 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
nemesis schrieb:
> Completely mindblowing, specially the later scenes! o_O That's why V-Ray is top
> today, without even resorting to unbiased algorithms.
Sure it's unbiased? Looks like a monte-carlo approach to me.
>
> I can also see real-time raytracing in nextgen game engines sooner than
> expected.
Yup. Though gamers will need to get used to the noisy images when they
move... which is virtually constantly :-P.
The game engine designers will also need to find a way to not fully
re-render a scene just because /something/ in it moved.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
clipka wrote:
> Yup. Though gamers will need to get used to the noisy images when they
> move... which is virtually constantly :-P.
There's already noise in images. It just shows up as a lack of detail,
instead. (Of course, you'd probably have both, since they're coming from
different causes.)
> The game engine designers will also need to find a way to not fully
> re-render a scene just because /something/ in it moved.
I wouldn't think that's difficult, if you're doing GI to start with.
Certainly only the stuff you didn't see before would need to be re-rendered.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Darren New schrieb:
>> The game engine designers will also need to find a way to not fully
>> re-render a scene just because /something/ in it moved.
>
> I wouldn't think that's difficult, if you're doing GI to start with.
> Certainly only the stuff you didn't see before would need to be
> re-rendered.
... and that space where /something/ was before.
And anything that could possibly be affected by the resulting change in GI.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> nemesis schrieb:
> > Completely mindblowing, specially the later scenes! o_O That's why V-Ray is top
> > today, without even resorting to unbiased algorithms.
>
> Sure it's unbiased? Looks like a monte-carlo approach to me.
At least until very recently V-Ray used regular biased backwards raytracing with
photon mapping, except incredibly optimized. Perhaps those speckles in the
video have simply something to do with the GPU calculating an insane amount of
rays and rendering pixels out of order?
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:22:17 -0400, nemesis wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> nemesis schrieb:
>> > Completely mindblowing, specially the later scenes! o_O That's why
>> > V-Ray is top today, without even resorting to unbiased algorithms.
>>
>> Sure it's unbiased? Looks like a monte-carlo approach to me.
>
> At least until very recently V-Ray used regular biased backwards
> raytracing with photon mapping, except incredibly optimized. Perhaps
> those speckles in the video have simply something to do with the GPU
> calculating an insane amount of rays and rendering pixels out of order?
IIRC, the ray depth was only set to 5 in those videos, wasn't it?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
clipka wrote:
> ... and that space where /something/ was before.
Oh yeah. I guess I was thinking too much of the static scenes they showed
and not enough about actual, you know, video games. :-)
Hey! Myst! ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:22:17 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> >> nemesis schrieb:
> >> > Completely mindblowing, specially the later scenes! o_O That's why
> >> > V-Ray is top today, without even resorting to unbiased algorithms.
> >>
> >> Sure it's unbiased? Looks like a monte-carlo approach to me.
> >
> > At least until very recently V-Ray used regular biased backwards
> > raytracing with photon mapping, except incredibly optimized. Perhaps
> > those speckles in the video have simply something to do with the GPU
> > calculating an insane amount of rays and rendering pixels out of order?
>
> IIRC, the ray depth was only set to 5 in those videos, wasn't it?
hmm, but they appear even when there's no glass around. ;)
It cleans up pretty quickly anyway. Ok, not yet there for games, but for
real-time architectural visualization, this is nuts. Can only wonder some GPU
iterations ahead... XD
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:23:07 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>> IIRC, the ray depth was only set to 5 in those videos, wasn't it?
>
> hmm, but they appear even when there's no glass around. ;)
Yeah, true....
> It cleans up pretty quickly anyway. Ok, not yet there for games, but
> for real-time architectural visualization, this is nuts. Can only
> wonder some GPU iterations ahead... XD
Well, and one thing from the demo was that the card in use was described
as "not the high-end option" (words to that effect).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
nemesis schrieb:
> At least until very recently V-Ray used regular biased backwards raytracing with
> photon mapping, except incredibly optimized. Perhaps those speckles in the
> video have simply something to do with the GPU calculating an insane amount of
> rays and rendering pixels out of order?
Well, maybe they're artifacts of the photon mapping; that would appear
to be quite fitting.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> Well, and one thing from the demo was that the card in use was described
> as "not the high-end option" (words to that effect).
I actually happen to have that same GPU (GeForce 285) in my machine. I
went for that particular graphics card /because/ I didn't intend to get
the heaviest weapon out there, rather just some decent graphics power
for a decent price (something to do some fluent Wings3D or Poser work
with) - so I guess there's heavier artillery /already/ in both the
gamers' and CG professionals' arsenals.
Post a reply to this message
|
 |
|  |
|  |
|
 |
|
 |
|  |