
I got a total of 17 test results now, which is enough for the paper. However, I do not have many ATI's in there, so if anyone has an ATI that is not from the X1xxx-series, then I would still like to add that. For the paper, the names will be removed, but I figured it would be nice for checking your own results if the names are there.

http://ronimo.hku.nl/Joost/Testresults.xls
The only really odd numbers there are those from "keHHu n0n3". With the same GPU as a couple of others, he gets twice the framerate. Quite odd and makes me wonder whether the GPU was heavily overclocked, or maybe set to extremely low quality. I don't know, but the result is odd.
A very interesting thing here is that all cards have approximately no change in framerate when the number of rooms is changed. This makes sense, because that is the entire point of the shader. Only three planes are traced per pixel, no matter how many rooms there are. However, the ATI cards do show a difference, up to even 10%! I can imagine why: more rooms means that the texture coordinates of the walls will vary more among neighbouring pixels (there is a jump every time a new room starts) so caching would go wrong there. Still, it surprises me that the other cards do not notice this, not even some other ATI's.
The next steps for me now are:
-finish the paper
-improve the visual quality of the textures
-send the paper in for Eurographics in Kreta (Wednesday next week)
-post the paper here
-create a nice demo with actual art and a little street with buildings with interior mapping
-hear whether it was accepted by Eurographics (end of November)
-if not accepted, send it in for CGI Conference in Istanbul (deadline December 1st)
-continue working on the rest of my Computer Science Master's thesis, which is about raytracing in pixel shaders in general (Interior Mapping is just the first example)
-hopefully, present the paper in April at Eurographics in Kreta or in June at CGI Conference in Istanbul