Idk his render pipeline breakdown videos seem fairly in-depth. Is it just mumbo-jumbo? I saw some discussion where some devs seemed to acknowledge the perspective but say basically past 10 years of graphics make non-deferred render pipelines utterly unfeasible and thus MSAA, not to mention the issues that TAA “solves” like particularly fine geometry (see guitar strings in TLOUpt.2) or shimmering on stuff that can’t be optimized e.g. hair.
Frankly though I think in practice the difference between graphics in 2015 and 2025 is negligible compared to the difference between TAA (or DLAA/FSR/XeSS/FXAA/SMAA) and x4 MSAA. The only that comes even close is Path Tracing in CP2077.
I agree he seems like a sketchy af grifter, but I’ve not seen a single good rebuttal of his actual points, and even if he was a grifter, that doesn’t invalidate what he’s saying.
That Half-Life Alyx render in flatscreen with MSAA looks better than practically any game I’ve seen.
Idk his render pipeline breakdown videos seem fairly in-depth. Is it just mumbo-jumbo?
Not especially, but it’s deceivingly surface level and doesn’t (and can’t) get into why those decisions might have been made by the programmers. The big issue is that because of his lack of experience and insight into why certain decisions were made, he somehow comes to the bizarre conclusion that there is a set of rendering techniques that are either:
Being hidden from us by “them” to sell hardware
Have become lost arcane knowledge because modern renderer architectures are by and large incompetent
Frankly though I think in practice the difference between graphics in 2015 and 2025 is negligible compared to the difference between TAA (or DLAA/FSR/XeSS/FXAA/SMAA) and x4 MSAA. The only that comes even close is Path Tracing in CP2077.
“Modern rendering features are expensive and not worth it” is a reasonable take, but it’s not what he’s pushing.
I agree he seems like a sketchy af grifter, but I’ve not seen a single good rebuttal of his actual points, and even if he was a grifter, that doesn’t invalidate what he’s saying.
The examples he demonstrates in some of his videos are “not false”, at least to the extent that he does click on some buttons on unreal engines and it does behave the way he says he does. So in this way it appears to a casual viewer that his “actual points” can not be refuted. But the grift isn’t in what he shows, it’s in the massive gap between what he shows and what he says afterwards.
Idk his render pipeline breakdown videos seem fairly in-depth. Is it just mumbo-jumbo? I saw some discussion where some devs seemed to acknowledge the perspective but say basically past 10 years of graphics make non-deferred render pipelines utterly unfeasible and thus MSAA, not to mention the issues that TAA “solves” like particularly fine geometry (see guitar strings in TLOUpt.2) or shimmering on stuff that can’t be optimized e.g. hair.
Frankly though I think in practice the difference between graphics in 2015 and 2025 is negligible compared to the difference between TAA (or DLAA/FSR/XeSS/FXAA/SMAA) and x4 MSAA. The only that comes even close is Path Tracing in CP2077.
I agree he seems like a sketchy af grifter, but I’ve not seen a single good rebuttal of his actual points, and even if he was a grifter, that doesn’t invalidate what he’s saying.
That Half-Life Alyx render in flatscreen with MSAA looks better than practically any game I’ve seen.
Not especially, but it’s deceivingly surface level and doesn’t (and can’t) get into why those decisions might have been made by the programmers. The big issue is that because of his lack of experience and insight into why certain decisions were made, he somehow comes to the bizarre conclusion that there is a set of rendering techniques that are either:
“Modern rendering features are expensive and not worth it” is a reasonable take, but it’s not what he’s pushing.
The examples he demonstrates in some of his videos are “not false”, at least to the extent that he does click on some buttons on unreal engines and it does behave the way he says he does. So in this way it appears to a casual viewer that his “actual points” can not be refuted. But the grift isn’t in what he shows, it’s in the massive gap between what he shows and what he says afterwards.