On 13-1-2010 20:59, nemesis wrote:
> andrel escreveu:
>> That may vary between persons. For me the most time consuming is 
>> finding the right viewpoint, testing textures and lighting. That takes 
>> more than an order of magnitude more time than the final render.
> 
> ah, yes, forgot there's no OpenGL viewport... well, those with one only 
> care for faster final renders.
> 
>>> If you think GPU = game-like graphic quality, 
>> No
>>> you're very dead wrong. 
>> So I might not be.
> 
> you say that but then you also say:
> 
>> What I think is that ATM GPU's are useful for trangulations and that 
>> the  result is near real life. As far as I have heard the rendering is 
>> less physical correct and more is faked. I though they were a bit 
>> lacking in multiple reflection and refraction, in media and possibly 
>> also in versatility of procedural textures. I am not a gamer, so I 
>> don't actually know for sure.
> 
> I show you a link for a video of a physically-based path tracer running 
> on GPU and yet you talk about limited game tech...
> 
No I didn't.

Post a reply to this message