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] anonymousorg> 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] anonymousorg> 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] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:22:17 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>
> > clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> 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