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: <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