Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!gilgalad
From: gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin)
Subject: Re: QRT vs. DKB 2.10
Message-ID: <1991Apr7.032659.23706@engin.umich.edu>
Sender: news@engin.umich.edu (CAEN Netnews)
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
References: <frank.3740@morpheus.UUCP> <1991Apr6.230941.2585@cs.dal.ca>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1991 03:26:59 GMT

In article <1991Apr6.230941.2585@cs.dal.ca> dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca (Anarchy for Peace) writes:
>between DKB and QRT, DKB is better because it does anti-aliasing, image-mapping
>and other neat stuff.  QRT doesn't and also doesn't handle real complex textures

The real question is: Has anybody ported PRT (Parallel Ray Tracer :)?

>>    Which one is faster?

>QRT (stands for Quick Ray Tracer)

Given a couple of machines, PRT will blow either of them away :)
Personally, I'm very fond of both QRT and DKB.  I am so glad that there are
people out there that are using YACC/BISON/LEX/FLEX to produce better
input languages to programs (something RayShade 3.0 was SERIOUSLY lacking in :).
What I'd like to see is a parallel version of DKB.  Hmmm... maybe if/when I
get X11 going on the Amiga, we'll have a PD socket library, then we can use
that for distributed processing... :)

>--
>Colin DeWolfe
>dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca



Ralph Seguin			gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu
536 South Forest Apt. #915	gilgalad@zip.eecs.umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI 48104		(313) 662-4805
