Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Shows Off Quake Wars, Ray Traced

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the this-time-I-really-mean-oooh-shiny dept.

Graphics 368

An anonymous reader writes "At the Research@Intel Day 2008, Intel showed a ray-traced version of Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. Compared to the original game, a water with reflections and refractions and a physically correct glass shader were added. Also, a camera portal with up to 200 recursions to itself has been demonstrated. To show off this ongoing research in the topic of real-time ray tracing, a four-socket system with quad cores has been used that allowed rendering the enhanced visual effects in 1280x720 at 14-29 fps. Just two years before, early versions of Quake 4: Ray Traced ran only at 256x256 with 17 fps. Even though Intel's upcoming Larrabee will be primarily a rasterizer, the capabilities for also doing ray tracing on it should deliver interesting opportunities."

cancel ×

368 comments

Video (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805023)

Here is a higher quality version of the Quake Wars video [youtube.com] as mentioned in the article

Re:Video (0, Troll)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805295)

Here is a higher quality version of the Quake Wars video [youtube.com] as mentioned in the article
sick bastard. you meant this [youtube.com] .

Re:Video (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805361)

I'm sure he really meant this [youtube.com]

Voxels? (4, Interesting)

Xanavi (1197431) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805033)

What ever happened to voxels?

Height maps (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805061)

What NovaLogic called a "voxel space" in Comanche was really just a height map [wikipedia.org] . I guess the reasoning is that a height map is just a run-length-encoded representation of a voxel space.

Re:Height maps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805269)

I think Outcast used height maps too, but what about TerraNova [mobygames.com] ?

Re:Height maps (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805383)

Alpha Centauri's engine was a voxel-based one called "Caviar". Largely written in self-modifying assembly. Freaky.

Re:Height maps (2, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805537)

Command & Conquer Tiberian Sun and Command & Conquer Red Alert 2 used Voxel based 3d models for various vehicles in the game.

Re:Voxels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805271)

Same thing that happened to pixels.

Why? (5, Funny)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805079)

A lot of power for some eye candy. IANAG(gamer) but it seems to me that more investment into the story line and playability would go a lot further than raising the system requir --oooh shiny!

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

shermo (1284310) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805111)

Certainly more gameplay and a decent storyline would make it a better game. But sadly, fancy graphics will probably sell more on opening day. (See spiderman sequels)

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Sabz5150 (1230938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805167)

Certainly more gameplay and a decent storyline would make it a better game. But sadly, fancy graphics will probably sell more on opening day. (See spiderman sequels)
Really? See: Wii.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805275)

One odd case in many. How many people go to the store and look at the back of the box for pictures of the game. How many game sites have screenshots... Graphics sell.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805317)

Except the graphics kind of look like crap. If it's going to run at 16fps it better look a LOT better than traditional optimized rendering. But.. well, they're very low-res screenshots and the texture detail is Quake III at best. I kind of raised my eyebrows at a few of those ET:QW shots; the environments seem very sparsely populated by anything except solid geometry and the near-solid white skies reminded me of Halo 1.

Re:Why? (1)

Keyper7 (1160079) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805325)

But one could also argue that graphics sell precisely because gameplay innovations have stagnated. I mean, there's not much to look out for other than the graphics when game companies are making FPS, FPS sequels and FPS versions of other games.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805333)

Can you even tell what the game looks like from the shots on the back? 1.5 inch square photos don't give you much of an idea of the graphics quality of a game. Especially when you don't know if the screenshot is from a cutscene or from actual gameplay.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

beav007 (746004) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805681)

The Wii was popular because of certain promised games which are still yet to be Wiileased. [imageshack.us]

Re:Why? (1)

beav007 (746004) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805687)

Forgot to add that the link above is marginally NSFW.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805129)

Some very nominal special purpose hardware would eat this alive. Remember intel is using unaccelerated general purpose processors to do this!

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805163)

A lot of power for some eye candy.

Only sixteen cores?! For real computing power, you'd could run even more cores-- perhaps (Beowolf?) cluster several million machines so that each is responsible for a single ray/pixel.

Ultimately, this massively parallel distribution will provide data from an even bigger experiment-- what happens when you trace rays from the sun, bounce them off the earth, hit the CO2 layer, bounce back to the earth, back to the atmosphere, back to the earth...

Re:Why? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805659)

don't forget simulations of nuclear reactions, bending of space time and gravitational red shift while you are at it.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805191)

Sorry, but expectations change. Fancy graphics don't make a good game, but poor graphics (as relative to the times) does make a game poorer. Once upon a time I was happy with jumping 2D sprites in 16 colors, but when you've played a visually stunning game you think "Why can't [good gameplay game] look like that? It'd be even better. Don't get me wrong, it's being a good game that makes me want to play it long in the first place but when I do play, it shouldn't look like an eyesore. Same as you wouldn't play a lousy game, but if a good game had poor and repetative music you'd get fed up with it. Not that everything has to be ultra-hyper-realistic, I for example love Sam & Max which is hardly the epitome of realism, but I for example like that they upgraded the graphics engine so I could play season 2 in 1920x1200, looks much better that way. I also played through the whole Oblivion (got fed up by the expansion tho) and the fact that it looked so good definately was one of the reasons I was at it that long. And half the reason me and a friend play through Bubble Bobble (you'd think we were emulator cheating if you saw a recording, we cruise through) is the catchy tune, the other half nostalgia. The only downside is that making a game is so much, much work than it was in the old days. Though honestly, I'd rather take 10 excellent games than 1000 ones in any category.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Zerth (26112) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805567)

And yet Dwarf Fortress/Nethack/etc is so much fun, despite being ASCII. Perhaps even because of being ASCII.

Re:Why? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805575)

Fancy graphics don't make a good game, but poor graphics (as relative to the times) does make a game poorer.

every ps3 owner tells me this same thing. Yet they always are at my house playing my Wii.

Re:Why? (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805865)

It depends on the person. Me, I've played Devil May Cry 4, yet I'm perfectly happy playing Jazz Jackrabbit (if you haven't played it, it runs on DOS, 'nuff said), and the fact that I've finished Half-Life Episode 2 doesn't prevent me from enjoying a nice time in DooM or Duke Nukem 3D.

Artistic design is much more important than the technical prowess of the graphics, for me, but even that won't stop me from enjoying a game if the gameplay is good (see also: Far Cry).

Re:Why? (5, Interesting)

Keyper7 (1160079) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805211)

Actually, I believe real-time ray tracing open up some very interesting gameplay possibilities if people know how to use it.

Imagine a FPS, for example, on which you could notice a sneaking bastard on an unusual angle behind you because you saw his reflection on the doorknob you were about to pull. Or maybe cursing at the newbie because he didn't pay attention to the position of a specific lamp and now your team is screwed because your shadows have been noticed.

Then again, I think the whole FPS genre is saturated. Examples of other types of games are welcome here.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

Typing Monkey (537890) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805515)

Yeah the genre could use more creativity. That said, ETQW is not your run of mill FPS.
Multiplayer only. Encourages teamwork by having five different classes that need to work together. Each map has multiple objectives. The two sides doesn't have the same weapons, vehicles and, more then often then not, specialities.
If you like FPS multiplayer games but crave more then deathmatch and capture the flag give the demo a try. Avaliable on both linux and windows(and mac but only full game afaik).
A bit of a plug, but it's a fun game.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

lordofwhee (1187719) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805623)

As a fairly long-time FPS player, I can tell you that no FPS will EVER have any large amount of teamwork (unless you're in a clan, playing with friends, etc), no matter how much the game 'encourages' it.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

DeathCarrot (1133225) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805667)

A reflection on a doorknob and shadows are already quite easily achievable by current raster-based techniques. The former with dynamic cube-map FBO/PBO reflections (not perfectly accurate reflections, but given the size of a doorknob, more than acceptable). For the latter, per-fragment shadows (maps and volumes) have been around for quite some time (granted, in certain extremely high detail scenes ray tracing shadows might be faster).

The biggest immediately noticeable pros of ray tracing from what I've seen are reflections in arbitrarily complex geometry (current generation raster shadows are only viable for planar and some spherical reflections, unless there's a technique I'm not aware of). This, however isn't a good enough reason to switch to a purely ray traced paradigm IMO.
From a gameplay perspective it all seems a bit niche, but I'm sure there's someone out there with an idea that could make use of it. I just don't see FPS du jour picking it up any time soon.
Having said that, ray tracing may be a good utility to use alongside rastering techniques for things like sub-surface scattering or ambient occlusion.

.. Not sure that was entirely on-topic, but there's my tuppence on the near future adoption of ray tracing. Of course eventually everything will be done with unbiased rendering (basically just firing photons around and making them behave just like real photons would, see Maxwell Render [maxwellrender.com] . Currently, still extremely time consuming)

Re:Why? (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805761)

Or maybe cursing at the newbie because he didn't pay attention to the position of a specific lamp and now your team is screwed because your shadows have been noticed.
Not really exciting, MetalGear2 had that, SplinterCell had something like that and plenty of other games had similar stuff (Doom3, etc.). You don't need raytracing for that and in terms of gameplay it doesn't really add much, since most games simply are not slow enough that you care about little details like shadows.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805251)

I see two things here:

1. It runs on 4 x quad core. Which is about just 4X the CPU power a normal user could have right now. A 4X speed improvement isn't probably that far away. They may be hoping to reach a point where a dedicated video card is no longer needed. With the required performance level being so near, adding some extra support to the CPU may be enough.

2. Raytracing scales differently than methods currently used in games. With raytracing, increasing resolution is what adds the processing time, while adding detail is very cheap. Which I'm guessing means that as soon as you get raytracing going in real time at a decent resolution, adding extra quality is cheap. This would radically change the current situation, and possibly drastically bump the quality level.

3. Raytracing implements effects like shadows and transparency in a straightforward manner, which should make it easier to code. Game developers should like that. Also, in my understanding, raytracing also doesn't need to decompose things like spheres into lots of triangles, so the engine can test a ray's collision with a sphere directly. If you can specify parts of a scene as objects like spheres, toruses and such, it'd result in much finer detail.

What I think Intel is trying to do here to ATI/AMD and nVidia is the same thing fast CPUs did to soundcards. There's no longer a real need to have specialized hardware to play MIDI or add effects to sounds, since the CPU is quite capable of doing it itself. In fact, IIRC, Creative had to *blackmail* John Carmack into supporting EAX, because he could implement the same effects faster using the CPU.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805585)

It runs on 4 x quad core. Which is about just 4X the CPU power a normal user could have right now. A 4X speed improvement isn't probably that far away. They may be hoping to reach a point where a dedicated video card is no longer needed. With the required performance level being so near, adding some extra support to the CPU may be enough.
The eventual goal is to use large numbers of minimal x86 cores, I think they can increase the performance for a specialized workload quite a bit.

Re:Why? (1)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805817)

The eventual goal is to use large numbers of minimal x86 cores, I think they can increase the performance for a specialized workload quite a bit.
Yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabee_(GPU) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805701)

1. It runs on 4 x quad core. Which is about just 4X the CPU power a normal user could have right now. A 4X speed improvement isn't probably that far away. They may be hoping to reach a point where a dedicated video card is no longer needed. With the required performance level being so near, adding some extra support to the CPU may be enough.
If everyone had a quad-core, which I doubt is "normal" now though I'll admit it's a standard desktop chip. And I usually play at 1920x1200, that's another 2.5x, plus 14-29 sounds too law to play comfortably, I'd add at least 2x there. So 4x*2.5x*2x = 20x away. Furthermore, while we're moving to faster processors it doesn't look like performance per watt improves that fast. According to Anandtech we can expect a 20-30% overall advantage over Penryn with a 10% increase in power usage, in other words maybe 15% performance improvement per watt. At that rate it will take forever to reach 20x. I also think it's obvious from the nVidia chip that supposedly has a 230W TDP that we're past the time where we can just increase performance with more transistors, bigger and more power hungry chips. I don't see this happening unless you can make a dedicated chip that does this much, much better than the CPU. A "raytracing processing unit" if you will.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805381)

Well, in this case, there is no real story. ET:QW is a purely multiplayer game, unless you wanna play against only bots. It's quite playable too. (and runs on linux if you download something from id!)

Re:Why? (1)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805441)

I personally don't want to play a game with a story written by Intel's 3D researchers - I'm quite happy for them to carry on working on what they know best.

the CD killed the Algorithm years ago (1)

EdelFactor19 (732765) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805795)

and the DVD has been defiling its bloody corpse for nearly a decade now...

why bother putting thought and work into actual gameplay and mechanics when we can just make the game prettier?

sadly all too many gamers are locked into the "better graphics = better game" thinking as well which doesn't help the problem.

No Caps? (4, Insightful)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805083)

No screen captures, just pics taken with a camera? Um, Ok.

Re:No Caps? (0, Troll)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805591)

Maybe they didn't have a spare core to process that hehehe. Seriously, this technology is useless. There's just recently been a graphics card that can anti-alias 8x in Oblivion at full resolution and keep 60 FPS. Why don't they work on real features instead of something that's just going to become another DirectX 10 in that nobody cares about it cuz it's a pointless, horrible upgrade to make (Vista and a new, probably expensive card, no thanks!)

Huh (5, Funny)

gadzook33 (740455) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805109)

With enemeies like that, who needs frames.

Poor quality textures (1)

ulash (1266140) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805115)

Is there a reason why the textures (especially those on the chopper but in general as well) look extremely poor quality? Was this done on purpose to increase the FPS?

Re:Poor quality textures (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805157)

No, they are simply colour mapping. They are not using pixel shaders.

No Wonder Microsoft Dumped Intel For The 360 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805143)

What an amazingly unimpressive demo or Larrabee sucks as much as people have been claiming.

Enemey Territory (1)

Pennidren (1211474) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805219)

Not as dangerous as Enema Territory to be sure, but probably more fun.

Re:Enemey Territory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805307)

More fun than Enema Territory? Preposterous.

Re:Enemey Territory (1)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805757)

Don't you mean "posteriorous"?

Congratulations Intel! (4, Funny)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805247)

Intel, you've done what only you can do! With $6,000 worth of top-of-the-line processors, you've almost duplicated the performance of a $60 RADEON 2400XT. Except with better reflections. Although even pixel-perfect reflections of crappy textures are, by definition, crappy textures. You're going to crush nVidia any day! I feel it, keep smack-talking!

Re:Congratulations Intel! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805365)

not only that ati on board video is a lot better then the intel one + is can use side port ram.

Re:Congratulations Intel! (5, Insightful)

bigtangringo (800328) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805473)

I predict that you'll eat those words one day.

Re:Congratulations Intel! (5, Interesting)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805563)

It's just a first step. Give them some time and I'm sure they'll be producing much more impressive stuff. Though I don't really give a rats ass about the applications real time raytracing has for video games. I'm more interested in what it can do for 3D graphics and animation. As it stands now in 3D you have to render everything out to see what it looks like properly lit. It'd mainly be a workflow improvement, but it'd be a welcome one. It's extremely annoying and time consuming to render out a test image that can take 10 minutes just to see how everything looks. That would also cleave through final render times. As it stands now with most projects it can take weeks or even months to render everything out. In theory with this a single desktop computer could be on par with a render farm. Suddenly all those jerks over at CORE won't be so smug.

Re:Congratulations Intel! (1)

Nimsoft (858559) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805577)

Intel are not claiming this is ready for the mainstream, but merely demonstrating they are getting closer!

What you have to remember is this was done entirely on the CPU. Try running a game with simililar visual quality and resolution on a standard software renderer and you'd be lucky to get 1fps, probably much lower (and that's with no fancy filtering or reflections).

Raytracing has the ability to produce stunning images on a future generation of CPUs alone, or in the closer future on custom hardware and it will be exactly this kind of research that will get us there - I for one am glad someone is doing it.

I'll bet on it that expensive graphics cards that are soon out of date will become a smaller and smaller niche just like the sound card, and I personally can't wait :)

Re:Congratulations Intel! (2, Informative)

urbanriot (924981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805819)

Intel, you've done what only you can do! With $6,000 worth of top-of-the-line processors, you've almost duplicated the performance of a $60 RADEON 2400XT.
No they haven't. They're attempting to implement real-time ray tracing. A $60 video card can not do this.

Re:Congratulations Intel! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805867)

A $200 video card should get close to the perf intel is getting here w/ ray tracing.

The water looks nice (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805253)

but everything else looks like ass. Speaking of which:

I was probably like any other fifteen year old when I was growing up, seemingly aways having to fight off a hard-on. Maybe it was hormones, maybe it was because I was still a virgin, but my almost daily jack-off sessions didn't seem to help much. I still wanted to experience the feeling of my dick actually plunging into some beautiful young girl's tight, wet cunt. Hell, she didn't even have to be all that beautiful!

This feeling was driving me crazy. I HAD to have me a piece of ass soon, or I was simply gonna explode! I just couldn't keep out the thoughts of some young girl's pointed, jiggling tits slipping between my lips while my dick plowed between her moist slit.

My imagination, summer bikinis, and dad's PENTHOUSEs helped me to fill out my favorite fantasies of what the girls in my classes looked like naked. Those vivid images of beautiful, naked young girls coming into my room looking at my dick with lust, or my plopping them down on a desk right there in school and fucking our brains out seemed to dominate my every waking moment. Hell, even my nights were filled with wet dreams of these nubile young girls offering their naked bodies to me on sight!

The truth was I had never even seen a live naked girl since I was about seven-years-old playing doctor with a neigbor girl. Even then I didn't know what it was all about, just that my little dick got hard when I touched her bare pussy and that it felt REAL GOOD when she touched my hard dick. 'If only I new then what I know now,' I thought. Furthermore, I was much too shy to even approach a girl my age to ask for a date, much less to ask for a piece of ass or a blowjob.

I was sitting under a tree fretting about all of this one summer day, when I was startled by the voice of a young neighbor girl who had walked up behind me.

"What are you doing out here all by yourself?"

Pauline was a typical eleven-year-old, her body just beginning to show the first signs of maturing into an hourglass shape, but she still was flat-chested. Her personality had definitely not matured, and I even cosidered her to be quite a brat.

"Nothing much, just moping around," I told her.

"What's wrong?" she asked in a soft tone, touching my knee as she sat down beside me on the ground, her small skirt riding up her smooth legs.

I had never looked at her in a sexual way before, but the combination of my frustration and her uncharacteristic soft-spoken manner caused me to take a second look at her. She was actually a very pretty young girl, with long dark brown hair that flowed down onto her flat, preteen chest. Her innocent dark brown eyes looked deeply into mine as she pondered my troubles, and I began to get an idea on how I might exploit this budding motherly instinct of hers.

"Well......, it's just that a lot of the other guys my age have dated girls already," I began, "some of them have even had sex."

I paused to check her reaction. She was still sitting there looking at me intently, her knees pulled up near her chest and her arms draped around them casually leaving her skirt to gape open under her legs. I was sure that anyone passing by would be able to see her panties, but she didn't seem to be aware of her immodest pose.

"I'm just too shy to ask anyone out, though. I guess I'll never have the guts to either."

She sat there silently, bending her head down and resting her chin on her knees. She seemed to be in thought as she began to stare blankly at the ground in front of her, possibly wondering about her own lack of boyfriends and whether she too would ever have the experience of having sex one day.

"Have you ever wondered what it's like to have sex?" I asked her, hoping to guide the situation into a possible encounter. v She looked at me momentarily to see if I was sincere, or just trying to poke fun at her before answering.

"Well...., yeah...., sometimes...., but nobody really likes me much around here. All of the boys in my class just want to play by themselves. I'll probably never have a boyfriend or anything," she said solemnly.

"Have you ever thought about doing it with anybody around here?" I asked, pressing further.

"EEEWWW, NO!" she said, raising her voice defensively.

"Don't get mad, Pauline! I was just wondering." I said, trying to salvage the situation. "I wouldn't tell anybody if you had thought about it."

After that exchange, we both sat silently for a few moments. She resumed her position of resting her head on her knees, and her skirt still left her entire bottom open below her legs. Hoping to get a better view of this sight, I stretched and yawned, feigning fatique. I then bent forward and crawled along the ground until I was stretched out on my side facing Pauline, my feet resting against the large tree. She looked at me momentarily before reaverting her gaze to the ground directly in front of her, resuming her thoughts. I waited until she looked away before looking under her legs, but when I did, I was greeted by the sight of her beautiful tanned legs disappearing into the rumpled bottom of her skirt. Between them was a bright white strip of cotton cloth, covering what I knew had to be her young twat. The tightness of the cloth stretched across her little pussy, clearly identifying just where it was by the indentation of the fabric along the slit. My dick immediately began to respond, and I quickly stuck my hand in my pocket to adjust it before it was too late, leaving it there to help hide the effect it was going to have on my pants.

"I've thought a lot about having sex," I said, looking back up to her eyes just as she turned her gaze back to me.

"Really? Who with?" she asked curiously.

Now she had me on the spot. If I told her all of the girls my fantasies revolved around, it would be just like this little brat to go and tell them. As I studied her face though, I noticed a look that I had never seen before. It was as if she was trying to form a mental image of two people having sex, me being one of them and the other still left blank.

"Well...., I don't know. You might think it's gross if I tell you. What's more, you'll probably go right off and tell them if I told you who it was," I said.

"I won't think it's gross, and I promise I won't tell...., please....." she pleaded.

Now I was beginning to feel I was getting somewhere. I really had her curiosity up, and I even thought that she might even be enjoying this line of conversation.

"Well...., OK," I began. "But you gotta promise you aren't gonna tell. And it's not like I would really do it with them or anything. I've just thought about it, OK?"

"OK, sure!" she replied, just a tinge of excitement in her voice. v "Um..., well..., you know Jodi McAllister? I've thought about doing it with her." I said.

"Oh," she replied, sounding slightly disappointed.

"Yeah, she's got a nice body. Blonde hair....., blue eyes...., and pretty nice tits too! And she's got a REAL nice ass on her!" I said, hoping to get Pauline's gears going.

Pauline raised up, resting her chin on her hands, her elbows on her knees. She shifted her geet out from her body, keeping her thighs together. Her little feet were pointed inward slightly, giving her a very little girlish look. Her gaze seemed to be far off now as she thought about what I had said.

My eyes returned to that magic spot between her legs momentarily, as I pondered how to word my next sentence.

"Who else have you thought about?" she asked in a faraway tone.

"Well...., if you promise you won't think it's gross.....," I said, pausing for a response.

"No..., no, I don't think it's gross!" she said, looking back at me with pleading eyes.

"Well...., I'm kinda embarrased to tell you who else I was thinking about," I said teasingly.

"Aw, c'mon....., I promise I won't tell!" she begged.

"Well...., you really won't have to...., 'cause...., I kinda have been thinkin' about doin' it with you," I said softly, not really lying about it now.

A look of complete surprise came over her face as her head raised from its resting place slightly and her hands came apart. Her mouth gaped open as she took in what I had just said and I noticed a distinct deep red blush spread across her face.

"Larry...!" she exclaimed, not really knowing what to say next.

"Y-y-you've really..... thought about...., y'know..., having sex..... with me?!" she asked in disbelief.

"Well....yeah," I said, more confidently. "You're a pretty girl, and even though you don't really have any tits yet, you still have a nice body."

She blushed again, instinctively reaching down and wrapping her skirt around her legs, drawing them together and hunching over to rest her chin on her knees once more. It was obvious that she had been flattered about my remarks, but at the same time she was totally caught off guard with the thought of someone wanting to have sex with her. I could see her playing out the scene in her mind as she sat there, rocking back and forth slightly.

A long, pregnant pause elapsed before anyone said anything again. It was me who initiated the next question.

"Well..., what do you think?" I asked her. "Do you think you would want to have sex with somebody like me?"

"NO!" she exclaimed. "I couldn't....., I mean....., I'm only eleven-years-old. I shouldn't be doing stuff like that. And besides, you're fifteen!"

"So, I know some girls who did it when they were nine- years-old," I lied.

"Oh yeah....., who?" she demanded.

"Well...., I promised I wouldn't tell. And promises are promises," I said, trying to get myself out of that one.

Pauline thought for a moment before saying, "Well...., I dunno....., I just don't think I better do anything like that."

"OK, OK......, but if you COULD do it, do you think you would do it with somebody like me?" I asked, trying to keep on the topic.

"Well...., I dunno," she said blushing. "I...., I guess so."

I just smiled back at her, "Thanks, Pauline. I needed to hear that!"

She looked back at me, and an embarrased smile flashed across her face as she had to look away. I wasn't through with her yet, however. I just HAD to get something out of all of this. My dick was pressing against my pants with one of the most raging hard-ons I had ever had. I had noticed Pauline looking down at my crotch a couple of times as we had talked about doing it, but I wasn't sure if she saw anything as my hand was still in my pocket, paritally hiding the tent-like effect my dick was having on my pants.

I waited a few more moments before starting again, "You know...., I don't even know what a naked girl looks like."

"What about your sister, haven't you seen her naked before?" she asked.

"Well....yeah. But that was a long time ago, when she was just a little baby. Besides, it's not the same when you see your sister, especially when she's only one-year-old."

I continued to look at Pauline. She was all balled up, and refused to look at me when we weren't talking. I had decided that I just had to at least see her bare little pussy, even if she wasn't gonna let me fuck her. At least I would have something to go whack off with for a while.

"What about you...., would you let me see you naked?" I asked hesitantly. "I'll let you see me naked."

"I..., I don't know. I better not," her voice showing her uncertainty.

"Aw, c'mon Pauline," I begged. "I'll probably never get to see a naked girl until I get married...., if I ever DO get married."

"I-I don't know, Larry." she said nervously.

I could tell she was actually considering it, but she still would have rather I hadn't asked. Even so, the thought of seeing a naked boy probably for the first time intriqued her.

"I'll make it worth your while," I went on. "I'll buy you an banana split when the ice cream man comes by."

She paused for a moment, biting her upper lip as she contemplated my proposal. The agony of the moment was almost unbearable for me.

Finally, she spoke, " Well....OK...."

I almost leaped for joy inside, but I kept my cool on the outside. At least as much cool as I could considering my state of excitement.

"But you've got to promise that you'll not touch me. And you've got to promise not to tell ANYBODY. And you still have to buy me the banana split." she rattled on.

"OK, OK," I interupted, "I promise, I promise."

"C'mon, let's go to my grandpa's barn where nobody will see us," I said, grabbing her by the hand and rushing her away before she had a chance to change her mind.

Grandpa's barn was way off in a field by itself, surrounded by a few old oak trees on the sides and back. He used it mainly to store hay for his cows, and hardly ever came there during the summer. He also kept an old Studebaker out there, and that is where Pauline and I stopped to carry out our deal.

"You go first," I told her.

"Can't we both just go at the same time?" she asked.

"Well...., yeah..., sure," I said almost reluctantly, not wanting to miss one second of her bare pussy being exposed.

"Remember, you can't touch, and you've got to buy me that banana split," she said.

"I know, Pauline. You don't have to keep reminding me," I said, as I unzipped my pants and she pulled her panties down under her skirt.

I quickly shucked my cut-offs down, exposing my underwear and the large bulge sticking out into it. Pauline had bent over to pull her panties down to about her ankles, then stood up, stepping out of them with her left foot and flipping them off with her right. As she stood, she became transfixed by the sight of my bulging underwear.

Knowing that her pussy was naked under her skirt, and that I was about to see it seemed to make my dick even harder than ever. What's more, knowing that my naked cock was going to be so close to a naked pussy, and me not getting to at least stick it in was more than I could bear. I just had to have more than just a look. My mind raced over what I could say to coax her into letting me at least try to stick it in her as we both slowly began to expose our sex to each other.

I bent over as I slowly lifted the waistband of my underwear over my pulsing cockhead, sliding them down my legs. My face was about a foot and a half from Pauline's crotch, as she slowly lifted her skirt. The hem slowly inched it's way up, and just as I saw the first signs of a tiny hairless slit she stopped.

"Well, stand up so I can see it. We've got to do it together," she demanded.

Reluctanly I stood up, my hard dick pointing up at her face at about a 45 degree angle. Pauline gasped as she looked at it bobbing slightly in front of her.

"OK, Pauline, take your skirt off," I said impatiently.

"I'm just going to lift it up so you can see it, I don't want to take it off," she replied.

I was at the point where I didn't care, just so long as I could see her whole pussy. Quickly she jerked her skirt up over her waist to expose my first full view of a live girl's pussy. It was so beautiful, just a tiny little hairless slit laying there between her closed legs. I marveled at the smooth folds of skin, and the lack of anything else around them.

"Spread your legs a little bit, Pauline. I can't really see anything yet," I asked, my voice almost choking in my throat.

Pausing for a second, she then stepped outward with first one leg, then the other, leaving me a clear view of the little line running down her crotch and disappearing up under her. We stood lie that for a little bit, both of us in awe of each other before I spoke again.

"Pauline.....," I began, "Just let me stick it in you one time...., PLEASE! Just one time, that's all."

"I don't know....," she said cautiously, "besides, you said all I have to do is show you my thing, then you would buy me the banana split."

"I know, I know....., but you look so pretty down there...., a-and guys who have done it before tell me that it feels REAL good when you do it. I promise I'll only stick it in and then pull it right back out...., OK?" I pleaded as I watched her let the hem of her skirt relax downward a little as she thought.

"Well.....," she thought for a moment, looking at my cock, "I......, I guess it will be alright....., just one time though."

"OK," I said, "I get to stick it in you all the way one time, then I'll pull it out."

"Then you buy me the banana split," she added.

"Then I buy you the banana split," I acknowledged. "C'mon over here to the car, we can do it in the backseat."

She dropped her skirt back down and stood by the car door as I opened it. Then she jumped in and lay down on her back across the seat, pulling her skirt up. One leg draped off the edge of the seat, giving me my first good look at her whole, hairless little pussy slit. It started just a little ways up the front of her body and continued down all the way between her legs connecting with the crack of her ass, making one continuous line. The lips of her hairless twat were tight together, leaving no clue as to where her little hole might be.

Slowly, I climbed in the car over her until my dick hovered right over the top of her slit. I wasn't quite sure just where it was supposed to go, so without further ado, I began poking at her slit with my dick. The first prod ran along the very top portion of her hairless slit, the head of my cock parting her lips slightly as it slid up and onto her lower belly. She giggled a little bit at this new stimulation, as the shaft of my dick slid against her preteen clit. I raised up and tried again, producing the same effect. I propped myself up with my left arm as I backed up a little and eased my dick head down her slit with my right hand. 'Where is her little cunt hole,' I thought as my cock head explored the length of her slit. Suddenly, my dick felt something slightly more moist and hotter than before. 'That must be it," I thought, as I held my dick in place and pushed slightly. Her hole was tight, and my dick glanced off and ran down between her ass cheeks.

Again, I backed up and placed the head of my dick at the entrance to her tight, hairless hole and pushed. This time I felt the head go in slightly. As hard as my dick was, it began to bend so I backed off of the pressure a little, but keeping my dick in the same place. Once more I pushed in, and again I felt my dick slip in a little more. This time when I stopped, I felt the walls of her pussy begin to slip down around my cock, readjusting themselves to where they had formerly been. Again I pushed, and I noticed that her pussy lips seemed to go with my dick inside her. When I stopped again, I could see her slit slowly reappear as the walls of her pussy slowly slid back down my dick.

Again I pushed, and suddenly Pauline gasped. I wasn't sure what happened, all I was sure about was that the feeling was incredible. It was like pushing my dick through layer after layer, fold after fold of hot, moist skin. Her tiny hairless hole was so tight that I could only go in a fraction of an inch at a time. Each time I pushed, her whole twat would go with me, and each time I stopped her hole would slowly ease it's way further down my dick, giving me the feeling of passing yet another fold of her inner skin.

I could tell that Pauline was experiencing some discomfort, but she was not protesting. This was a business deal. Both of us had a bargain to keep, and she was certainly going to keep hers. After all, it wasn't very often that a kid around here got a banana split.

I kept up my assault on her tight, hairless, virgin cunt. I had almost gotten my entire dick in her on the last push when I felt the bottom of her pussy come into contact with the head of my dick. The last push had only allowed her pussy to slip down my dick part of the distance of my thrust, and her tiny slit was just barely visible between her legs, my dick resting snugly between them.

Well, I was all of the way in now. We looked at each other, both of us breathing heavily as I stayed inside her for a moment, relishing the feeling of my cock buried deep inside this eleven-year-old's tight, hairless pussy.

"Pauline....," I managed to speak between gasps, "how about if I move my dick back and forth inside your pussy some? I'll still buy you a banana split!"

She lay there with my dick inside her for a moment, panting heavily as she thought before asking hoarsely, "How many times do you want to do it?"

I looked at her for a moment. I hadn't thought about that. How many times does it take before I can cum?

"I dunno...," I gasped, "maybe about...., a hundred?"

I hurried to quell the look of apprehension on her face by explaining, "A hundred times is not a lot. Hell...., I can count to a hundred in less than a minute!"

She looked at me for a moment, then nodded in agreement as I began to slowly withdraw my dick until it was about halfway inside her. As I withdrew, the inner walls of her pussy seemed to hold onto my dick, creating an effect similar to the one when I entered her.

Gradually I began pumping back and forth. The grip of her pussy, combined with the wetness and moisture was causing that familiar feeling deep within my loins. Her gasps became little "Ahh's" that came in time with each quickening thrust of my dick inside her.

I don't think I needed to bargain for "about a hundred times", as the combination of the feeling of her tight hairless cunt wrapped around my dick, the feeling of her tiny body under mine, and the fact that she was looking me right in the eyes as I fucked her brought me over the edge with the most ball busting orgasm I had ever had.

The force of my orgasm forced me to thrust completely inside of her, burying my dick to the hilt. I could feel the hard little nub of her cervix pressing against my cock head as I erupted spurt after spurt deep inside her preteen pussy. The amount of my jism was so much, and the room inside her was so little, that after I filled her preteen womb completely with my spunk, I began to feel it spurt out between my dick and the walls of her twat, running down onto my balls and between the crack of her ass.

I had expended so much energy on my orgasm that I collapsed on top of her, my dick still buried deeply inside her. I rolled over slightly and eased my dick back out of her tiny twat, and as my cock head emerged from between her hairless pussy lips, one last spurt of pent up jism held inside my dick from the tightness of her pussy splashed across the bare lips of her slit, covering them completely.

Our deal was done. It was late however, and the ice cream man had already gone by for the day. It was also getting on to be about supper time, so Pauline slipped out of the car and put her panties back on under her skirt, leaving my cum dripping out of that sweet hairless hole and soaking those pretty white cotton panties.

I saw Pauline around the neigborhood a lot after that. I heard from my freinds that she eventually fucked almost every other boy in the neigborhood, but we never again got together like that, nor did we ever speak of it again. Come to think of it, I never did buy her that banana split!

Meh (4, Interesting)

saikou (211301) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805281)

I know it's all computationally intensive and impressive in that aspect, but pictures in the article don't really look much better than your average videogame. Same triangular shapes, ugly, clearly "rendered" landscapes.

I wonder if anyone tried to do hardware acceleration with, say, splines or something other than triangles.

Re:Meh (5, Interesting)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805385)

I've always wanted a realtime graphics engine based on something like the POV-ray ray-tracer (or other procedural modeling [wikipedia.org] ). The POV-ray syntax is all "exact". Rather than approximating shapes using subdivision into triangles, exact shapes are created by specifying things like "spheres" or "cylinder" or unions, intersections, and differences thereof. More complex objects can be specified by arbitrary mathematical equations, and complex sequences of operations (e.g. take a spline, sweep it along a path, intersect it with another shape, apply a certain matrix transform, ...). Having done some modeling both ways, I much prefer the "exactness" of procedural definitions, rather than approximation. (I inevitably wish I could go back and add resolution to a triangulation, but that isn't easy to do properly.)

The neat thing is that the resulting objects (if properly defined) have "infinite" detail. The roughness on a surface, for instance, can be based on a noise function, so you can zoom into it without ever seeing triangulation or other artifacts.

The obvious downside is that the computation here is intensive. Objects can be arbitrarily complicated. Calculating the intersection of a ray with a mathematically-defined surface involves very complex calculations. Rendering POV-ray scenes on modern hardware, for instance, can take minutes to days (depending on complexity).

One upside is that the rendering can be tuned to available resources. On older hardware, the number of light-sources (or the intersection accuracy, etc.) can be reduced. This would mean that video game graphics would get arbitrarily "better and better" on newer hardware, without any need for someone to change the code. Having said all this... I think our hardware is not yet powerful enough to make this kind of thing practical. (There are some neat examples that have been coded, but as a general technique we're not there yet.)

Re:Meh (0, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805451)

I guess you don't realize it, but POV-Ray is not FREE (as in GPL) software. While it is free (as in beer), users are denied fundamental human rights that the GPL enforces. Using and advocating POV-Ray is counterproductive.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805471)

fundamental human rights that the GPL enforces
I literally laughed out loud. Let me guess, you still believe in Jesus and Santa Claus too?

pov-ray style rendering (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805791)

I like POV-Ray for many of the same reasons; the syntax is very friendly and the available primitives give a lot of flexibility. Most of the fastest real-time ray tracers just support triangles, though, because it makes them simpler and you don't have the overhead of deciding which ray-intersection function to use with each primitive.

I think a typical game developer isn't likely to care if they can make exact spheres and cones and such; the majority of real-life objects aren't perfect quadrics, and are most conveniently represented as triangle meshes. Some might be interested in the added flexibility, though. It'll be interesting to see if any popular ray tracing APIs are going to support anything besides triangles.

POV-Ray itself isn't likely to be competitive with real-time ray tracers any time soon. It just isn't designed for speed. I've been writing my own ray tracer in haskell (link [pdx.edu] ) that implements a lot of the same primitives as POV-Ray, (spheres, cones, boxes, differences, intersections, discs, triangles, planes) and uses a good, modern acceleration structure (BIH). It's not really any faster than POV-Ray, though, and doesn't support the vast majority of POV-Ray's obscure features.

Re:Meh (1)

vertigoCiel (1070374) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805839)

The other obvious downside is that it is hard to model organic objects using such techniques. Ever tried to model a human face procedurally?

All of the earliest 3D renderers (the stuff Lucas Arts developed for Star Wars, whatever they used for the Light Cycles in Tron) used combinations of geometrical primitives as models. They moved to tessellation because most of the things you want to model in movies and video games do not lend themselves to procedural definition very well.

Re:Meh (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805883)

I've always wanted a realtime graphics engine based on something like the POV-ray ray-tracer
CSG can work with a rasterizer, see for example Ensemblist [nongnu.org] . The problem with CSG however is that it just isn't very practical for game modeling, its nice for industrial work where you want to have exactness, but not for games where you want it pretty and want it fast. And of course CSG is rather useless when you want to model something organic like a human or a monster.

Re:Meh (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805407)

Softy3D was a modeling program that used splines and spheres, nothign else.

Re:Meh (1)

X_Bones (93097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805765)

I know it's all computationally intensive and impressive in that aspect, but pictures in the article don't really look much better than your average videogame. Same triangular shapes, ugly, clearly "rendered" landscapes.

That's because the demo wasn't about finer geometry or higher-res textures or better bumpmaps. It was about the reflection and refraction bonuses you get with ray-tracing that you don't with rasterization, which won't really affect anything you were talking about.

Why do i feel that ... (2, Informative)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805337)

Most people don't understand the beauty of ray tracing .... oh wait a minute, most people are DUMB! that's right >;D

Seeing these comments reflects very well the average human intellect about a subject before talking about it.

Then what's so special in ray tracing versus rasterization?

It's actual real world based mimickery. Ray tracing mimicks how real world works.

Ask yourself would you prefer physics to correlate to real world physics, or something quickly around the corner which is something like that but not quite? That's the difference between rasterization and ray tracing. Rasterization comes close, but never is quite the real thing, while ray tracing works to replicate real world physics of light.

Yes, it actually is physics calculations, in this case, the physics of light and visualizing it.

Then there's things like radiosity tracing aswell ...

With Raytracing / radiosity tracing just provide enough computational power, and you can make it look real, like an photo. With rasterization you can't do that, to rasterize, and make proper looking shaders, they never get quite there, but even doing the shaders, you need to think about how the real world works first, how light travels, how it interacts with what it hits, in other words how the rays interact with objects.

Rasterization is JUST a cheap trick to make it look something like that, nothing else.

It's a bit like comparing veggie soy "meat" to the real thing It's something like it, but not really, just a "cheap trick".

Now they used 16 cores to that, 4 cpus. Moore's law, CPU power doubles every 18 months, that means JUST 3 years before high end home users can enjoy something like that. in 4.5 years it becomes common, 6 years and it's every day. Be prepared for the coming of Ray Tracing. In about 7.5 to 9 years all graphics are probably ray tracing.

And that all without any software, or architectural advantages, it'll probably happer sooner with Intel making a hard effort to make it reality.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (1, Insightful)

ulash (1266140) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805389)

I think you are missing the point a little here by ignoring one of the points people made before you. It's not like Intel has demonstrated amazing graphics using raytracing. Noone would want graphics like this in their games even today let alone in 4 years. Iff Intel can come up with a demonstration using raytracing that actually looks *better* than the "cheap trick" version then we can start counting down the days for when we will get that capability at home for an affordable price.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805649)

Noone would want ray-trace-quality graphics in their games? How many gamers do you know?

I'm a gamer, and I would love ray-traced games. Half-Life 2 looked good in its day, as did Half-Life several years before it, but we're getting to the point where if we want things to look more realistic (and believe me, gamers do), we're going to need to switch to ray tracing.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (0, Offtopic)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805397)

It's a bit like comparing veggie soy "meat" to the real thing It's something like it, but not really, just a "cheap trick".
I try not to think of veggie meat and tofu as a replacement for meat, but rather a whole different food that stands completely on it's own. It's quite different from meat, and not a replacement. But if you throw away the whole idea of a meat substitute away, it actually tastes pretty good. Not only that, it's a good source of protein, and extremely low fat compared to other sources of protein. Once you get over the fact that it's tofu, and obviously doesn't taste like meat, and isn't supposed to be meat, then you shouldn't have a problem eating it. If you don't like the taste/texture of tofu, you aren't preparing it right.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805405)

Psst. It's all tricks. That's not a real helicopter, and it'll never fly out of your screen. Value judgments on what's more "real" are just plain silly.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805433)

Most people don't understand Moore's Law

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/moore.ars [arstechnica.com]

Re:Why do i feel that ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805457)

Now they used 16 cores to that, 4 cpus. Moore's law, CPU power doubles every 18 months, that means JUST 3 years before high end home users can enjoy something like that.
Moore's law describes an important trend in the history of computer hardware: that the number of transistors that can be inexpensively placed on an integrated circuit is increasing exponentially, doubling approximately every two years.

It has nothing to do with CPU power. What was all that you were saying about most people and the average human intellect?

Re:Why do i feel that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805495)

Your right, ray tracing is conceptually very elegant and rasterization is just a work-around. However, its a hack that works and needs much less computation. Moore's law is an easy excuse, but CPU speed is rapidly hitting a plateau, and while you can always throw more transistors at it since most types of video rendering is very parallel in nature, this still means more power requirements and hardware cost. Not that a chip maker would mind selling more product... Gosh, who is pushing this technology? Id love to see ray tracing become mainstream though, but i suspect it would need to be on a more efficient type of architecture.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805503)

You know what? Fuck you.
captcha: lecture

Re:Why do i feel that ... (3, Interesting)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805541)

Rasterization is JUST a cheap trick to make it look something like that, nothing else.
Right, but it's really fast. It's faster than ray tracing is good.

If you're waiting for humans to get rid of fast approximations when they're good enough, I hope you're patient.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (5, Informative)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805555)

Ray tracing mimicks how real world works.

Raytracing doesn't mimic how real world works. In fact it does exactly the opposite of what happens in real world. In real world you have bazillions of light particles, doubling also as waves, shoot out of many area light sources and bounce/be absorbed by objects around them.

Whatever photons end up hitting your retina, is what you see.

Raytracing instead shoots a ray out of your (virtual) retina straight forward to the scene and may refract/reflect off objects, until it's "absorbed" (means, hits a surface where refraction/reflection isn't calculated).

Rendering a single frame of 3D as it is in the "real world" (with just a fraction of the rays) would mean days on even the fastest hardware out there.

What raytracing gives you is sharp reflections, refractions and shadows, while introducing a bunch of other limitations on the rendering that rasterization doesn't have. It also can't do soft shadows, reflections, refractions, efficiently, nor subsurface scattering, or radiosity.

Best models for rendering in the future will likely be hybrid models similar to what is now used in professional renderers by movie studios. But then again, it's a game, who cares about mathematicaly accurate reflections, when you can fake it close enough with reflection/refraction maps in a fraction of the processing time.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805625)


Whatever photons end up hitting your retina, is what you see.

Quantum mechanics (aka "God's PVS") begs to differ.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (4, Interesting)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805753)

For classical optics, modeling the scene in either direction (castings rays from lightsources and only counting ones that hit the viewer vs. casting rays from the viewer and only counting ones that hit lightsources) is valid.

I assume you didn't mean for "efficiently" to be an item in your list, which is the way you wrote it, but raytracers can do all of those things. (I'll make no claims about efficiency.)

"But then again, it's a game, who cares about mathematicaly accurate reflections, when you can fake it close enough with reflection/refraction maps in a fraction of the processing time."

That argument is no more valid that if you say "it's just a game, why don't you just do raycasting, which takes a fraction of the processing time". "Faking it close enough" isn't close enough; it's obvious that you're faking it, and it requires that you either live with it or design your game to minimize the impact of faking it.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (1)

DetpackJump (1219130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805557)

Wha? There's some decent discussion in this thread, then you come along, call everyone dumb, then toss some stupidly basic definitions at us. I feel like you just walked into a senior level college math class and started to explain high school algebra to everyone.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (1)

Dubbie99 (1024375) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805613)

His post was the first one on this thread that actually seemed to have some sense in it. The rest of the posts are from amateurs who think that fiddling with POV ray back in the 90's qualifies them as an expert.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805671)

You're the perfect manifestation of a person who knows only a little about the subject and talks about it. And I'm confident that you lack the basic understanding of both raytracing and radiosity. Both are crude approximations toward the rendering equation, but they try to capture different aspects of it. In practice, raytracing is better at delivering reflection, refraction or anything that you can do by tracing a ray backward from the eye, but radiosity does global illumination a lot more efficiently than raytracing. That said, raytracing does scale better than radiosity.

While I agree with you, (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805683)

one - you're about to be deluged by haters. I've said these very things here and the haters are quite enthusiastic. They're also wrong.

two - the other guys aren't standing still either. No doubt the other guys are looking into ray tracing now that the level of tech to support it is coming around.

Raytracing, for the win.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805725)

You eyes shoot out photons and determine what you see by what they refract and reflect off and what light sources they happen to hit?

Bizarre...

Why do I feel... (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805739)

That so many geeks need to get outside more. Oh wait, they do!

Honestly it isn't like either ray-tracing or raster graphics will cure hunger or disease, so to me "close enough" is good enough. It's just entertainment after all.

Re:Why do i feel that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805861)

I find it funny that you spend several paragraphs talking about "reality" and then bring up "moore's law"...

Re:Why do i feel that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805869)

Ask yourself would you prefer physics to correlate to real world physics, or something quickly around the corner which is something like that but not quite? That's the difference between rasterization and ray tracing. Rasterization comes close, but never is quite the real thing, while ray tracing works to replicate real world physics of light.
Can your beloved ray tracing correctly handle a diffraction grating? How about circular polarization and birefringent materials?

If not, then it isn't "real world physics" but some kind of limit (probably something approximating the classical ray-optical limit).

(Note: you can do all of the above with ray tracing, but it'll slow things down quite significantly.)

Ray Tracing and Pixel Shaders (4, Interesting)

Quabbe (1308187) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805367)

The images clearly show that they are using simple colour mapping for the textures (especially the helicoptor). What I want to know is, can pixel shaders be used with ray tracing?

Re:Ray Tracing and Pixel Shaders (1)

Ostsol (960323) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805483)

Even with ray-tracing, colour mapping for textures will likely never disappear. You do, after all, need something to indicate to the ray tracer how the surface reflects light. Gazing through POV-Ray's documentation, there appears to be a variety of methods [povray.org] for accomplishing this, with bitmap-based color maps being just one (and perhaps one of the fastest). I believe this answers your question, too. A type of pixel shader is used in ray-tracing to describe materials, but somewhat differently from those used in rasterization-based rendering.

Re:Ray Tracing and Pixel Shaders (1)

Quabbe (1308187) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805593)

So if it is possible to use pixel shaders (all be it a different paradigm) to define material properties/per pixel normals/lighting etc, why then would they use just standard colour mapping? Why not go the whole hog and use these in the tech demos? This would make the fidelity alot more convincing.

Re:Ray Tracing and Pixel Shaders (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805801)

I guess it is simply time. They would need to rewrite all the pixel shaders for their raytracing stuff, they can't just use the the normal ones for the GPUs.

Re:Ray Tracing and Pixel Shaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805489)

Yes

After close examination of the screenshots (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805387)

Sorry, being an industry insider, I have to post as an anonymous coward here.

There is no lighting, normal mapping, or material fidelity here. So this is a long way from being the quality of a final product, but it is a good demo and a start in the right direction.

Re:After close examination of the screenshots (1)

enoz (1181117) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805443)

So in other words, Half Life 2 still looks better?

That reminds me of the original Half Life 2 trailer (before the first game) that appeared to promise such things as realtime material reflections and refractions.

Re:After close examination of the screenshots (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805545)

agreed, what good is perfect water and glass if the textures are from 2002?

sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805391)

this game still sucks, regardless of what intel can make it look like

Re:sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805571)

No, it runs on Linux ergo it cannot suck.

The GNU has spoken.

where's the video (2, Insightful)

heroine (1220) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805609)

Where's the HD video of the enhanced visual effects in 1280x720 at 14-29 fps?

Reflective spheres (5, Funny)

manekineko2 (1052430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805629)

Every time ray tracing technology is shown off, I can't help but marvel that the long held dream of games filled with reflective spheres can finally be enabled.

Re:Reflective spheres (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805857)

Well, perhaps it's not circles, but I can see this technology benifiting CUBE [superdeluxe.com]

Re:Reflective spheres (5, Funny)

Siridar (85255) | more than 6 years ago | (#23805885)

Don't forget! Those spheres need to be on a chessboard!

blur of the line (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23805657)

If you look at the crytek engine and how it calculates screen ambient occlusion, then you find there is a mix of ray tracing and raster technology. For instance, its suspected, they simulate a ray tracing but against the depth buffer in a fragment shader to get ambient occlusion.

By the way, please don't publish pictures on t.v. sets. It hurts the eyes.

Ultimately, ray tracing is going to win but not at 13 frames a second.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...