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

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)
> 
> Steve

The 1000 year render is the one that renders every cell in the
human body - one by one. You can watch as a real person grows
from initial conception (tee hee) to birth of the finish form.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Margus Ramst wrote:
> 
> Well, do a simple test. Render a scene with all the effects you want,
> representing a typical frame of the game you have in mind.
> Now do some math to figure out, how many times faster your system would have
> to be to render it, say, 30fps.
> Believe me, the multiplier will be quite staggering.
> I figure a relatively simple scene with 640x480 AA, radiosity, atmosphere,
> reflections etc. would take _at least_ 10 minutes, that's 600 seconds. To
> render it 30 fps, your system would need to be... computing... 18,000 times
> faster. That's a LOT.

Considering Moores law
(computing power doubles every 18 months), then a simple
calculation tells us that computers will be that fast in
14.15 Moore-periods (log2(18000)), that being 254.5 months,
which are only 21 years.

Hold your breath.... ;-)

Of course this only applies if Moores law will last that long.
It is considered as coming to an end around 2015.....

Markus
-- 

 Ich nicht eine Sekunde!!!" H. Heinol in Val Thorens

Post a reply to this message

I think quantum computers won't be very efficient in raytracing.
Since the thing they thrive on is calculating several possibilities
at once... Oh, well, a thought strikes me: They will be able to
compute all imaginable raytraced scenes _at_once_

This would be the end of raytracing. :-(

STOP QUANTUM COMPUTING AT ONCE!!!!

Markus
-- 

 Ich nicht eine Sekunde!!!" H. Heinol in Val Thorens


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)

Post a reply to this message