 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
POVraytraced images are overkill for actionbased games, I guess. You'd only
notice in the screenshots. Realism is one thing FX is another. That's what you
want in action-games and -movies and such.
My 2p
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Memory would not be a big factor I think. You would need a math
processor or some other specialized piece of hardware, like 3d boards
today. Something maybe like a quantum computer.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> POVraytraced images are overkill for actionbased games, I guess. You'd only
> notice in the screenshots. Realism is one thing FX is another. That's what you
> want in action-games and -movies and such.
> My 2p
>
This is exactly what John C. (hallowed be his name) states in his .plan
files, and therefore has abandoned the 1st player single games that only
are played three times(Novice -> getting used to it; hard -> making it;
hard->finding the secrets)
Soo, back for the multiplayer, where the art will be viewed several
times, and he can do the thing he does best. A great game that people
will play _many_ times, and therefore get their value back, in time
wasted ;-)
//Spider
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Actually, you're right... the leap to quantum computers in the distant
but forseeable future should actually make Raytracing a nearly realtime
even. (They should be able to easily break current encryption
standards) I am personally extrememly excited about this avenue of
advancement.
Steve
portelli wrote:
>
> Memory would not be a big factor I think. You would need a math
> processor or some other specialized piece of hardware, like 3d boards
> today. Something maybe like a quantum computer.
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The leap to a biological, quad computer will be far better at destroying
encryptions, but too slow for games.
just a note.
//Spider
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm not at all sure that is true... since each op on a biological
computer takes so much longer, I believe the numbers I've heard are that
quantum computers should be able to break 128bit encryption in 20
minutes or so... If I recall, DNA computers require like an hour for a
basic math operation, so while the difference may be insignificant, at
least gaming on a Quantum computer will rock.
Steve
Spider wrote:
>
> The leap to a biological, quad computer will be far better at destroying
> encryptions, but too slow for games.
>
> just a note.
>
> //Spider
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
portelli wrote:
>
> Memory would not be a big factor I think. You would need a math
> processor or some other specialized piece of hardware, like 3d boards
> today. Something maybe like a quantum computer.
>
Yeah! Yeah! Drool! Drool!
A quantum computer!
(...and then after hours, no, days (seven or so) of intensive coding you start
the realtime renderer and with a Big Bang you step into your newly created
universe...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> portelli wrote:
> >
> > Memory would not be a big factor I think. You would need a math
> > processor or some other specialized piece of hardware, like 3d boards
> > today. Something maybe like a quantum computer.
> >
> Yeah! Yeah! Drool! Drool!
> A quantum computer!
>
> (...and then after hours, no, days (seven or so) of intensive coding you start
> the realtime renderer and with a Big Bang you step into your newly created
> universe...)
Only to have it collapse from a quantum singularity... fizzle
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbell net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ya a simple quantum computer today could crack the best encryption in
about 11 seconds
Stephen Lavedas wrote:
>
> Actually, you're right... the leap to quantum computers in the distant
> but forseeable future should actually make Raytracing a nearly realtime
> even. (They should be able to easily break current encryption
> standards) I am personally extrememly excited about this avenue of
> advancement.
>
> Steve
>
> portelli wrote:
> >
> > Memory would not be a big factor I think. You would need a math
> > processor or some other specialized piece of hardware, like 3d boards
> > today. Something maybe like a quantum computer.
> >
> > 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
