Ray traced games in next two to three years
According to Intel
INTEL HAS ONCE again reiterated its support of ray tracing.
In an interview with PC Games Hardware, Intel's Michael Vollmer revealed some further insights into Intel's ray tracing developments.
The same online mag, previously showcased the ray-tracing support of Quake Wars, viewable here. Vollmer said the showcase should be seen as a technical demo and that the graphics had been taken from the non-ray traced optimized Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.
"A complete demo, which contains the graphical aspect, too, is likely to look different. But there are all the basic features already, like shadow cast, surface reflections; you can already tinker with the idea that this component of visualization will be adopted by the gaming industry sooner or later." he continued.
Vollmer stated that Intel kept 'in touch with companies all over the world' and that in two to three years time we should expect to see the fruits of ray tracing developments.
It isn't suprising to heear Michael Vollmer discussing ray tracing - Intel has a vested interest in the development of it.
The company's Larrabee developments are alleged to be optimised for this kind of technology (Larrabee is being designed explicitly for general purpose GPU/stream processing tasks), and Intel has had a recent track-record of promoting all things ray traced. µ
Comments
I'll
take my lead from the pioneers in the world that are mocking the idea. Ray tracing would have to have such power behind it that it would make current FX computer farms look slower than molasses moving downhill in the winter.Think of a nice high-res pixar movie. Good. Now think of the farm that created it, over multiple years. Good. Now fit that in one 45nm die package. Great. Now realize that even it can't do real-time ray-tracing in a complex scene. Bad.
Intel is generating a great deal of smoke, similar to most of their idiotic graphic chipsets. Don't forget it's "Extreme 3D" even if it's only a slideshow.
All I see thus far is Intel sticking their head up to get more egg on their face. Despite the April Fool's jokes, DirectX 11 won't feature it. Without support, it's dead. Heck, with support it's dead when Intel delivers it's standard, sub-par, graphics mess.
Could Intel have cracked ray-tracing? Sure. Of course I could win the Powerball on Saturday too. By the same token, had Intel really cracked it in a feasible manner, developers would be knocking each other down to get it and practically forced MS to support it in DX11.
What utter rubbish...
Michael Vollmer clearly doesn't know anything about graphics, because if he did, he would not have burbled out this garbage.As the previous comment has stated, the lead on this should be taken from the really big guns in the graphics business...and right now they see ray tracing getting used for some techniques but not as a whole sale replacement to rasterization!
Intel should put their money where their mouth is, and show us how badly Larrabee will really perform compared to the top end offerings from ATI and NVIDIA!!
Alex is a dumbass
....because he's still falling for the Intel "it's just for raytracing, so you can relax now" smokescreen.Hint: Read Beyond3D
I am no expert Alex
simple logic tells me that your scenario is probably true for the extremely hifi ray tracing. But this is a world full of compromises.In a game not all pixels need to be calculated using rays, so a mix of effects could give you the opportunity to use ray tracing in small amounts such as mesmerising glass, shiney chrome, searingly cool lighting & shadows and bigger better bumps, with that ooh aah effect that all the games vendors understand to mean money in the bank.
So I think it will happen, they will work something out with the green and red ones.
Carmack says...
Here:http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=532
"Head to head rasterization is just a vastly more efficient use of whatever transistors you have available"
So there is the possibility that Larrabbe would be a failure, because ray-tracing won't be fast and Larrabbe could not be good at rasterization. We'll see
Ray Tracing vs. Parallax Bump Mapping
The Parallax Bump Mapping in use in games such as Gears of war should be possible to extend further into someting that gives most of effects ray tracing would give. But in a much more scalable way.The 3D cards are important today both because the have high performance, AND because the hardware evolves all the time.
This was what Intel USED to do before they started to sell "gum and soap". I still feel that Intel have left the computer business, and turned into a marketing monster. This is quite common when a company earns a lot of easy money.
Dunnington or Bust!
Intel Is normally NOT Leader Till Technologie Already Exists. Thats why Post X58 World will seek Dunnington in ATI chipset or better MIX. Size Does Matter.RAY TRACE Tetris. I Did in 1966, BIG Deal. Czech Relatives Thought Ultiee' MAD.They ONLY Seek Money, Via Cyrus or SiS. Yet, Telling My Liets, Notice word: Thought, Something Missing in US.
It Worked & Ultiee' States: BIG DEAL. Ray Traced Games,indeed.People Whom Believe This Ancient Crud,again, From Newbie Outletters, Desperate to SELL & You My Portugese Swine Are MAD!!!HA.
drashek
PS Maybe Stupid is better term.
speed isnt anything
People keep giving it a slagging because ray tracing is going to be slow and there is no need for it, yes it is going to be slow, but putting aside the 30FPS or 100FPS argument, for a second, Ray tracing can accomplish a lot more, if you must, liken it to a crude oil super tanker, its damn slow but it does the job and can move more of its job then anything else out there!The facts are this, Intels offering will be poor to start with, but if you want photo realistic games, which is EXACTLY what the games industry is pushing towards ray tracing is the only way to do it.
once the hardware is there you can create sceens that can not be disstinguished from real life, you can do it now for god sake its only held back by hardware an cant be done in real time, so why is it so far fetched to people?
I have a raytrace scene that took 3 DAYS to render on my old DX4 100.
i can do it in mear seconds now, what will another 10 years or so bring?
Err...
"I have a raytrace scene that took 3 DAYS to render on my old DX4 100.i can do it in mear seconds now, what will another 10 years or so bring?"
A raytrace scene of a ball reflecting a checkerboard that renders at a playable framerate?
Personally, if you want a massively power-heavy rendering method, I'd go with voxels. Then you not only get shadowing and other material interactions for free, you get in-world physics for free.
Of course, that requires several orders of magnitude more memory rather than several orders of magnitude more CPU, but there you go...
Why Ray Tracing?
Because it's a great way to make use of lots and lots of processor cores.