Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Intel Games

Wolfenstein Gets Ray Traced 184

Posted by Soulskill
from the ach-mein-framen dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wolfenstein Gets Ray Traced

Comments Filter:
  • Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pieisgood (841871) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @03:07AM (#33570656) Journal

    Yeah, this project is simply here to validate itself.

    I don't know if that's entirely true though. Carmack talks of slowly integrating raytracing technology into videogames. This research into raytracing in games could prove useful later in videogame development. As I understand most advancements in videogame visuals today are optimizations on old research. So I wouldn't rain on their parade entirely.

  • Poor ray tracing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DarwinSurvivor (1752106) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @03:21AM (#33570716)
    Their ray tracer has a few issues.
    -The player does not appear in the scope reflection (but his shadow does).
    -The people's shadows are cast in a different direction than the car's.
  • Project Offset (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nacturation (646836) * <`moc.liamg' `ta' `noitarutcan'> on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @03:30AM (#33570748) Journal

    Anybody know what happened to http://www.projectoffset.com/ [projectoffset.com] ? They released tons of killer videos showing an amazing game concept, outstanding real-time effects [youtube.com]... then Intel buys them and... nothing!

  • Ironic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @03:37AM (#33570768)

    That none of intels graphics processors have any hope in hell of real time ray tracing.

  • fps counter lying? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by citizenr (871508) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @03:37AM (#33570772) Homepage

    Chandelier part displays 40 fps on top right, but you can clearly see on the screen that its more like 15. Not to mention unimpressive difference between RT and normal renderer. I was expecting something more real life.

  • That's... Lovely. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @04:00AM (#33570878)
    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 [youtube.com]
  • Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by leuk_he (194174) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @04:18AM (#33570948) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tibit (1762298) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:01AM (#33572446)

    Just thinking about the bandwidths is interesting. Start with 150E6 rays per second. Assume that to traverse the binary space subdivision data structures takes, say, 256 bytes, along with another 256 bytes worth of data for the polygon. That requires ~77 gigabytes/s memory bandwidth, sustained. So in practice you need the bandwidth of 6 fastest DDR3 sticks. And your algorithms better kept the CPUs pipelines full, and did proper prefetching, or else cache misses will have you for a day's worth of meals.

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.

Working...