nemesis wrote:
> And what do you call one who looks at a joke and takes it seriously?

I wasn't looking at the joke, obviously. So, how do you call a person 
that thinks he can understand to another, who honestly fails to 
understand a third, but fails, pretending to be smarter by diminishing 
when he is as wrong as the one he pretends to correct?

> Surely enough povray can render real reflections and GI with more than 1 bounce
> with radiosity -- though as the Crytek guys noted, 1 bounce is good enough for
> movies. For bonus with povray folks, you could even render a complete CSG
> Titanic made up from boxes and cylinders.  But surely enough the video shows how
> amazing to be able to do it real time with graphics that look good enough
> running on off-the-shelf hardware rather than some renderfarm.

Of course raytracing rendering will be superior, to real-time 3D GPU 
rendering, at least until GPUs can raytrace.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/01/2012 05:19 AM, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> Of course raytracing rendering will be superior, to real-time 3D GPU
> rendering, at least until GPUs can raytrace.

What do you mean "until"?

It's already here. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > And what do you call one who looks at a joke and takes it seriously?
>
> I wasn't looking at the joke, obviously. So, how do you call a person
> that thinks he can understand to another, who honestly fails to
> understand a third, but fails, pretending to be smarter by diminishing
> when he is as wrong as the one he pretends to correct?

A cynic?

> > Surely enough povray can render real reflections and GI with more than 1 bounce
> > with radiosity -- though as the Crytek guys noted, 1 bounce is good enough for
> > movies. For bonus with povray folks, you could even render a complete CSG
> > Titanic made up from boxes and cylinders.  But surely enough the video shows how
> > amazing to be able to do it real time with graphics that look good enough
> > running on off-the-shelf hardware rather than some renderfarm.
>
> Of course raytracing rendering will be superior, to real-time 3D GPU
> rendering, at least until GPUs can raytrace.

They've been raytracing, pathtracing and running other general computations for
several years now already.

Post a reply to this message

He he :), well not quite mainstream, I have seen some specialized GPUs 
doing it real-time in some website but they are not sold as 
ATI/Nvidia... yet... :)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Saul Luizaga<sau### [at] netscapenet>  wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> And what do you call one who looks at a joke and takes it seriously?
>>
>> I wasn't looking at the joke, obviously. So, how do you call a person
>> that thinks he can understand to another, who honestly fails to
>> understand a third, but fails, pretending to be smarter by diminishing
>> when he is as wrong as the one he pretends to correct?
>
> A cynic?

I think depends on the attitude, do wanted to be a cynic? or did you 
wanted point out I was mistaken?

>>> Surely enough povray can render real reflections and GI with more than 1 bounce
>>> with radiosity -- though as the Crytek guys noted, 1 bounce is good enough for
>>> movies. For bonus with povray folks, you could even render a complete CSG
>>> Titanic made up from boxes and cylinders.  But surely enough the video shows how
>>> amazing to be able to do it real time with graphics that look good enough
>>> running on off-the-shelf hardware rather than some renderfarm.
>>
>> Of course raytracing rendering will be superior, to real-time 3D GPU
>> rendering, at least until GPUs can raytrace.
>
> They've been raytracing, pathtracing and running other general computations for
> several years now already.
>

Well, I meant like POV-Ray does it but 24 fps at full HD 720p/1080p 
screen resolution.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> He he :), well not quite mainstream, I have seen some specialized GPUs
> doing it real-time in some website but they are not sold as
> ATI/Nvidia... yet... :)
I meant like POV-Ray does it, with current excellent quality features :)

Post a reply to this message

On 26/01/2012 01:46 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> He he :), well not quite mainstream, I have seen some specialized GPUs
>> doing it real-time in some website but they are not sold as
>> ATI/Nvidia... yet... :)
> I meant like POV-Ray does it, with current excellent quality features :)

Au contrare... Ever heard of displacement mapping? This is nothing other 
than running a (simplistic) ray tracer as a pixel shader. Physically 
correct dynamic reflections are already possible via ray tracing 
(although you're still tracing stupid flat polygons rather than true 
geometry). There have been tech demos of full ray tracers running on 
standard GPU hardware.

Thing is, ray tracing sometimes doesn't automatically make it look cool. 
If your model is a low-polygon mesh using low-resolution bitmap 
textures, it'll look crappy no matter what rendering technology you use. 
Even if you import a game map into POV-Ray, it'll still look lame, 
despite the superior rendering.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Au contrare... Ever heard of displacement mapping? This is nothing other
> than running a (simplistic) ray tracer as a pixel shader. Physically
> correct dynamic reflections are already possible via ray tracing
> (although you're still tracing stupid flat polygons rather than true
> geometry). There have been tech demos of full ray tracers running on
> standard GPU hardware.

Yes, as I have mentioned, I have seen them too, impressive, but not yet 
in a commercial way and I doubt with 100% POV-Ray features & 
capabilities. Never hear of displacement mapping. As you mention *some* 
raytracing is possible on *some* experimental GPUs; what I meant was a 
100% GPU implementation of POV-Ray giving at least 24fps at, lets say, 
1360x768 resolution.

> Thing is, ray tracing sometimes doesn't automatically make it look cool.
> If your model is a low-polygon mesh using low-resolution bitmap
> textures, it'll look crappy no matter what rendering technology you use.
> Even if you import a game map into POV-Ray, it'll still look lame,
> despite the superior rendering.

True, I have been seen improved models/textures in a open source game 
project (source code made open source by owners): www.hard-light.net, 
and the original models/textures needed some work to make it look sort 
of today standards.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/01/2012 04:41 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Au contrare... Ever heard of displacement mapping? This is nothing other
>> than running a (simplistic) ray tracer as a pixel shader. Physically
>> correct dynamic reflections are already possible via ray tracing
>> (although you're still tracing stupid flat polygons rather than true
>> geometry). There have been tech demos of full ray tracers running on
>> standard GPU hardware.
>
> Yes, as I have mentioned, I have seen them too, impressive, but not yet
> in a commercial way and I doubt with 100% POV-Ray features &
> capabilities.

I think the main thing that makes POV-Ray look so damned good is that it 
doesn't use polygon meshes (it uses real curved geometry), and it 
doesn't use bitmap textures (it uses procedural texturing), and it 
doesn't fake the lighting equation quite as poorly as most game engines. 
(Although it's no unbiased renderer.)

> Never hear of displacement mapping.

Apparently the correct term is "relief mapping", not displacement mapping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_mapping_%28computer_graphics%29

> As you mention *some*
> raytracing is possible on *some* experimental GPUs;

My point is, this is *not* experimental hardware. Relief mapping can be 
done in commercial hardware. Accurate reflections can be done on 
commercial hardware. These features are in commercial games, today.

> what I meant was a
> 100% GPU implementation of POV-Ray giving at least 24fps at, lets say,
> 1360x768 resolution.

You're never going to get a 100% GPU implementation of "POV-Ray". 
Because "POV-Ray" is a piece of code that runs on a CPU. What you 
/might/ be able to do some day is implement the same algorithms on a 
GPU. More likely, you could move "most" of the work to the GPU; things 
like parsing the scene data and so forth will always be on the CPU.

I gather that procedural texturing is quite possible on a GPU. (But 
nobody uses it, for whatever reason.) Ray tracing is certainly possible. 
Realistic real-time lighting is possible. The big thing that I haven't 
seen done is non-polygon geometry. I don't know if it's currently 
feasible to do that on a GPU. I don't see why not...

Post a reply to this message

Even with the improved game engine that had many features of modern game 
engine and with the help of driver-side GPU settings. Even now, the game 
doesn't use shadows at all, except for some mod intro ( and deves/moders 
use that into to bench mark new game engine features xD)and a dev told 
in in IRC that that intro will kill a ATI 6990 ( he owns 1).

Post a reply to this message