Slashdot Mirror
How Quake Wars Met the Ray Tracer
An anonymous reader writes "Intel released the article 'Quake Wars Gets Ray Traced' (PDF) which details the development efforts of the research team that applied a real-time ray tracer to Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. It describes the benefits and challenges of transparency textures with this rendering technology. Further insight is given into what special effects
are most costly. Examples of glass and a 3D water implementation are shown. The outlook hints into the area of freely programmable many-core processors, like Intel's upcoming Larrabee, that might be able to handle such a workload." We mentioned the ray-traced Quake Wars last in June; the PDF here delves into the implementation details, rather than just showing a demo, and explains what parts of the game give the most difficulty in going from rasterization to ray-tracing.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Firstly, in rasterization, 4xAA does not mean 4 samples per pixel. Not all pixels are subsampled or supersampled. Nobody does that shit anymore.
Secondly, in raytracing, 4xAA does not mean 4 samples per pixel. Not all pixels are subsampled or supersampled. Nobody does that shit anymore.
Thirdly, what the fuck do current video cards have to do with *anything* about this? This is called RESEARCH. Ever do any?
Fourthly, rasterization began as a software rendering technique.
Finally, you dont have a fucking clue about why raytracing actualy scales *well* and is obviously a superior rendering method for the future. It may not replace rasterization, but something sure as damn well will and if its not raytracing, whatever is next will scale at least as well as raytracing.
Rasterization scales very poorly to scene complexity, which is a far more important metric than scaling poorly to resolution. Resolution has doubled 3 times in 25 years, while scene complexity has doubled more than 20 times under the same time period. The chance that resolution will double again in the next 5 years is just about zero, while the chance that scene complexity will double several times in the same period is just about 100%.
If you are a decent well learned programmer, essentialy an expert in algorithmic complexity, then surely you understand the comparison O(n) vs O(log n) and why you cannot refute it with horseshit.
If you arent a decent programmer, then realize that you are an ignorant blowhard spouting about something that you do not understand (go read some Donald Knuth, spend a few years living it, then open your mouth)
"His name was James Damore."