3 ms·
Just because it scales with the number of cores, it does not mean it would keep fps in reasonable range given random camera position and orientation. Take a lo
by malkia 16y ago
Just because it scales with the number of cores, it does not mean it would keep fps in reasonable range given random camera position and orientation.
Take a look at Intel's raytracing demo, and when you go close to the lamps (shiny bulby spherical objects with lots of reflections) you get a lot of slowdown (using same amount of cpus).
That's what I'm talking about. Yes you can tweak it, but it loses it's purpose.
- Devilboy 16y agoThat's easy to work around, you just stop computing once you hit your time limit on that pixel. It'll be good enough.
- cma 16y agoIf every pixel takes too long you get nothing; plus you wasted computing power to find out. A different solution is to cast a sparser set of rays as things slow down, and then use compressed sensing (which has a runtime complexity independent of scene complexity) to integrate the full scene. Then as the scene gets more complex, you get what (visually) amounts to a heavily compressed jpeg.