this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
48 points (100.0% liked)
Explain Like I'm Five
14406 readers
1 users here now
Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you want pretty graphics this is good.
If you want many frames this is bad.
There has long been the claim that CPUs (these days GPUs, but the claim predates GPUs) that can ray trace your games with plenty of frames are just around the corner. So far that hasn't happened and most people working on CPUs/GPUs are pessimistic of it. Maybe you could raytrace something simple (tetris?) in real time, but modern games put in too many objects.
Your exactly right. If graphic quality stood still for a couple years, Ray tracing speed would catch up and be on parity. We keep pushing more polygons and other things that keep putting ray tracing behind a bit.
That's kind of why it started to become feasible, right? Graphics quality has only incrementally improved over the last decade or so, vs geometrically improving in decades past
I mean, that's been my opinion. You can only get so many polygons and bump mapping and texture resolution, etc, before you hit a plateau. The rest is 100% lighting.
I think as things like dlss and other frame generation tech gets better, Ray tracing will eventually become the norm.