for real world equivalent, often, well maybe not. real shadow close to the object casting them from a far away perfect parallel single light source like the sun can be quite sharp.

And those 3 picture has water, look completely different and just changing the angle of the camera I imagine would change it again.

One thing were the RT seem superior and add to the scene would be the in between the plank shadow, better water and I feel the sharper shadows are much closer to what the real world would look like, but like always more realistic never necessarily mean better looking.
 
Dion said:
This game does not use RTX reflections.
Click to expand...
Why do the reflection look so different with RT on than with RT off (SSR reflections) ?

DLSS-3.5-Off-6-Custom.png
RT-Off-6-Custom.png


nvidia marketing:
- Alan Wake 2’s fully ray-traced, path-traced visuals take the game’s ray-traced lighting, reflections and shadows to the next level,
  • “DLSS Ray Reconstruction greatly enhances the quality of RT effects, producing improved details in RT reflections across all resolutions, especially in motion” – Techpowerup
  • In Alan Wake 2, full ray tracing cranks the quality of ray-traced effects to 11. Transparent and opaque reflections recreate their surroundings at full resolution, heightening immersion.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/alan-wake-2-dlss-3-5-full-ray-tracing-out-this-week/

Is it a special marketing name that is not involved here ? I would not use the absence of being able to turn it on-off if RT is on to not being used.
 
I guess we will see what the little RX6600 can do with the new driver, wish me luck lmao, 30fps is doable.
 
GoldenTiger said:
You can at what, 45fps in the forest missing tons of graphical raytracing and path tracing goodies.
Click to expand...
Digital Foundary, above video said when RT is off it uses software ray tracing??? Don't know about that. Game looks awesome without raytracing, if one has the hardware and can get performance, then course use RT. Mesh shaders with some of the most detailed objects I've seen in a game, everywhere, top notch global illumination, awesome HDR and fluid frame rates makes this an eye popper. Game of the Year potential from what I've seen. Game is also rather fun, at least it has that going for it :D. I would have to check what it is in the forest again without FSR.
 
LukeTbk said:
Why do the reflection look so different with RT on than with RT off (SSR reflections) ?

View attachment 609341View attachment 609342

nvidia marketing:
- Alan Wake 2’s fully ray-traced, path-traced visuals take the game’s ray-traced lighting, reflections and shadows to the next level,
  • “DLSS Ray Reconstruction greatly enhances the quality of RT effects, producing improved details in RT reflections across all resolutions, especially in motion” – Techpowerup
  • In Alan Wake 2, full ray tracing cranks the quality of ray-traced effects to 11. Transparent and opaque reflections recreate their surroundings at full resolution, heightening immersion.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/alan-wake-2-dlss-3-5-full-ray-tracing-out-this-week/

Is it a special marketing name that is not involved here ? I would not use the absence of being able to turn it on-off if RT is on to not being used.
Click to expand...
I would think so, if you angle down the reflections go away, as in if not in screen space there is none for this area. Now the RT ones look too bright while the non-RT ones look more natural to me. RT shadows are also hard and less soft, which is better or more realistic??? I've come to the conclusion it may look different but being different may not mean its better.
 
So for those that have played both, latest version of Cyberpunk vs Alan Wake 2 - which one is more graphically impressive when maxed out?
 
Looks like I am not able to max on my 4070 ti at 3840x1600. I guess I would need the 4090 for that...
Only 50-60+ fps at 2560x1067, but playable enough at max settings.
 
Alright.. Dling now.. I got a note The Evil Within 2 and Tendem are free on epic until Nov 2nd too.
 
imsirovic5 said:
So for those that have played both, latest version of Cyberpunk vs Alan Wake 2 - which one is more graphically impressive when maxed out?
Click to expand...
Although CP2077 graphics has lots of checkboxes, visually the game is mixed bag really, IMO. AW2 visual fidelity is better and technically superior in every way.
 
12700KF here and DDR4 with a 4090, getting 100fps in the forest, 120fps+ outside of the forest. 3440x1440.

Since both games use path tracing, I've noticed that Cyberpuk's PT is more true to life than Alan Wake 2.

Here's a prime example, open a door and watch as RTGI/PTGI does nothing to change the bounce illumination of the new light coming in from outside, whereas in Cyberpunk the lighting accurately changes in the room when the door is open/closed.

AW2:

View: https://i.imgur.com/XIZxzf9.mp4

Cyberpunk:

View: https://i.imgur.com/0tn8D6E.mp4

You can also stand in the middle of a doorway where one side is sunshine outside and see your shadow cast on the other side from your feet, you cannot see the shadow cast in AW2 doing the exact same thing, you would expect to see this since it's path traced and using PTGI?

Also, the torch has no effect when shining into a dark room when outside, it only becomes visible when you walk inside and the exposure changes:

View: https://i.imgur.com/VYVl43Z.mp4

Given that it's path tracing here, AND Alan Wake 2 uses MORE bounces than in Cyberpunk, you would expect the opposite to be more true, but this is not the case.

And yes, my AW2 is set to custom GFX settings to max out everything as the High preset does not do this by default.

And also because all vehicles are basically static, even those aren't as highly detailed as Cyberpunk, where you can literally drive any vehicle, yet the detail is so high that you can see the working suspension and engine components if you move the camera low to the ground etc.

So whilst the lighting and particle effects in AW2 look superb, the actual technical detail is more advanced and dynamic in Cyberpunk. Also NPC faces and bodies in AW2 are not as detailed as in Cyberpunk either.
 
robbiekhan said:
12700KF here and DDR4 with a 4090, getting 100fps in the forest, 120fps+ outside of the forest. 3440x1440.

Since both games use path tracing, I've noticed that Cyberpuk's PT is more true to life than Alan Wake 2.

Here's a prime example, open a door and watch as RTGI/PTGI does nothing to change the bounce illumination of the new light coming in from outside, whereas in Cyberpunk the lighting accurately changes in the room when the door is open/closed.

AW2:

View: https://i.imgur.com/XIZxzf9.mp4

Cyberpunk:

View: https://i.imgur.com/0tn8D6E.mp4

You can also stand in the middle of a doorway where one side is sunshine outside and see your shadow cast on the other side from your feet, you cannot see the shadow cast in AW2 doing the exact same thing, you would expect to see this since it's path traced and using PTGI?

Also, the torch has no effect when shining into a dark room when outside, it only becomes visible when you walk inside and the exposure changes:

View: https://i.imgur.com/VYVl43Z.mp4

Given that it's path tracing here, AND Alan Wake 2 uses MORE bounces than in Cyberpunk, you would expect the opposite to be more true, but this is not the case.

And yes, my AW2 is set to custom GFX settings to max out everything as the High preset does not do this by default.

And also because all vehicles are basically static, even those aren't as highly detailed as Cyberpunk, where you can literally drive any vehicle, yet the detail is so high that you can see the working suspension and engine components if you move the camera low to the ground etc.

So whilst the lighting and particle effects in AW2 look superb, the actual technical detail is more advanced and dynamic in Cyberpunk. Also NPC faces and bodies in AW2 are not as detailed as in Cyberpunk either.
Click to expand...

It's because the core lighting in AW2 is baked. The Global Illumination is mainly for bloom and transferring the color of nearby objects.
And then there are some hand placed lights which are ray traced, depending upon the location. Like Inside the diner, the outside sunlight changes from baked to PT'd.
 
That defeats the objective of path tracing though, the whole point of path tracing is that /everything/ in the scene is path traced. At least that's what Nvidia/CDPR coined when the update came out for 2077 and it seems that is exactly the case in 2077 too.
 
With everything cranked sans film grain and motion blur it feels smoother and looks great on a 4k 42” at 1440p w/ quality dlss … vs 4k dlaa… I prefer the 1440p quality dlss path etc. Game looks amazing. Feels good too.
 
robbiekhan said:
That defeats the objective of path tracing though, the whole point of path tracing is that /everything/ in the scene is path traced. At least that's what Nvidia/CDPR coined when the update came out for 2077 and it seems that is exactly the case in 2077 too.
Click to expand...
I don't think core lighting in AW2 is baked. After all, even in RT 'off' mode, the game uses RT in software mode. And in CP2077, SSR is still used/baked even in Overdrive (PT) mode.
 
robbiekhan said:
the whole point of path tracing is that /everything/ in the scene is path traced. At least that's what Nvidia/CDPR coined when the update came out for 2077 and it seems that is exactly the case in 2077 too.
Click to expand...

Things still need to be in the acceleration structure though for the sake of tracing against it. It is odd that your character doesn't seem to cast any shadow in that video either. The cord seems to be missing shadow too.

Maybe a bug? Optimization gone awry?
 
dub77nj said:
Is the game any good?
Click to expand...
Great game, atmospheric with Remedy typical twists and turns. Visually stunning even without any RT settings turned on. Only frustrating part is climbing over trees, up rocks, not really obstructions is very limited, invisible barriers everywhere. No problems running it at 4K on 7900 XTX without RT.
 
The game uses Alan Wake 2 uses Remedy's Northlight engine. Wonder if previous games used the same engine seems like there tons of detail compared to control.
 
This game is pretty amazing. Tons of references to Control of course, but also Max Payne. Remedy really knocked this one out of the park.

And also - Only $50 at launch for something they could have easily sold for $60.
 
RT is pretty much a no go on a 3080 10gb, at least any meaningful RT. Game runs fine with high settings, no RT and DLAA (55-75fps with probably 60 average in the forest area and 70 in the town). Low RT wasn't worth it as the differences were small to moderate and was offset by having to use DLSS vs DLAA. Running medium RT gave significant improvements to the lighting but the framerate just tanks and little difference between DLSS performance and DLSS quality in framerate. My guess is that you will need a 4070ti or maybe even 4080 to get meaningful RT if you want something around 60 FPS wtih DLSS quality at 1440P.

This game does push the GPU though as it is one of the few games that will bring my 3080 above 50 degrees C and with factory clocks the GPU stays between 1890 and 1980 clock speed and most of the time between 1920 to 1965. I can get 5 degrees lower temp if I turn up the fans a bit, but want to stay well below 30Ddba on noise.

Only had time to play a little bit, but the game seems interesting so far. Hopefully it will have more variety than the first game.
 
I only had enough time last night to download and look at the options menu.
I'm actually really excited to see how sharp some of the lower resolutions can get.
1440 or 4k? That would be nice but 640x382 stretched across a 1440p monitor is just too silly to pass up.
 
Game runs fine for me. Didn’t look over fps but was smooth as butter.

On to chapter 2. All the post processing bs needs to go. Will try to use the ini tweaks.
 
evhvis said:
RT is pretty much a no go on a 3080 10gb, at least any meaningful RT. Game runs fine with high settings, no RT and DLAA (55-75fps with probably 60 average in the forest area and 70 in the town). Low RT wasn't worth it as the differences were small to moderate and was offset by having to use DLSS vs DLAA. Running medium RT gave significant improvements to the lighting but the framerate just tanks and little difference between DLSS performance and DLSS quality in framerate. My guess is that you will need a 4070ti or maybe even 4080 to get meaningful RT if you want something around 60 FPS wtih DLSS quality at 1440P.

This game does push the GPU though as it is one of the few games that will bring my 3080 above 50 degrees C and with factory clocks the GPU stays between 1890 and 1980 clock speed and most of the time between 1920 to 1965. I can get 5 degrees lower temp if I turn up the fans a bit, but want to stay well below 30Ddba on noise.

Only had time to play a little bit, but the game seems interesting so far. Hopefully it will have more variety than the first game.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's disappointing that my 3080 is already outdated for this game. Guess I might just wait until this time next year when the game is fully patched up and I can get a 5080 to play it with everything on!
 
Tactlesss said:
I only had enough time last night to download and look at the options menu.
I'm actually really excited to see how sharp some of the lower resolutions can get.
1440 or 4k? That would be nice but 640x382 stretched across a 1440p monitor is just too silly to pass up.
Click to expand...
sarcasm?...I hope. but yeah nothing more exciting than running these new games in glorious 540pleb res:rolleyes:
 
piratepress said:
Yeah, it's disappointing that my 3080 is already outdated for this game. Guess I might just wait until this time next year when the game is fully patched up and I can get a 5080 to play it with everything on!
Click to expand...
The 3080 is a 3 year old card and runs the game fine when skipping ray tracing. Granted this game on medium RT or higher is a showcase for RT, but it still looks quite good without the RT. It runs fine native at high @1440p if you can stand having occasional dips into the high 40s and low 50s or DLSS quality for 1440p and DLSS performance for 4k if you need stable 60+ fps. The issue is more for those on say a 2070, 2060, 3060 etc. as the graphics settings do not scale that well.
 
evhvis said:
The 3080 is a 3 year old card and runs the game fine when skipping ray tracing. Granted this game on medium RT or higher is a showcase for RT, but it still looks quite good without the RT. It runs fine native at high @1440p if you can stand having occasional dips into the high 40s and low 50s or DLSS quality for 1440p and DLSS performance for 4k if you need stable 60+ fps. The issue is more for those on say a 2070, 2060, 3060 etc. as the graphics settings do not scale that well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, complaining that a 3 year old card can't run this game with the latest RT/PT is kind of crazy.

Also, it's pretty obvious they pushed this game to be a RTX 40 series type of title. It's exactly tuned to use each card at the appropriate resolution.
 
Mchart said:
Yeah, complaining that a 3 year old card can't run this game with the latest RT/PT is kind of crazy.

Also, it's pretty obvious they pushed this game to be a RTX 40 series type of title. It's exactly tuned to use each card at the appropriate resolution.
Click to expand...
I’m kind of weirded out by some of these comments… which I might have expected at the Steam forums, but not here.

PC Gaming has always pushed the technological envelope, requiring us to upgrade our hardware in order to see what the future looks like today.

Do you people not know about Origin?

Right away, you’re either thinking about Electronic Arts or Richard Garriott.
 
Hershy said:
I’m kind of weirded out by some of these comments… which I might have expected at the Steam forums, but not here.

PC Gaming has always pushed the technological envelope, requiring us to upgrade our hardware in order to see what the future looks like today.

Do you people not know about Origin?

Right away, you’re either thinking about Electronic Arts or Richard Garriott.
Click to expand...
I'm under no illusions about my 3080.
The thing is that some of us are on different upgrade tracks.
 
Hershy said:
I’m kind of weirded out by some of these comments… which I might have expected at the Steam forums, but not here.

PC Gaming has always pushed the technological envelope, requiring us to upgrade our hardware in order to see what the future looks like today.

Do you people not know about Origin?

Right away, you’re either thinking about Electronic Arts or Richard Garriott.
Click to expand...
Crysis walked that path long ago and showed us Nvidia's true colors, the game has bugs like the video I posted with the RX 6600, When the FBI guy gets out of the car with coffee cup in hand, it is seen on the ground following him just like Starfield, with objects from the planet following people around in space.

I have run the game on a different AM5 / 7600x / RX 6700 10Gb setup with DF settings for the PS5, and AMD driver says 57.4 fps avg for 31mins of gameplay, being the closest gpu to a PS5 then I would say DF is right on the money with the settings!
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
Every game launch SHADOWS resetting from HIGH to MEDIUM. Must change it everytime. Anyone with the same ? : ) Thx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top