andrel escreveu:
> On 14-1-2010 2:16, nemesis wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> So, point me to where I talked exclusively about game tech.
>>
>> "less physical correct", "lacking reflection and refraction", "lacking 
>> media" and "lacking procedural textures" are all indeed game tech 
>> limitations (for now) 
> 
> Probably, yet going from that to the converse is a logical fallacy.
> 
>> that don't show up at all in the "physically correct" path tracer 
>> running on GPU I linked to.
> 
> How do you know?

I know because the code is available and it implements a 
general-purpose, though limited, version of a physically-based path 
tracer on the GPU.  No scanline trickery, just general-purpose 
raytracing tapping that awesome hidden power sitting idle on your PC 
right now.

> To be even more pedantic: it is the people that write software who claim 
> things.

You can look at the code if you have any such understanding.  If you 
don't understand, you can also simply look at the video and marvel at 
the physically correct reflections, caustics, soft shadows, diffuse 
interreflections etc.

>> I thought by physically correct you were talking about materials or 
>> light propagation behavior, not every model being made of from polygons.
> 
> No I made both statements: they are less physical correct and don't 
> support all primitives of POV. Until both problems are solved it is not 
> sensible to try to port POV to a GPU.

A path tracer sports physically correct rendering, with full light 
transport phenomena and material settings according to physics equation. 
  If that can run on GPU, a simple raytracer with artistic parameters 
can too.

> Why? I mean why a GPU especially? There is a lot going on and I don't 
> see a reason to single out GPUs. I want my ray tracer to run as facst as 
> possible, I don't really care on what hardware it is implemented, as 
> long as it is affordable.

Because a GPU is damned fast for math calculations and if you're not a 
gamer (only such application for it now) you don't use all that awesome 
power at all despite being available in every PC.

>> I'm not talking about games at all. 
> 
> Good, me neither.

Then I think you just don't understand the matter.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message