Hey JS, I second your feelings about rendering speed, considering what modern games looks and feel like, but I think that a lot of this speed is derived from a very narrow design of their engines. I'm not an expert on this matter, but it seems to me that "normal" raytracers are slower, because they try to approximate real physical behavior of light & materials in order to allow you to create virtually every look, while game-engines often "fake" real life looks through clever use of texture maps.. I thinks that's two different schools of thought, and while I would love to have that second option as well, for fast renderings and previews, I would imagine it restricts you from going places where the programmers did not anticipate you going.. (sorry, getting abstract).
Again, I'm no expert on this, and it'd be great to get some more opinions. Have a great day, Daniel :) On 11/1/06, Jean-Sebastien Perron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With PS3 and Xbox 360 doing fully lighted scene with shaders and millions of polygons at 1920*1080 60fps this is just for example : http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/insomniacshooter/screenindex.html http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/bioshock/screenindex.html Is it time for Realsoft to buy a PS3 or 360 devkit and start working on a 3D application dedicated to those wonderful hardware? They both have Hard Disk and internet connection I may be wrong, but I think ScanlineRendering technique have won over Raytracing in Quality now? or just equal. ScanlineRendering now is 1 000 000 times faster than raytracing. Raytracing is difficult to implement to a hardware pipeline. PS3 and 360 are the new Amiga. PC is too slow behind and if more powerfull it's still 900% more expensive. Consoles even at 600$ are at the price level of a regular PC 3D videocard alone. This is valid for Realsoft as for any other 3D application. Jean-Sebastien Perron www.neuroworld.ws
