I agree. It may have the benefits of IPR etc (may be even better) - including ‘real-time’ feedback when setting up lighting schemes, but it has the added benefit of producing full-quality renders.
One thing I notice from the videos, however, is that the rate of improvement of image quality seems quick at first, adn then slows doen as the image gets progressively more detailed… I wonder how long it takes to produce something which matches the quality of Lightwave render, on average (rather than for a select number of test cases)…?
I think maybe they mean, by not needing specialist graphics hardware, that they don’t need ray-tracing accelerators such as ART - they talk about the graphics hardware not limiting the number of lights etc. Using the GPu to aid raytracing certainly would not place a limit on the number of lights in the scene…
… I could be wrong through! :shrug: