CompuServe Messages

Hi Peter, Thanks for your thoughts on this thread. ->"My experience has been that ray tracing is accepted as an _inherently_ slower process for rendering than the other options out there. And is that not what was originally said? That 3DS is not a ray tracer because to do so would be a speed sacrifice not worth the particular strengths of a ray tracer?" Yes that was what was said. To say that something is "accepted" as being an "_inherently_ slower process for rendering than the other options out there" is just that, heresay. What does it have to do with reality or specific facts? Let me restate more clearly: When comparing *PC* raytracers and partial implementations of raytracing (like 3DS's rt shadows), the comparitive speed is dependent upon how well the code is written and optimized for the given application. Depending on which raytracer you use, your rendering times may be vastly different. >>and is a function of how well the code is written and optimized<< ->"This statement is true of anything. Substitute line drawing; z-buffer; or egg scrambling for raytracing, and it holds true _inside_ that given topic." Look, please don't disect my sentences and quote me out of context. My meaning was confined to raytracing code and not scrambled eggs. I have the greatest admiration and respect for 3DS, and have used it since r2's release. I also use raytracing quite often, and have used RT programs since the 80287 chip was available. I have experience with most freeware, shareware, and commerical raytracing implementations on the pc. Based on my experience, I can unequivocably state that some raytracers are mature, optimized 3D rendering engines that approach the speed of scanline renderers. And some are brutally slow, poorly implemented and "not worth the particular strengths of a ray tracer". To summarily dismiss them all as being not worth the trouble is, IMO, an uneducated action. Cheers and best regards, -Heinz.