home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.lut.fi!not-for-mail
- From: myrjola@news.lut.fi (Mika Yrj|l{)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.misc
- Subject: Re: My Spec for the Amiga 2 (Next Amiga)
- Date: 19 Apr 1996 12:50:09 +0300
- Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
- Message-ID: <4l7nkh$3v2@mopo.cc.lut.fi>
- References: <2774.6679T992T276@stack.urc.tue.nl> <3603.6680T532T1326@gj-cent.demon.co.uk> <WXBqy*oJ0@mkmk.in-chemnitz.de>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: mopo.cc.lut.fi
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #3 (NOV)
-
- floh@mkmk.in-chemnitz.de (Andre Weissflog) writes:
-
- >In article <3603.6680T532T1326@gj-cent.demon.co.uk>, Gi writes:
-
- >> Mark van der Molen wrote in <2774.6679T992T276@stack.urc.tue.nl> on 16-Apr-96
- >> 14:59:33 :
- >> >On 14-Apr-96 18:50:09 Gi (gi@gj-cent.demon.co.uk) wrote :
- >>
- >The only machine that could possibly do some sort of ***primitive***
- >realtime raytracing in realistic display resolutions is AFAIK the
- >PixelPlanes5, which has basically 1 CPU per pixel.
-
- How much *that* kind of beast does cost??
-
- I wonder if rendering the picture in smaller resolution (160x128 or even
- 80x64) and then upscaling it smoothly would do, the redering time would
- be much smaller but the results would be probaly passable still...
- After all, consider Alien Breed 3D with its coarse resolution (probaly at
- most 160x128, possibly 80x64 or so, and it still is ok even without
- raytracing and smooth scaling...)
-
- Mika
- --
- /-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
- I Fantasy, Sci-fi, Computers, Marillion, Oldfield, Vangelis, Clannad, Irc I
- I Odd Experiences, Worms, Tuna, Synths. See http://www.lut.fi/~myrjola I
- \-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
-