|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |