Will we ever leave polygon-optimized GPUs behind? Surely, polygons

>>55938523
no

>>55938523
Ray tracing can be done on current GPUs. It's just it's still insanely complex.

>>55938571
How about voxels?

>>55938584
why do that when you can use raytracing?

>>55938584
What do you think it is?

Voxels have 2 downfalls vs regular 3D.

First it just takes a shitload of memory for a simple model.

Second, it's not animation friendly.

>>55938523
>aren't voxels more flexible now?
That's the problem, voxels aren't felixible. Remember the "unlimited detail" tech demos by Euclideon? different tech, but similar problem, meaning you still need polygons for anything that needs to move.

>>55938571
Imagination has a GPU that pulls just 10w of power, is passively cooled, and can raytrace in real-time considerably faster than a 980Ti, but sucks for anything else. The problem is that with dedicated hardware, raytracing (actually path tracing) can be made feasible, but not without sacrificing something else, but it might work out as an add-in card working in tandem with standard graphics. For instance one GPU renders the graphics and the path tracer calculates just the GI pass.

molecular simulation is the next big thing

>>55938736
Voxels are basically moleculae.

>>55938766
No, they're not. Molecules have a structure, voxels don't

>>55938736
I hope you're meant molecular simulation, as in research, like Folding@Home things.
Because if you think we're close to being able to compute a scene, in real time, down to the molecular level, you are wildly overestimating the amount of molecules in even a droplet of water.

>>55938847
> overestimating
*underestimating

File: stop posting anytime.jpg (35KB, 361x691px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 361x691px

>>55938571
>Ray tracing is insanely complex.
>>55938719
>For instance one GPU renders the graphics and the path tracer calculates just the GI pass
If you don't know shit, just don't talk, you fucking retards.
It's embarrassing to read.

File: 1469588932155.jpg (417KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1600x1200px

>>55938523
Uh, how you gonna draw those voxels chief?

Polygons?
Raytrace through them?

>>55938681
/thread

voxels are a horrendously poor way of expressing dynamic geometry.
you can rotate/stretch/shear a block of them around, but as soon as you want to do some non-uniform deformation you'll want to kill yourself instead.

There was some company that was trying to do that shit a few years ago and they claimed to have some amazing algorithm that would make it possible to have unlimited detail and that it would revolutionize computer graphics. That turned out to be bullshit vaporware of course, and their claims about being able to do animation were also complete bullshit; as usual, they had problems with animation.

>>55938889
what is that pic

>>55938942
>bullshit vaporware
Except it wasn't, you fucking idiot.
They just don't use it for games.
They are using it scene capture industry.
And they actually made a revolution there.
It wasn't possible to view raw scene capture with traditional engines before they came along.

>>55938942
It was Euclideon and I dont think they ever intended it for gaming but they did shamelessly viral their shit in gaming communities to gain exposure.

>>55939033
They keep saying "oh we're going to release games" and then don't do it, so how are any of us going to know they're actually doing something? They even released a video last year saying "we're going to release 2 games using this technology in 2015!" and guess how many games they released? Oh right, none. At the very least throw a fucking demo at us, maybe some studios will take the bait and buy your product. Their tech would be useful as shit now that VR is taking off but they sit there twiddling their thumbs and using the gaming community for exposure while not intending to actually do anything for it.

>>55939087
Go back to /v/

>>55938970

Everyone in class is checking out those big beautiful titties. Then some faggot drew lines all over it.

>>55939153
Hardware and especially GPUs advance only for the sake of games. So shut your whore mouth and appreciate the progress we give you.

>>55940065
>Hardware only advance for the sake of games
The sad part is that there are some /v/ manchildren who LITERALLY believe this

>>55940127
It does. Didn't you notice how Moore's law stopped working at the exact time gaming moved to the consoles?
The CPU and GPU advances are tied to the new console releases too.

If people decided to completely move to consoles for gaming the whole hardware market would belly up in a year.
Stay mad.

>>55940167
>exact time gaming moved to the consoles

What was the last year that PC game sales were greater than console sales?

Never.

>>55940167
I'm about 80% sure you're trolling

But in the 20% chance that you're not, let me slip in the word that you are a fucking idiot if you think the world of servers, companies, cloud computing, supercomputers, bioinformatics etc. etc. etc. revolve around your ability to see black, brown and gray pixels on your screen

>>55940275
Yes, they all exist for games. Even the supercomputers. Everything else can be done on a 20 year old CPU and GPU.

>>55939062
Literally their entire selling points was muh videogames and then they went "h-hehe we uh, we decided to, uh, refocus! Yeah, that's it, refocus! Geospatial industry guys! Hehehe, in another decade, hehe, give us even more money".
The fact is they never had anything and you'd have to be beyond clinically retarded to have ever believed any of their claims on any level.

Oh fuck no. Now T-splines might be pretty cool.

>>55938766
What the fucking fuck did you just say?
>>55938736
Molecular simulation has been a thing for decades now.

>>55938863
No kidding. that guy is retarded as all fuck.