I apologize. Re-reading this after my first cup of tea (note to self: must not post when still drowsy), I see now that I misread your post. Yeah, doing everything in a raytracer has its benefits. Still, the way you chose to do it is and remains highly questionable. You should have optimized the hell out of it as a CPU renderer and then added GPU support as the icing on top of it - like anyone with some sense does.

Mylenium

[Pour Mylène, ange sur terre]
-----------------------------------------
www.mylenium.de

Todd Kopriva <kopriva@adobe.com> hat am 5. Juni 2012 um 23:20 geschrieben:

> > I'm trying to get my head around Adobe's decision to go with the ray
> > traced renderer they did in AE6.
>
> I just asked a couple of the software engineers involved about this decision, and they say that a ray-traced renderer is more efficient for getting good-looking results for reflections, refractions, and shadows than would be a scanline renderer. Our GPU-based ray-traced 3D renderer is actually quite fast compared with anything that gives comparable visual results for these light-related characteristics. That said, the CPU-based renderer is slow, and we acknowledge that.
>
> As far hardware dependencies: We officially support a couple dozen GPUs, and many of the high-performing ones (like the GTX 580) are not expensive.
>
> +---End of message---+
> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>