Daniel Richter wrote:
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
In my wokflow, most of the photoreal look is obtained by texture and not
by shader or material.
Yes, scanline is cheating. But so what Cinema and Art is to make believe
to other people.
3D is Fake anyway. I don't feel bad when I use compositing or 2D trees
or use textures for material effect or when I play with object
illumination to balance bad lighting.
It is possible to get GI with HDRI in realtime with many lights placed
at different places around the scene and different intensities and color
to match the hdri texture.
Now a 3D videocard can render without speed loos about 32 or 64 lights
per polygon.
I was just curious about it, I don't know if I am right.
Rember I said the exact opposite a month ago.
Of course we would lose in freedom, but what is freedom if you know It
won't render anyway.
It's a fact that the power should be in the hand of the artist.
Now it's the software that orient the artist.
Like I said, it's possible to get incredible photoreal images with a 15
old software.
If you work really hard.
This is a realtime radiosity photoreal renderer :
http://www.artlantis.com/products/artlantisR/
I will check this further to see if it's true
Jean-Sebastien Perron
www.neuroworld.ws
