5 ms·
It's quite different from what we do. However we also do have working GPU implementations in CUDA and OpenCL :)
by kgabis 12y ago
It's quite different from what we do. However we also do have working GPU implementations in CUDA and OpenCL :)
- rasz_pl 12y agolooks like you shoot rays around from the player
- kgabis 12y agoIt's not that easy (unfortunately). Those are sound paths.
- jbarrow 12y agoI have to admit, I thought it was just pretty standard ray-tracing as well. I'd be curious to find out how it's different. I followed the link through to the website, but didn't see much additional information on it.
- kgabis 12y agoIt's different mostly due to diffraction which is neglible in case of light and very important when simulating sound.
- nitrogen 12y agoDiffusion is important for light too; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosity
- kgabis 12y agoDiffusion is not diffraction, they're different phenomena.
- nitrogen 12y agoRadiosity simulates diffusion, though. Are you saying you also simulate diffraction? In visual rendering, that might fall under something called "caustics" or "photons" (I use quote marks because renderer photons are not quite the same as real photons).
- kgabis 12y agoCaustics are caused by refraction or reflection, not diffraction. There are many analogies between simulating light and sound, but you take different shortcuts to make those simulations fast. E.g. you don't simulate diffraction when simulating light (it's effect is neglible) and you discard small objects when simulating sound. Those differences exist mostly because visible light spectrum and hearable sound spectrum are so far apart.