|
|
|
|
|
|
by eigenbom
4474 days ago
|
|
|
I'd wager that the current rasterising pipeline is more flexible than one based on raytracing - capable of generating a range of styles, not just photorealistic ones. And therefore having an extra dedicated chip for raytracing seems uneconomical. The comparison examples given in the article were slightly ridiculous. How does a non-reflective car represents 'traditional' rendering? Look at any great AAA game and you'll see reflections, refractions, radiosity, etc., that are all pretty amazing. I don't think that general demand will be there for alternative rendering hardware for quite a while. |
|
|
Nope. I'd say the "raytracing pipeline" really does replace only the rasterization step, and once the triangle to draw is "found", you do whatever shading/lighting/fx/fragshader you want to draw it with? Wouldn't this be the most sensible approach?
Rasterization in lay-man's terms really is just "figure out which triangle, if any, is 'hit' at this pixel", so a historically much faster and very neat hack to avoid the tracing of a ray..
But you don't get cheap soft-shadowing / ambient occlusion / reflect-refract and you'd need to do occlusion culling seperately for current-gen "complex" scenes to avoid a drawcall for all kinds of hidden objects. That's where at some point raytracing as it becomes more feasible also becomes much more attractive. Potentially also reducing geometry-LODing headaches etc..