WOW, that is alot.  That's much much faster than I thought it'd have to
be.  Well, we all might have to wait a few months. :-(
		Kyle


Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Well, do a simple test. Render a scene with all the effects you want,
> representing a typical frame of the game you have in mind.
> Now do some math to figure out, how many times faster your system would have
> to be to render it, say, 30fps.
> Believe me, the multiplier will be quite staggering.
> I figure a relatively simple scene with 640x480 AA, radiosity, atmosphere,
> reflections etc. would take _at least_ 10 minutes, that's 600 seconds. To
> render it 30 fps, your system would need to be... computing... 18,000 times
> faster. That's a LOT.
> 
> Margus
> 
> Kyle wrote in message <36B76321.FE8B62EB@geocities.com>...
> >Oh, I know raytracing wasn't intended for that, but if we had the
> >computing power for it to be possible, why not do it?  It'd be much more
> >realistic looking than anything else that I can imagine.  I was just
> >wondering how much computing power that would be.
> > For Effects, I'd say... Antialiasing .3 and Atmosphere,Radiosity,media
> >= yes
> >Anyone have a clue?
> > Kyle
> >

Post a reply to this message