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] pacbellnet

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

Ken wrote:
> 
> 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] pacbellnet

Hee hee!
But isn't that actually a passage to another (liquid) universum?
That'd be neat, especially with media.

Remco

Post a reply to this message

What I've read points at the fact that a biological computer would
increase its efficiency by each "generation" and thus, in a short range
thing(addition, and so on) would loose, but in a longer term equation
would gain on the quantum computer. (count all decimals to pi, the
gemoetrical sum of 1 to sqrt(-1) and so on... (yes, I know that neither
of them are possible, but, whatta heck :-) )

//Spider

Stephen Lavedas wrote:
> 
> 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

I think very simple quantum computers have been made.  With only a few
'bits'.  Maybe I'm mistaken but I remember reading about them in
Scientific American.

Spider wrote:
> 
> What I've read points at the fact that a biological computer would
> increase its efficiency by each "generation" and thus, in a short range
> thing(addition, and so on) would loose, but in a longer term equation
> would gain on the quantum computer. (count all decimals to pi, the
> gemoetrical sum of 1 to sqrt(-1) and so on... (yes, I know that neither
> of them are possible, but, whatta heck :-) )
> 
> //Spider
> 
> Stephen Lavedas wrote:
> >
> > 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

On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:01:35 -0500, Stephen Lavedas
<swl### [at] virginiaedu> 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

Don't you all guys think that by the time quantum computers and so are
available POV-Ray 9.3j will also be available (free!) with things like
true (integral) volumetrics, variable iors, backwards photon tracing,
true causics, trun diffuse interreflection,  wave behaviour,
wavelength-dependent scattering, diffraction, interference, true
dispersion, troposhperic refraction, hydrometeoric scattering, Doppler
effect, Einstein red deviation, photoelectric effect, luminance, heat
colors etc. The list goes on. Even if such machines are available in
three months, I can imagine Chris Young rubbing his hands with a big
smile on his face, and a post in povray.general like "With CPU
preformance so greatly increased since 3.1a we can at last include
some year-old ideas that have already been developed and coded but
proved inadequately slow for the public 3.1 release. Expect a quick
3.14159265 release featuring..." and the list I just mentioned.

Just daydreaming...

Peter

Post a reply to this message

They've created some gates...not computers, but I believe the NOT
operation, and I think they were close to both AND and OR when I last
checked (could have gotten them by now) So it is only a matter of
time... Every indication is that there is no physical or theoretical
barrier to quantum computers, it will just take time.  I GUESS I can
wait.

Steve


portelli wrote:
> 
> I think very simple quantum computers have been made.  With only a few
> 'bits'.  Maybe I'm mistaken but I remember reading about them in
> Scientific American.
> 
> Spider wrote:
> >
> > What I've read points at the fact that a biological computer would
> > increase its efficiency by each "generation" and thus, in a short range
> > thing(addition, and so on) would loose, but in a longer term equation
> > would gain on the quantum computer. (count all decimals to pi, the
> > gemoetrical sum of 1 to sqrt(-1) and so on... (yes, I know that neither
> > of them are possible, but, whatta heck :-) )
> >
> > //Spider
> >
> > Stephen Lavedas wrote:
> > >
> > > 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

hehehe I hope... but Quantum computers are such a GIANT leap forward,
that I don't think we can conceive of a rendering application that would
take long enough to bother one...Current computers would take 1000's of
years to crack RSA encryption...With quantum computers cracking it in
under and hour (I remember 20 minutes vaguely, and someone else posted
11 seconds) the jump is incredible... Have you ever started a 1000 year
render?  I don't think so... (except maybe that one Spider sent... it
never did finish the bounding boxes on my computer)

Steve

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:01:35 -0500, Stephen Lavedas
> <swl### [at] virginiaedu> 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
> 
> Don't you all guys think that by the time quantum computers and so are
> available POV-Ray 9.3j will also be available (free!) with things like
> true (integral) volumetrics, variable iors, backwards photon tracing,
> true causics, trun diffuse interreflection,  wave behaviour,
> wavelength-dependent scattering, diffraction, interference, true
> dispersion, troposhperic refraction, hydrometeoric scattering, Doppler
> effect, Einstein red deviation, photoelectric effect, luminance, heat
> colors etc. The list goes on. Even if such machines are available in
> three months, I can imagine Chris Young rubbing his hands with a big
> smile on his face, and a post in povray.general like "With CPU
> preformance so greatly increased since 3.1a we can at last include
> some year-old ideas that have already been developed and coded but
> proved inadequately slow for the public 3.1 release. Expect a quick
> 3.14159265 release featuring..." and the list I just mentioned.
> 
> Just daydreaming...
> 
> Peter

Post a reply to this message

Stephen Lavedas wrote:
> 
> hehehe I hope... but Quantum computers are such a GIANT leap forward,
> that I don't think we can conceive of a rendering application that would
> take long enough to bother one...Current computers would take 1000's of
> years to crack RSA encryption...With quantum computers cracking it in
> under and hour (I remember 20 minutes vaguely, and someone else posted
> 11 seconds) the jump is incredible... Have you ever started a 1000 year
> render?  I don't think so... (except maybe that one Spider sent... it
> never did finish the bounding boxes on my computer)
hey, wich one was that ??? (bad memory... Remind me)

//Spider

Post a reply to this message