Oldschool: Software Render

[GuchaRU]

Please vote even if this poll seems odd or stupid to you

ps - dont move this tread to other forums, it 100% related to pandora, i'll tell you later why)


ps- sorry, bad english.

 

[WizardStan]

I'm not certain where you're going with this, but even Quake 1 uses OpenGL. No software rendering there. (or maybe it does have a software rendering mode? Or did and was converted to OpenGL after it was released? Point being that right now Quake 1 (and 2) use OpenGL capable of hardware acceleration)
Doom is software rendered, but there are OpenGL ports of it, as well.

 

[Phawx]

Quake 1 and Unreal were both able to be rendered in software. The future of GFX is basically going there. Well, directly programmed, without API that is.

 

[lulzfish]

Use whatever works.

I prefer hardware rendering just because GPUs are currently way ahead of CPUs, but if you can do something amazing on the Pandora's CPU without draining the battery and making the game lag, go for it.

 

[atomicthumbs]

What's the point of this poll? Hardware rendering is always better than software rendering, in performance if nothing else.

 

[renwils]

I don't really know how to answer this, because I think that the ends justify the means. Make a nice looking game either way and I'll play it.

 

[droneb]

hmm, talking about compatibility, i had less issues using software rather than OGL, the worst was D3D

 

[jlepley]

It doesn't matter how you make something, as long as the end product works well. I'd try to make a program as efficient as possible, but most machines with antiquated, crappy processors aren't going to be able to do hardware rendering.

 

[arrrgh]

I use software rendering for Quake I and Doom(and similar). I guess I'll go with GL on Quake with the Pandora because only OGL will be able to get 60fps at 800x480 and you can set it up to look very similar to the software renderer anyway.

 

[slygamer]

I'm not certain where you're going with this, but even Quake 1 uses OpenGL. No software rendering there. (or maybe it does have a software rendering mode? Or did and was converted to OpenGL after it was released? Point being that right now Quake 1 (and 2) use OpenGL capable of hardware acceleration)
Doom is software rendered, but there are OpenGL ports of it, as well.

Quake was originally software render only. It wasn't until GLQuake was released that it had OpenGL, and therefore hardware, support.

 

[marshal]

Half-life did support software rendering too.

Don't see the point of this topic though. I guess ppl are getting bored

 

[-Tj-]

What's the point of this poll? Hardware rendering is always better than software rendering, in performance if nothing else.

I'm not sure I understand it completely, the point of the poll, I mean. However I do understand the attachment to old school over new. Some people just like the look of certain things. I myself prefer palettized colors over full color graphics, and I actually enjoy visible pixels. But that's for 2D games.

Also, some people like to have the games they remember LOOK the way they remember it. I'm one of those people. I remember buying an "update" to MechWarrior 2 that had new graphics and tech. The models were largely the same, but the textures were new. Compared to the one that came with my ATi graphics card, or the earlier version that had even lower graphics, the experience was different.

But having said that, it's always possible for a developer to maintain the old software renderer's look while still being hardware accelerated. It's just that the "newer is better" mindset usually takes over that and you end up with something that doesn't quite feel the same as the old experience.

 

[cappuchok]

Just my €0.02... I prefer hardware based renderers for 3D. In "original" 3D games developed today I don't think a software renderer is called for as anything other than a debug measure or to render perfect videos by dumping the rendered frames directly to a file, but I can see a use for software renderers in emulators, in order to precisely recreate the original look (whereas a good 3D renderer can improve the graphics by allowing higher resolutions among other things). The only use I personally find for a software renderer nowadays is for recording videos of emulated games without framedrops. Or of course if some emulated games just don't play nice with 3D renderers for some reason (a problem that I've mostly seen in PSX emulation).

 

[GuchaRU]

Thanks for your replies and votes.

Well, the point of this poll and thread is that i'm currently working on new joke-like game for pandora that uses only software render.
It's first person shooter similar to catacomb 3d (y'know this game was before doom) and this game does not contain even single texture! All graphic in game are vector made with standard functions such as "line" so the game's look is really unique.
But as I mentionet above this in not actually game but more like just thing for fun. But still this game can load levels and stuff.

Current progress - i'm working on base "engine" for game and in few weeks i can show some screenshots. But i'm also currently busy with my regular work so it might take more time.

 

[elwing]

I prefer having both a sowtware and hardware renderer...
for actual games I use only hardware renderer, but when using much older game software renderer is better as today CPU are powerfull enough to old theses old games, and old hardware compatibility is a pain (point to that awfull glide issues...)

 

[-Tj-]

@GuchaRU:

Nice! Always good to know there'll be more games for Pandora. Looking forward to it.

 

[gruso]

Yeah, sounds interesting! The more the merrier.

 

[Gilrad]

I guess you can compare software rendering to analog synths, for those who get me. Even if it is easy to simulate the old school feeling, there's a certain authenticity that comes with the ability to say "no smoke and mirrors here, folks"

I am really excited for this

 

[senquack]

I remember Catacombs 3D pretty fondly

 

[skeezix]

Your poll options are incomplete; you miss at least "if it fits the app, its okay". ie: Not freak, not hater, just in between or 'as appropriate'.

jeff