Slashdot Mirror
Carmack Speaks On Ray Tracing, Future id Engines
Vigile writes "As a matter of principle, when legendary game programmer John Carmack speaks, the entire industry listens. In a recent interview he comments on a multitude of topics starting with information about Intel, their ray tracing research and upcoming Larrabee GPU. Carmack seems to think that Intel's direction using traditional ray tracing methods is not going to work and instead theorizes that using ray casting to traverse a new data structure he is developing is the best course of action. The 'sparse voxel octree' that Carmack discusses would allow for 'unique geometry down to the equivalent of the texel across everything.' He goes on to discuss other topics like the hardware necessary to efficiently process his new data structure, translation to consoles, multi-GPU PC gaming and even the world of hardware physics."
A developer who coded the engines that nearly all PC first person shooters have run on. That's obviously not enough to accept his words without hesitation, but obviously the person knows more about high-performance 3D rendering than a random coder like myself.
I respond to your sigs
Because he is more of an engine/renderer designer than game developer.
Its his job, and im pretty sure his passion to think about stuff like this.
You mad
Why not analyse his argument and judge it on it's merits rather then throw it out simply because he is working on an idea of his own?
Plusses:
- One of the primary fathers of the FPS genre.
- Wolfenstien 3D
- Doom
- Quake 1
- Quake 2
- Quake 3
- Endless articles and commentary on the field
- A shitload of stuff I'm forgetting
Minusses:- "Thought multiplicative lighting was the way to go, rather than dealing with the performance hit of additive lighting in Quake 3."
Conclusion: Carmack sucks!I mean, seriously, what's your point? The man's not actually a God so we shouldn't listen to him? Is there somebody more experienced I should prefer to listen to? Is "n3tcat" the handle for somebody with thirty years experience in first-person shooter engines or something?
Having developed octtree voxel methods for astrophysics sims (crashing galaxies into one another), I suggest they are ideal for physics. The idea of a tree is you group things to maintain a certain amount of accuracy. For example, if you have 3 items interacting just with gravity:
.. C
A (longdistancetypedheretoavoidlamenessfilter) B
A non-tree method would just calculate all the interactions: A-B, A-C, B-C. But you can group B+C together when calculating their interaction with A because, at that distance, the result for (B+C)-A is the same as the result for B-A + C-A. Then the interaction between B & C must be calculated separately. So you've (even in this tiny example) reduced your calculation from 3 to 2.
And, of course, all the 'voxels' between A & B/C that are empty need not be considered at all. If you'd set it up as an NxNxN voxel cube, you'd be wasting time on calculating empty voxels between the occupied items.
So if you want realistic interactive environments, sparse voxel octtrees are the way to go-- you pump all the calculation time into the parts where it matters, and let the other stuff be 'smoothed' when such smoothing is indistinguishable from rounding error.
Typically, you can traverse the tree for a given error percentage, e.g. 'walk the tree and do interactions preserving 99% energy conservation' or similar. So your have predictable error, as well, despite being able to use arbitrary geometries and spacing for your elements.
A.
Commenting on the fact that it is unsurprising that someone working on a different technique favors that technique over raytracing is not throwing anything out.
Its not a comment either way on the merits.
Were I to comment on the merits, I would point out that his position is both fairly obviously correct (in that sparse voxel octrees or something quite like them is almost beyond question the key to raytracing that's useful for reasonable quality in realtime), and entirely incorrect in his characterization of what everyone else is pushing: he pretends that "everyone" is pushing the most naive, brute force approach to raytracing, in which you don't use any kind of bounding volume structure and just do intersection tests against triangles. I've seen literally no recommendations that do that: almost all involve some form of bounding volume heirarchy, and sparse voxel octrees are just one instance of that (perhaps a fairly ideal one, and that's great). (Also, raytracing isn't limited to triangles, although most performance comparisons of raytracing to raster-based rendering methods use models constructed from triangles because it allows you to compare same-model performance of the different mechanisms; raytracing engines, however, don't generally need to decomposed curved objects into triangle-based approximations to render them in the first place, although this can sometimes be more efficient.)
TFS further misleads by suggesting that Carmack is proposing an alternative to raytracing, when really what he is proposing is a particular approach to raytracing, and, particularly, a particular approach in one well-known problem area in raytracing to which there are currently a whole array of approaches. And his focus on what he wants to get out of raytracing is a little different. But, essentially, his piece, while there are some potentially good criticisms on some particular aspects of and arguments for Intel's specific approach to raytrace, is in accord with (not opposed to) the general idea that raytracing techniques are going to be increasingly important in gaming.
Is that enough "on the merits" for you?
Yet, when I play a game, I'll admit, I'm not playing glaring attention to these faults. The last thing that really bothered me in games was 16-bit color banding and I haven't seen any of that in, oh, like 3 or 4 years.
The gamer side of me agrees with Carmack on things looking cool who cares if it's wrong, the geek side of me is angry and demands it be pixel-accurate.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Yea. Because interactivity trumps photorealism for every single possible type of game. Oh wait, that's false.
You sound like the people who said that StarCraft was crap because sprites were outdated junk and every good game (like Total Annihilation) had already moved to 3D. Different engineers will make different design choices for different applications, and there is no total order of correctness among a single class of design choice.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Meanwhile the rest of us have been enjoying these articles immensely because we get to obtain some insight about what each of the major players are thinking in regards to Real-Time Raytracing. The great thing about obtaining insight from others is that you can then use your newfound insight to come to your own conclusions.
If you're simply looking for a consensus from the industry, don't expect one for a long while. The concept won't entirely be accepted until someone goes out there and proves it out. Just like high-quality 3D graphics were thought to be too slow on the PC. Until game creators proved out a few different methods to make them usable, that is. (Starting with Wing Commander, moving to Wolf-3D, Doom, Duke 3D, and eventually Quake. After that, the industry said, "Welp, we better make some hardware for this." And thus 3DFX was born.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Now if John Carmack is as legendary as /. is making him out to be, why isn't it John Carmack's Quake/Doom?
George Washington is pretty legendary, but we don't have a George Washington's America, do we? The name is irrelevant. How could the guy who basically invented the First Person Shooter not be legendary? When it first came out, the original Wolfenstein was the most highly optimized game I'd ever played. I still remember thinking it wouldn't run on my slow-ass computer, and being blown away when it ran fast as can be.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
I feel all that dev time is better spent on innovative game play.
Innovation does not require much dev time, it requires one bright mind to come up with a good idea and many managers that won't mind spending money on an unproven concept.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
"I mean, seriously, what's your point? The man's not actually a God so we shouldn't listen to him? Is there somebody more experienced I should prefer to listen to? Is "n3tcat" the handle for somebody with thirty years experience in first-person shooter engines or something?"
Many people with years of experience still make god awful mistakes. Experience can only take you so far considering that experience is also the reason why companies stagnate because people get locked into a certain way of looking at things.
As John mentioned in his post here, these are not new ideas. I remember playing around with raytracing/casting of sparse-octree voxels for fun almost ten years ago, and as a quick :) What is cool is that he thinks that the gaming world is ready for them, and that he is going to try and push the hardware folks to make it happen.
search of the literature shows, I was quite late to the game
One of the most fundamental properties of voxmaps is that the geometry and texture are defined hand-in-hand - they have the same resolution, and every point in the geometry has a unique texture. If you want this, then there are data structures like sparse octrees that store the data quite efficiently.
However, decoupling the geometry and texture opens the door for all sorts of tricks usefull in limited memory situations. It was these tricks that made realtime polygon graphics possible in the past. Things like low resolution polygons with high resolution texture maps, tiled/reused texture maps and layered decals, are all ways to cut down on the amount of data needed while still creating a decent looking scene.
However, as the amount of memory increases, these tricks are less necessary and less desirable. Artists want to be able to paint any part of a scene any way they want - and this is exactly what John has done in id Tech 5, their newest engine. After doing so he did some experimentation and found that storing this data in a sparse octree is even more memory efficient than the way he is doing it now, using pixmaps and polygons. If this approach were to work, artists would then have the same freedom in editing the geometry of the world as they do now with textures - the entire world would have geometry at the resolution of current texture maps with zero additional memory costs. That would be awesome.
For this to work though, you need to be able to render the data efficiently. Raycasting of sparse octrees is one of those embarrassingly parallel problems, and thus hardware acceleration for it is relatively easy. But they don't exist due to lack of market, and unfortunately graphics cards are not well suited for this, IIRC because GPUs mostly accelerate floating point calculations, while descending the sparse-octree uses a lot of integer bit-twiddling (I might be wrong about the reasons here). But with the memory-usage tradeoffs shifting in favor of voxmaps, GPU vendors looking to make their products better suited for general purpose High Performace Computing, and John Carmack pushing for it, this may be an idea whose time has come.
The photon system in POV-Ray would be a backwards raytracing approach, or forward if you prefer to use the lights as the reference point. The rays are cast from the lights outward towards targets to determine what the effects will be. That data gets stored, then normal raytracing proceeds and uses the photon data to affect the texture where the light falls.
Want list for POV-Ray: BRDF and BSDF and brute force raytracing.
Ultimate raytracer: Spectral light instead of single RGB colors mixed with all of the above.