Nice.
Instead of rasterization, we decompress each selected cluster into a small bounding volume hierarchy (BVH) in the format expected by the ray tracing hardware.
Unfortunately, the only way to do this is to apply for a job at Intel, NV, or AMD. Not so nice.
But at least there is growing awareness about static meshes not being enough...
EDIT: Still not done with reading the whole paper, but some comments anyway.
From the paper we now know Intel uses BVH6, while AMD uses BVH4 according to ISA.
The papers proposal differs from my Nanite example used in discussions.
I had proposed to convert the LOD hierarchy, which may be a BVH8 for example, directly into the HW format of BVH6/4/?.
Beside the branching factor, advanced HW may have some more constraints, e.g. speculated treelet compression for NV.
In the paper they avoid such conversion complexity. Instead they just take the current lodcut of visible clusters and build a BVH from scratch over them per frame.
That's an option i've had in mind, and we could do this already by making each cluster a 'mesh/model' with it's BLAS only needed to be build on LOD changes,
and one TLAS to conncet them all. That's really all we could currently do to make granular LOD traceable.
But the cost of building such a big TLAS over so many clusters feels way to high for me. In they paper they say it's practical for realtime, but imo that's a yes for research, but still a no for games on affordable HW.
People would still mostly turn RT off for a better experience, and it stays an optional feature.
Right now i somehow miss the point of the paper. I hoped they utilized native HW access to do things not possible using DXR.
But maybe they did it just to use existing libraries like Embree BVH builders more easily.