4 ms·
I've heard as much too. It'd be interesting to see today's best raster effort put against the same game assets in a ray-traced engine with a real-world game goi
by jpxxx 14y ago
I've heard as much too. It'd be interesting to see today's best raster effort put against the same game assets in a ray-traced engine with a real-world game going on.
Anything can look good when you've got 10 minutes and 500 processors. I want to see what happens in 16ms. :)
- Arelius 14y agoI mean, as a good point, ray tracing still isn't fast enough for the vast majority of pre-computed rendering for motion pictures. See PRMan and the majority of other modern renderers that all use still use the REYES algorithm. Sure, a unbiased renderer is great when you just need a single still without a huge amount of tweaking, but when you need motion ray tracing -everything- will remain impractically slow for a very long time.
- zxcdw 14y agoSince you're concerned with frametimes, let's also add in the asset production pipeline and effort. As it's been mentioned, cutting edge rasterizing consists of lengthy pipeline for every single effect imaginable(also sometimes to the graphics assets, mind you) while raytracing does all that almost by default(soft shadows and global illumination are problematic for example, path tracing fixes this but is some two orders of magnitude slower). The real problem with raytracing is that it's asymptotic computational complexity is far worse when you count scene objects. To compensate this you either lower the resolution or lower the lifetime of a ray(how many bounces it's allowed to make).
- jpxxx 14y agoVery interesting. Thank you for the additional detail!