Come to think of it Metro Exodus also omitted smaller dynamic light sources from global illumination RTX until the DLC so it might be similar here for I would presume performance reasons but that could just have been something for that game specifically and a earlier GI attempt.
(EDIT: DLC and the updates accompanying these also didn’t backport this graphical improvement to the main game from what I remember.)
It’s just broken.
PBR materials do not become worse with RT GI, the exact opposite.
Metro Exodus had a near identical implementation for RTGI, and there it solved all issues with characters and other objects looking incorrectly lit or glowy, in shaded and indirectly lit areas.
I will send them a bug report after I gather more examples.
1 Like
Probably the best explanation for it, there’s still a lot of little glitches and bugs to be deal with over the next major update and beyond both gamepaly and the engine itself and the render or what not.
Going to be interesting to see the changelog for this 1.1 update when it’s out and how much they’ve fixed just by that point.
My HDR SK screenshots in 2077 started coming out as blank black images. What could be the issue?
Lowering the midpoint that much messes up the HDR, you’re essentially turning it into SDR. I tried a value of 1 and it almost completely neutered peak brightness.
That will happen if you have SK’s HDR enabled. It can currently only capture things when grabbing unmodified HDR.
Oof, last time i saw a game pulled from a store was Arkham Knight on PC, but for slightly different reasons.
Seeing as the neon lights in the game (the only aspects that stay true to the peak brightness you’ve set) are white instead of a colour you can just raise the max brightness higher to a point where you like it
I’ve settled on 1350nits HGIG, 1 tonemap and reshade curved levels and the game looks absolutely fantastic
HGIG isn’t supported by the game. If you want it to work you have to go through SK HDR.
@aemony has anyone been able to confirm this fix works? Outside of seemingly gullible reddit users. I’ve noticed it’s listed in the PCGW which is why i’m asking you
I just tested for myself, did absolutely nothing for my performance or load times. I then tested with the values set to 1mb, made absolutely no difference. My result suggested the game doesn’t even care about the file. I then tested with the file removed just to be sure. The game didn’t care, and didn’t even bother to recreate the file 
I’d make a post but i’m banned from doing so on the subreddit.
The only conclusion that i can draw is that users really wanted to believe there was something as simple as editing a few parameters to magically improve performance.
Made a post on the Nvidia sub, but don’t expect it to pick up over there. If anyone has a reddit account and is okay with doing so, please crosspost this to r/pcgaming
Edit: Nvm Nvidia mods removed my post for some reason. But claiming improved performance with that fix is okay on that subreddit
Could be read-only same as a few cvars for Unreal Engine so the default value is set and you can’t easily override it.
Someone would have to find the value in memory see what it’s set at to confirm that or use the console commands if the scripts are enough to set parameters in this way once unlocked.
EDIT: The default is also pretty big anyway though if lower values (128MB for example.) don’t change things up too much then yeah it might be read-only set.
I tend to use a pool / cache size of 2048 (“2 GB”) with SpecialK and it’s texture option for example.
512 MB as some games have (Divinity Original Sin and sequel.) might be a tad low but 1024 to 2048 should cover for a lot of data and above that it’s just extra that won’t be too beneficial unless some large texture pack is available ala Monster Hunter World but even then it’s coverable and the VRAM’s going to be handling other stuff too.
From how I would read these values at least and how it might work.
EDIT: Or leakage if any, could be handy for keeping data cached using larger values although also risk running low on overall memory availability after some time.
Based on the comments i did get, the users claim no improved performance in their case either, but say that doesn’t mean others aren’t experiencing such a thing.
I have to wonder if there’s just a clear divide between those who can tell there’s no difference to their performance, and those who want to believe in improved performance because placebo. The former just not questioning the latter because there’s so many of them. I’ve not seen any data to prove there’s any difference made to the game with this supposed fix. I’d love for Gamersnexus or someone notable to actually test on multiple systems.
Yep, testing conditions would also need to be over a period of time in a more repeatable stable condition so you don’t get differences due to game changes like additional NPC or what not.
I would imagine some of the reports could be due to that as well.
EDIT: Basically more than just the maximum FPS number and over a period of time seeing if it really does anything or not or just the game being a bit variable itself. 
EDIT: And let’s see what else is going on, oh that’s what happened with DOOM Eternal lately, they’re going all out with the outfits.
Well Ancient Gods part 2 should be happening too at some point.
Yeah that too. I’ve been running around a ton, with different settings set and getting a good feel for my average performance over the course of hours. I think a lot of these users just drop back into their game, see like a 2 frame jump for a moment and believe it’s the “fix” doing the job, get prematurely excited and rush over to reddit to further these claims.
I’ve relegated it to placebo territory entirely since claims are all over the place.
Even on that Nvidia subreddit post a random 3090 user claims it made their GPU usage go from 50 to 100%. I’m sorry, it did what now? That claim, at its core suggests that 3090s showcased in every single benchmarking test would be underutilized by 50%. I’m sorry, I call bullshit.
Edit: And if it’s a pure “GPU usage” increase without an actual performance impact, then great, the guy now did the game less optimized and it’s wasting resources on nothing of importance nor with any actual benefit. In that case the guy would literally be upholding an unoptimization tweak as a winning solution on a undefined issue.
Hmm do you think it’s worth me just pasting my original post in the cyberpunk sub?
I don’t care to incite drama, but i also want clarity over the whole thing. I do say this at the end of my post, i’m willing to accept being proven wrong
This find has been taken seriously as a way to improve performance, and i don’t get it. If i’m doing something wrong, please tell me. I’ve tested with the file set to read-only, and the game set to run as administrator. If i am right and this file does absolutely nothing for the game, then i hope we can have clarity over this claim of improved performance.
My post was picking up as well. There are users who believe there’s no difference to be found.
OP who found the fix also said their 1080 ti suddenly managed 1440p locked 60 at the high preset (without AO). Yeah, no, that seems impossible. At least state if you’re using the resolution scale option.
Just ignore it and move on. Only reason it’s still listed on PCGW is because nobody have bothered to prune that article nor demand actual reliable proof of its effectiveness.
Why would you post that in r/nvidia? I know so little about Reddit, but I’m fairly certain something called r/nvidia is for nvidia related things? Or is Reddit just a disorganized chaos of vaguely related things?
That ■■■■■■■ file had a random 1060 Ti user claim they were able to play at 1080p Ultra at 60 FPS, just as an example of the stark placebo we’re talking about.
Like, wat? My 1080 Ti jus barely manages a stable 60 FPS (with drops below it) on DF’s optimized settings at 1080p, and here someone is claiming a GPU with like 30-50% less horse power (or whatever it has) is able of the same?