Ray tracing made possible on 42-year-old ZX Spectrum: 'reasonably fast, if you consider 17 hours per frame to be reasonably fast'
Ray tracing made possible on 42-year-old ZX Spectrum: 'reasonably fast, if you consider 17 hours per frame to be reasonably fast'
The 1980s computer produces surprisingly gorgeous ray-traced results, but be prepared to measure performance by hour rather than second.
The human eye can only see 1 frame per 18 hours so I consider this reasonably fast.
140 0 ReplyYou may need to consult a doctor.
15 0 Reply
i once took 12+ hours to raytrace on an 8mhz Amiga only to realize that it didn't have any light sources and so was pitch black.
100 0 ReplyI share that memory. At least twice
15 0 Reply
It's not that the bear dances well, it's that the bear dances at all.
37 0 Reply60 frames per 42.5 days, playable.
34 0 ReplyYou could get a totally playable fps if you play in geological time scale
Edit. Not really fpS as s stands for second, but ...
6 0 ReplyFrames Per Stratum
6 0 Reply
Nice, hitting that sweetspot at 42 fpm (frame per month)
32 0 ReplyI mean that's pretty fucking impressive imo. I figured a RT frame would take days to render on hardware that old
29 0 ReplyAnd back when that computer was contemporary, it would have. We've learned a hell of a lot since Nvidia announced they had cracked real-time ray tracing all those years ago.
2 0 Reply
This computer is illegal in Florida, Texas, and Russia.
27 0 ReplyIs this true? Sounds like there's a story you're not telling us
10 0 ReplyIt’s a rainbow thing 🏳️🌈
42 0 Reply
Now write it in Z80 assembly instead of basic and see how much faster you can get it to run.
27 0 ReplySo true.
When I switched from basic to assembler on a Trash 80 Model 1, it was truly night and day
8 0 Reply
It’s like playing chess by mail, but with Doom.
26 0 Reply700 years worth of compute to do about an hour of gaming that I just did on my pc at home in realtime ... damn.
Did I math it right? I was averaging about 100 fps in hogwarts for about an hour.
13 0 ReplySay you generated 86'400'000 frames. 17h a frame that's roughly 16'767 years.
3 0 Reply
tbf that’s probably on par with the performance Cyberpunk 2077 was doing on release
12 0 ReplyStill remember loading games from cassette tapes on this thing and the Z80.
8 0 Reply"is it still loading or did it fail?"
ah, plus ça change...
4 0 Reply
Since my dedicated hybrid graphics card was broken, my gaming experience is almost the same as with this one.
5 0 ReplyWhat resolution? I'm guessing 64x48?
5 0 ReplyThe strain of going from a 32 x 22 image to a 256 x 176 one is evident in how much longer this secondary image took to render. From 879.75 seconds (nearly 15 minutes) to 61,529.88 seconds (over 17 hours). Luckily, some optimisations and time-saving tweaks meant this could be brought down to 8,089.52, or near-ish two and a half hours.
Those are really reasonable values. I guess my laptop would take that long to render a 4k image as well.
16 0 ReplyReally depends on the complexity of the frame being rendered for how fast your laptop can render it
3 0 Reply
Back in the day we had to just use VU-3D.
4 0 ReplyHere is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/6Em-CWYZhG8?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
1 0 Reply
I can't help to think that all that amount of effort could be better spent.
3 0 ReplyBut where’s the fun in that?
10 0 ReplyRay tracing in MySQL instead? https://demozoo.org/productions/268459/
9 0 ReplyI was thinking the same sort of thing. What'd I'd kill for the time to spend on useless shit heh.
1 0 Reply
This is what it was like using 3D programs on an Amiga in the late 80s or early 90s. One image took hours and hours to render. 5-6 hours would be a short one, usually it was more like 12.
1 0 Reply