News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:After losing half its value, Nvidia faces reckoning by elFarto on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @03:26PM (#18667437)
Wolfenstein 3D was ray-casting, not ray-tracing. There is quite a difference between the two techniques.
Re:After losing half its value, Nvidia faces reckoning by benj111 on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @03:39PM (#18667541)
Ok thanks.

According to the wikipedia ray casting article, the two were used interchangeably "in early computer graphics literature", just to make me feel even older.

Re:After losing half its value, Nvidia faces reckoning by dahart on Wednesday December 12, 2018 @08:02PM (#18669067)
One of the differences nobody mentioned yet is that Wolfenstein 3D was based on 2D ray casting. It’s much less common to use the term “ray tracing” for two-dimensional rays, and more common to use something more generic like “ray casting” in that case. This is in addition to how the WP article mentions that “ray casting” is currently referring to visibility testing, and “ray tracing” is more often referring to a specific rendering algorithm.
Re:After losing half its value, Nvidia faces reckoning by RantyDave on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:42AM (#18679176)
The big difference is ray casting is just along a line, not on every pixel. Hence the thing with not being able to make overhangs.
Re:After losing half its value, Nvidia faces reckoning by speedplane on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:45AM (#18679185)
> The big difference is ray casting is just along a line, not on every pixel.

I think you have it backwards. Ray tracing is O(#of pixels*number of light bounces). More common 3D rendering is based on O(# of objects in the scene). It's conceivable that ray tracing can be more efficient for scenes with many objects.