• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Cinema 2.0 : New real time extened video

So would thise AMD Cinema 2.0 be useful for me if I watched movies on my PC?

Is the tech demo rendered by the GPU?
 
Last edited:
Final8y said:
Purely conjecture from forum members like your self because they find it hard that it could be true & are going to great lengths to suggest other possibilities.

And at the end of the day if i can play games looking like the ruby demo then i really don't care for what tricks may of been used.
Click to expand...

Well it's a matter of honesty, you need to calm down a bit and stop taking this as a personal insult. If you took the time to read the comments on ompf.org, you would see that a lot of people with deep rendering knowledge are dsiputing Ati's claims.

Who is the one who is being dishonest here? You say that i am going to great lengths to disproove it, quite the opposite. If you know about Raytracing then the Ati video immediately seems too good to be true, and it turns out it is.

I take Nvidia for their word on that demo because it looks exactly like what we should expect. There is no reason for them to exaggerate their claims since the the video just does what it says on the tin. They are not claiming to be able to render cineatic quality real time raytraced scenes, they are showing a proof of concept.

You seem to be the one with a horse in the race here, i don't care who produces the best card with the best raytracing or anything else. I do care when people directly compare 2 demos that are not apples for apples though,
which is exactly what you did.

Btw at the end of the day the chances of playing games that look like the Ruby demo are next to nil anyway, if you read those comments again on ompf.org you will see that this is 100% demo tech with extremely limited scope for games since there are so many cinematic hacks going on that making an entire game this way would be next to impossible.
 
Also Jules Urbach (the guy who created the Ruby demo) said himself in the Cinema 2.0 demonstration that games will not be using full raytracing for many years yet, hybrid is the way to go. I absolutely agree with him because full raytracing just cannot be done real time in complex scenes yet.

That's why the Nvidia demo looks simple in comparison, because it is doing full raytracing in real time.
 
p0rks0da said:
Well it's a matter of honesty, you need to calm down a bit and stop taking this as a personal insult. If you took the time to read the comments on ompf.org, you would see that a lot of people with deep rendering knowledge are dsiputing Ati's claims.

Who is the one who is being dishonest here? You say that i am going to great lengths to disproove it, quite the opposite. If you know about Raytracing then the Ati video immediately seems too good to be true, and it turns out it is.

I take Nvidia for their word on that demo because it looks exactly like what we should expect. There is no reason for them to exaggerate their claims since the the video just does what it says on the tin. They are not claiming to be able to render cineatic quality real time raytraced scenes, they are showing a proof of concept.

You seem to be the one with a horse in the race here, i don't care who produces the best card with the best raytracing or anything else. I do care when people directly compare 2 demos that are not apples for apples though,
which is exactly what you did.

Btw at the end of the day the chances of playing games that look like the Ruby demo are next to nil anyway, if you read those comments again on ompf.org you will see that this is 100% demo tech with extremely limited scope for games since there are so many cinematic hacks going on that making an entire game this way would be next to impossible.
Click to expand...

I don't remember putting an anger face icon in my post so i don't know why you took it that i was taken it personally :)

The fact still remains that you dispelled atis demo before you even searched for any ifno on the matter & you have taken NV demo with out any effort.
 
p0rks0da said:
Also Jules Urbach (the guy who created the Ruby demo) said himself in the Cinema 2.0 demonstration that games will not be using full raytracing for many years yet, hybrid is the way to go. I absolutely agree with him because full raytracing just cannot be done real time in complex scenes yet.

That's why the Nvidia demo looks simple in comparison, because it is doing full raytracing in real time.
Click to expand...

It really does not matter if its hybrid or what ever its still using real-time ray tracing with in it & that's all that matters as the results is what its all about.
 
Last edited:
Final8y said:
It really does not matter if its hybrid or what ever its still using real-time ray tracing with in it & that's all that matters as the results is what its all about.
Click to expand...

I agree it does not matter what you use to get a good result, that is what cinema and games have been about since day one - How to use smoke and mirrors to fool people :)

The only thing i was addressing in your original post is the fact you compared the 2 demos as an apples for apples comparison which they are not. Nvidia demo is just to demonstrate FULL real time raytracing as a proof of concept.

The Ati demo looks excellent, but it is a smoke and mirrors demo. That's not a criticism of the demo in any way, it's just does not have the same goal as the Nvidia demo.

One is a demo for public wow factor, the other is purely a tech demo.
 
to add to this

As far as i know correct me if i am wrong but the Nvidia ray tracing demo is done in directx. Whereas the AMD ruby demo isn't directx or opengl it is done using voxel based rendering. Which is something entirely different to what we gamers have been playing games with. So i assume there is a lot left for the GPU to use to run ray tracing, it may not be true ray tracing but a hybrid but what does it matter, that demo looks near photo realistic.
 
There is dispute over whether the demo is entirely voxel based as well, have a look at all the comments on the site i linked as there are people there with far more knowledge than me on any of this stuff.

One thing to note is that this demo appears to be built on Urbach's OTOY software, which complicates things even more, as it's a kind of distributed renderer where a lot of work can be done on a server and the client machine can request scenes as it goes. The client then takes the massive data sets and compresses them down for rendering, which is the main reason it could be almost impossible to actually use in game developement, both from an asset creation point of view, and storage of the original data sets. It can even do this into a browser via internet.

It's very cool technology nonetheless, but i don't think there is enough evidence that you can actually make use of this stuff in games.
 
Last edited:
Yeah it's definately an interesting idea, but i just don't see any implementation for the gaming industry until there is way more detailed info. As it stands i can't see any developer making a game with assets on this kind of scale, when all of those assets need to be available to the client at some point for final rendering. Small scenes (ie like one street or whatever) are one thing, when you want to make something bigger (ie a game) you have to stream a huge quantity of assets.

Let's see if Ati release the Ruby demo to the public, that way we can see exactly how much data is being used etc...
 
Last edited:
Wow just found the most interesting news

The entire Ruby demo was 100% raytraced, no tricks, no hybrid technology and all from the man that created the ruby demo Jules Urbach and his OTOY team.

http://www.crn.com/hardware/208700921;jsessionid=CHLMWRD1P50WUQSNDLPCKHSCJUNN2JVN?pgno=8

a cut and paste

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, RV YOUR ENGINES
A leaked shot of a portion of AMD's next-gen RV77 graphics card, which OTOY's Arbach said has enabled him to develop real software tools in areas of visual computing that developers have had to jerry-rig cheats for up until now.

"We had tricks to do ray tracing in the past. They were tricks, but nevertheless it was real-looking and heuristic," he said. "But I think that today, at this point, with the imminent launch of new hardware, we're going to be able to do these things we've only imagined before. Like real ray tracing without cheating. I'm surprised you can do that on the GPU, but the rate at which these things have been improving has been phenomenal."
 
dvdbunny said:
to add to this

As far as i know correct me if i am wrong but the Nvidia ray tracing demo is done in directx. Whereas the AMD ruby demo isn't directx or opengl it is done using voxel based rendering. Which is something entirely different to what we gamers have been playing games with. So i assume there is a lot left for the GPU to use to run ray tracing, it may not be true ray tracing but a hybrid but what does it matter, that demo looks near photo realistic.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel

Many NovaLogic games have used voxel-based rendering technology, including the Delta Force series and the Comanche series.
Westwood Studios' Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun and Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 use voxels to render most vehicles.
Westwood Studios' Blade Runner video game used voxels to render characters and artifacts.
Outcast, a game made by Belgian developer Appeal (now bankrupt), sports outdoor landscapes that are rendered by a voxel engine.
The videogame Amok for the Sega Saturn makes use of voxels in its scenarios.
The turn-based strategy game Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri renders all units and terrain in 3D using voxels.
The computer games Vangers and Perimeter both use a voxel renderer. Perimeter relies on voxels for its unique terrain molding.
The computer game "Thunder Brigade" was based entirely on a voxel renderer, according to BlueMoon Interactive making videocards redundant and offering increasing detail instead of decreasing detail with proximity.
Master of Orion 3 uses voxel graphics to render space battles and solar systems. Battles displaying 1000 ships at a time were rendered on computers without hardware graphic acceleration.
Build engine first person shooter games Shadow Warrior and Blood use voxels instead of sprites as an option for many of the items pickups and scenery. Duke Nukem 3D has an optional voxel model pack created by fans, which contains the high resolution pack models converted to voxels.
Crysis uses voxels for its terrain system.
Worms 4 Mayhem uses a "poxel" (polygon and voxel) engine to simulate land deformation similar to the older 2D Worms games.
The multi-player role playing game Hexplore uses a voxel engine allowing the player to rotate the isometric rendered playfield.
Voxelstein 3D also uses voxels for destructible environments.
Click to expand...

nothing new at all mate ;)
 
Cyber-May

thanks for the links, i thought voxel rendering was some new tech, it's interesting that we have already seen voxels in games even Crysis. Crysis is a directx game but i thought voxel rendering or at least an entire game using nothing but voxels would be made outside of directx and opengl or is this not true then?

Also do you know if vortex/vertices rendering is the same as voxel rendering?

thanks in advance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom