- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:47:33 -0800
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Feb 24, 2010, at 12:09 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote: >> >> - Raytracing a complex scene at high resolution. >> >> - Drawing a highly zoomed in high resolution portion of the Mandelbrot set. >> >> To be fair though, you could compute the pixels for those with just math, >> >> there is no need to have a graphics context type abstraction. >> >> http://people.mozilla.com/~sicking/webgl/ray.html >> >> I did not think it was possible to write a proper raytracer for arbitrary >> content all as a shader program, but I do not know enough about 3D graphics >> to know if that demo is correct or if that is possible in general. Point >> conceded though. > > The big thing that GLSL is lacking is a stack, making it impossible to > recurse properly. This isn't a huge problem to work around, though can > result in ugly code. Especially if you want to support transparent > objects, in which case you'll essentially have to unroll recursion > manually by copying code. > > This of course makes it impossible to recurse to arbitrary levels, > though that is something you generally don't want to do anyway in a > ray tracer since it costs a lot of CPU (or in this case GPU) cycles > for very little visual gain. Oh, but the math is definitely correct, so GLSL ray tracing is quite possible. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 01:47:33 UTC