Comment Just ray-trace subset... (Score 1) 368
I'm a bit confused. Isn't the likely / adequate / improved implementation (beyond normal) just:
1) render the scene normally
2) for those items that are transparent or reflective (e.g. not all & usually not many), ray-trace them (e.g. refract, reflect)
This give you 'true reflections' on glass/water/shiny/etc. & refraction through water, lenses, etc. A significantly better image than 'shaded' polygons. Limiting the set of pixels limits the cost significantly. You don't need to do the 'whole' scene.
Single source (e.g. camera-eye) Ray-tracing doesn't give you shadows, for that you need to trace from surface back to light source(s).
To be fancier, you really want real-time radiosity.
1) render the scene normally
2) for those items that are transparent or reflective (e.g. not all & usually not many), ray-trace them (e.g. refract, reflect)
This give you 'true reflections' on glass/water/shiny/etc. & refraction through water, lenses, etc. A significantly better image than 'shaded' polygons. Limiting the set of pixels limits the cost significantly. You don't need to do the 'whole' scene.
Single source (e.g. camera-eye) Ray-tracing doesn't give you shadows, for that you need to trace from surface back to light source(s).
To be fancier, you really want real-time radiosity.
