Okay thats a very fair response, so i will try to provide as much data as possible.
But first, we need to be on the same page on what we are discussing here.
This thread is about Nanite Performance. But in your response you shifted very much towards TAA and Lumen. So let’s do a quick detour there.
Lumen is absolutely not production ready as it is geared towards 60 FPS performance. That is not even close to enough FPS imo. We disabled lumen because we could not get it to work within our 90FPS Budget.
Lumens main selling point is, that it does not require Raytracing Hardware to achieve photorealistic lighting. But at the same time it takes so much performance, that old hardware can barely run it.
As you can see in the Steam Hardware Charts, most users nowadays have a RTX Graphics card, as these become affordable. The RTX 3050 sits at around 200$ right now. You can also see if you sort by “changed since last month”, that the number of users with a RTX card is increasing rapidly.
So as a developer, creating a game in the next 2 years, i would just go for hardware raytracing.
Now for TAA. In our case it was actually a design choice. We liked the smooth look it created. It gave the environment a “dreamy” look.
Also, our game being a VR game we barely had any movement, so the temporal effects were not visible.
The point of TAA, or AA in general, is to smooth jaggered edges. If you use any kind of upscaler (which i would recommend anyway, free performance) you don’t need AA, because edges will be smoothed in the upscaled image. So in our case it was totally unnecessary.
Upscalers also have the advantage that they increase Nanite performance drastically, as nanite scales with screen resolution.
Rendering an image in 2k (Native VR), nanite takes around 2.5ms for culling and rasterization. For us it only took 1.8ms because we upscaled from 75%.
If you want, you can give your take on upscalers, would be interested in a good discussion there.
But IMO TAA, or any AA is unnecessary because of upscaling.