 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.refractivesoftware.com/
first VRay going GPU, now this commercial unbiased renderer... I feel a trend
here. Seems like the GPU is more capable for raytracing than most are willing
to accept. This one is based on CUDA.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-1-2010 2:22, nemesis wrote:
> http://www.refractivesoftware.com/
>
> first VRay going GPU, now this commercial unbiased renderer... I feel a trend
> here. Seems like the GPU is more capable for raytracing than most are willing
> to accept. This one is based on CUDA.
>
'Accept' is not the right word. It suggests someone is not willing to
look into it. Until now everytime someone looked at it, it was simply
not feasible. Whether it is feasible now someone has to sit down and
try. Are you volunteering?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Seems like the GPU is more capable for raytracing than most are willing
> to accept.
It seems to me more like nobody is willing to accept that the GPU is
unsuitable. Everybody and their aunt has tried!
Me? I hope somebody gets it to work...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 8 lines --]
> http://www.refractivesoftware.com/
> first VRay going GPU, now this commercial unbiased renderer... I feel a trend
> here. Seems like the GPU is more capable for raytracing than most are willing
> to accept. This one is based on CUDA.
There's a difference: Most raytracers out there are not POV-Ray. They
usually support exactly one type of primitive: A triangle. (The fancier
ones might even support non-tesselated NURBS surfaces, oooh...)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel escreveu:
> Whether it is feasible now someone has to sit down and
> try. Are you volunteering?
I don't have that kind of skill at all, both regarding the math and the
C++ programming.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> There's a difference: Most raytracers out there are not POV-Ray. They
> usually support exactly one type of primitive: A triangle.
Too bad. For POV-Ray, that is.
Hopefully someone will try its hand at least to speed up povray triangle
handling.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-1-2010 18:37, nemesis wrote:
> Warp escreveu:
>> There's a difference: Most raytracers out there are not POV-Ray. They
>> usually support exactly one type of primitive: A triangle.
>
> Too bad. For POV-Ray, that is.
>
> Hopefully someone will try its hand at least to speed up povray triangle
> handling.
>
It would be extremely difficult to handle triangles, and e.g. spheres or
isosurfaces consistently if you use different ways of computing them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hopefully someone will try its hand at least to speed up povray triangle
>> handling.
>>
> It would be extremely difficult to handle triangles, and e.g. spheres or
> isosurfaces consistently if you use different ways of computing them.
Yes, unless you do the whole lot on the GPU you're going to get bogged down
with CPU<>GPU communications.
If you converted POV to run on the GPU then it would take a huge amount of
work and would no longer be as portable as it is today. AFAIK the POV team
don't want either of those two things so it's not going to happen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Hopefully someone will try its hand at least to speed up povray
>>> triangle handling.
>>>
>> It would be extremely difficult to handle triangles, and e.g. spheres
>> or isosurfaces consistently if you use different ways of computing them.
>
> Yes, unless you do the whole lot on the GPU you're going to get bogged
> down with CPU<>GPU communications.
>
> If you converted POV to run on the GPU then it would take a huge amount
> of work and would no longer be as portable as it is today.
But would be much faster! Take a look here:
http://vimeo.com/8487987
it's an experimental and limited port of the open-source unbiased
renderer Luxrender to OpenCL. Experimental or not and OpenCL being very
early and not mature enough, it already boasts an incredible boost over
CPU-only code!
Can you imagine what povray could do comparatively without getting
boiled down by unbiased techniques?!
CUDA would limit portability, but not OpenCL.
> AFAIK the
> POV team don't want either of those two things so it's not going to happen.
So that means povray will be the slowest raytracer around, is that
right? Good Lord, it's sad that 3.7 is not out yet and it was once one
of the fastest and first raytracers to go multicore... now it's being
beaten by unbiased renderers!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Good Lord, it's sad that 3.7 is not out yet
Are you contributing to the code?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
