>> I thought ambient occlusion (as opposed to other GI algorithms) was 
>> specifically suited to GPU implementation?
> 
> There's a variety of ways to implement AO, it just so happens someone 
> developed a clever way to approximate AO very quickly on the GPU. 
> Raytracers typically use a different method to compute AO that is not 
> possible (or would be very slow/tricky) on GPUs.

I thought the entire definition of AO is that it's a rough approximation 
to true GI that's useful because it renders really fast?

>> Anyway, I just thought if you weren't using ray tracing, it ought to 
>> be possibly to run on the GPU. I guess not...
> 
> If you're not using any features of the ray tracer then isn't what you 
> see in the edit view good enough?

As far as I know, I'm not using any ray tracer features, and yet the 
final render looks different than the edit window. (If only by being 
more grainy...)

>> (What's the point of a ray tracer in a product that only renders 
>> triangles?)
> 
> Ermm, physically correct multi-level reflections and refractions, more 
> accurate GI, better AA, more accurate shadows, basically all the 
> benefits of a raytracer rendering shapes other than triangles.

Well, I suppose. (I idea why AA would be better...) I guess I usually 
think of the main advantage of ray-tracing as being the ability to 
render things that aren't triangles. But sure, reflection, refraction 
and shadows are other big advantages...

Post a reply to this message