If it is realism you want you could consider stepping outside ;-)
Oh, and please forget to take the gun.

In fact I don't think it is realism you're after, because if it were what would
happen if you went on shooting everything in the vicinity (to quote an average
game)? Not to mention the enormous complexity of the algorithms that are use to
calculate the splatter and blood. Somewhere up there someone must have one
laaaarge computer (bet it's not Intel inside).

Remco

Kyle wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> Margus Ramst wrote:
> >
> > Depends on the effects you'd use. Antialiasing? Atmosphere? Halos?
> > Radiosity? Recommended system: 500GHz Mercred V, 100 GB holographic memory
> > etc... Oh, and a fast bus, too.
> > But seriously, raytracing was never intended for such an application. Other
> > methods give results much more suitable for games. And anyway, why
> > speculate? Just wait and see.
> >
> > Margus
> >
> > Kyle wrote in message <36B754E9.5C926C7D@geocities.com>...
> > >I was just wondering.....what would it be like to have a realtime,
> > >doom-style game with a POVray based rendering engine....?  Obviously,
> > >this wouldn't be very possible (speed-wise) on today's machines, but at
> > >the rate technology is advancing.....
> > > How fast do you think computers would have to be in order to run a game
> > >like this at reasonable speed...say 15-20 fps?  Would it even be
> > >possible?
> > > Kyle

Post a reply to this message