Slashdot Mirror
Wolfenstein Gets Ray Traced
An anonymous reader writes "After showcasing Quake Wars: Ray Traced a few years ago, Intel is now showing their latest graphics research project using Wolfenstein game content. The new and cool special effects are actually displayed on a laptop using a cloud-based gaming approach with servers that have an Intel Knights Ferry card (many-core) inside. Their blog post has a video and screenshots."
Why build a ray tracer into a 4th game after doing it for Q3, Q4 and ET:QW. Why don't they focus on improving already existing raytracing code into the first 3 games.
I donnow but it seems like they're keeping themselves busy for the sake of looking busy.
Y
Mom, can I buy a new cloud to play Halo 10 ?
It's rendered in the cloud. If they managed to actually get more bang for the buck- i.e. made this run on conventional hardware- Then I'd be interested. They're just doing something that has been done before, albeit maybe not in real time (But you never know, seeing these new OpenCL apps), running it on high-end servers, and piping it into a small laptop. I'm not sure how much of an achievement this is, we've all heard of gaming in the cloud before.
When a laptop packing a multi-GHz 64bit CPU with gigs of RAM gets called a thin client...
Anybody know what happened to http://www.projectoffset.com/ ? They released tons of killer videos showing an amazing game concept, outstanding real-time effects... then Intel buys them and... nothing!
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Yeah, you're rendering Wolfensetein on a cluster.... but can you get Wolfenstein running on a Beowulf cluster... or, dare I say it... a Beowulfenstein cluster???
;)
moox. for a new generation.
That none of intels graphics processors have any hope in hell of real time ray tracing.
1. It's extremely common in FPS games for the player model to be excluded from the player perspective. It really complicates things and usually doesn't look good without a lot of extra work.
2. That's not the car's shadow. The building shadow is the shadow you are seeing. You can't see the car's shadow because the car is mostly (if not entirely) shadowed by the building behind it. The viewing angles were not suited for showing a shadow cast by any directly illuminated portion of the car.
+0 Meh
As someone who has dabbled with raytracing before, I would have to agree. It's an interesting tech demo of something that's possible, but not really of practical use. For instance, they showed the chandelier with a million polys - that's all well and good, but it's on the ceiling! If the game was actually being played, the player would never get close enough to see those clever refractions. (And even if they did, the demo shows the frame rate would drop to around 17-20 FPS).
10fps to be able to see glass refraction on a surface so small it's totally inconsequential.
Yawn. Wake me up when they get refraction working with a playable framerate like Source had seven years ago. Regarde
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
There is no point now. But in 10 years (maybe faster) the cpu speeds has increased to the point that you don't need a high performance cluster. It would be nice if you can at that moment run a game without an advanced GPU. in full detail.
If you have to start research about raytracing when the hardware is cheap enough you are too late.
And as for quality: fun of a game has little to do with grpahics quality. But it has to advance, or else we still would be looking at pong like graphics. people buy 1080p tv at sizes where it almost impossilbel to see the difference with 720p. But they still want the best quality.
PS, when they speak of wolfenstein i still think of the 1991 prequal to doom that was playable on a 286.
You wanna know the last game I played that featured this "surveillance camera" business?
Duke Nukem 3D
Ohhhh, snap!
/* OK, it was one monitor at a time, but that's arguably a tactical decision to not let the player see every camera at once */
This sounds like a John Lasseter I saw ages ago. Those guys are scientists not 3D artists. They can't see why it's wrong. It's job done when the maths work. I've not idea why they don't hire in a guy, most of these problems have been identified and fixed in the pre-rendered market years ago. Maybe extra lights kills the frame rate too much.
The worst example of 3D I've seen so far would be the "shadows on a mirror" trick - nice.
My 486 ray-traced perfectly. I don't understand why we're using processing power to show glass reflections in ray-traced sniper scopes when all the old monitors showed the reflections of people approaching from behind already!
;)
Stupid matte LCD panels.
You were supposed to woosh him
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
"The surveillance station. At a wall in the game you see twelve screens that each show a different location of the level. This can be used by the player to get a tactical gaming advantage. Have you ever seen something similiar in a current game? Again - probably not"
Yes, In Duke Nukem 3D... over 15 years ago. And again in a bout 40 other FPS games that followed including the Unreal series, more then a few Quake maps especially in capture and control maps.
"There is nothing more amusing to watch then some young kid discover something old and think it is new" - That quote in action.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Not quite. The complexity of rasterisation is (very) roughly O(number of polygons * number of lights). The complexity of ray tracing is O(number of rays). The number of primary rays is the number of pixels (sometimes multiplied by 4 or 9). The number of secondary rays depends on the number of lights (you fire a ray into the scene and then a secondary ray from what it hits to each light). This means that increasing the complexity of the scene does not affect the ray tracing time very much, but increasing the resolution does. On the plus side, ray tracing gives you shadows and reflections for free. It also degrades more gracefully - you can get a lower quality scene quickly (just from one primary ray per pixel) and then add the details from secondary rays and extra rays if the user doesn't move. In contrast, rasterisation tends to just lower the frame rate.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is the true advantages of raytracing. A rasterizer would have to deal with each and every triangle in that chandelier.
Rasterizers scale on O(triangles) while raytracers scale on O(pixels * log triangles). I dont remember if it was Microsoft Research or something out of Intel, but 5 or so years ago they did some scalability testing and concluded that about 1 million polygons was the sweet-spot where raytracing and rasterization were about equal in efficiency using the per iteration constants derived in their testing.
This was based on visible geometry only, so no pretending that the fact that rasterizers can use logarithmic data structures for hidden surface removal, that that makes any bit of difference.
Since then, triangle counts have remained about the same in games (with more per-pixel processing being done to simulate more geometry,) but the number of pixels have quadrupled as higher and higher resolution displays have become common. Yet they are reaching the limits with the fakes that can be done with shaders, and resolution is probably not going to go through another quadrupling, so raytracing really is comming.. just not quite yet.
When the polygon counts do get high enough, there will be no looking back. Raytracing will be here to stay after that because of the way it scales. At 1 million polygons, a raytracer spends 20 iterations per ray cast using a logarithmic structure.. doubling the number of polygons to 2 million only adds 1 more iteration.. or about 5% more processing power required, and doubling again only adds another ~4.5%, and so on.. meanwhile each doubling of polygons on the rasterizer literally doubles the processing power required.
"His name was James Damore."