pouët.net

I want to make a software renderer, but i'm afraid that my FX5950 will go out of the case and kill me while i'm sleeping :-P.

@Optimus:
Pixels Shaders is assembly! You Love Assembly!
Pixels Shaders is assembly! You Love Assembly!
Pixels Shaders is assembly! You Love Assembly!

Actually PS were invented in order to allow Per Pixel calculations. This is why they're called Pixel Shaders.

It's too shame that today most people uses PS just for implementing bump mapping :-/.

Quisten : indeed.
imho every newcomer has to start with softwarerendering. and if he gets high quality in swr he can then switch to hwr.
... or write _really_ powerful and suitable hwr engine ( demotool/introtool ) which worth respect.

2 sag / eye :
ofcourse hwr is faster than swr but when you see well-designed, well-rendered software intro with complicated scenes it's so fuckin pleasantly, isnt it ?...

i'm not that foe of hwr, but when i see lame and ugly gl prods with simpliest code... if there were no 3d cards those coders would just continue coding buggy software for mini-micro$softs instead of getting into scene... and that'd be allright...

It's too shame that today most people uses PS just for implementing bump mapping :-/.

which is of course also possible without PS...

Great. Some idiots who don't even know what pixelshaders are and how they work arguing about why they don't need them.

Sorry, but this really is quite pathetic.

Badsector: you sick rich bastard! Now that everyone knows that you have an FX5950, you weak up some morning dead, and your GFX card has escaped from the site of crime. :>>>>>>>>>>>

I hate shaders, because currently many demos work only on specific cards. I personally have GF 256, so I can't run any of the shader demos... and most of them don't have anything that would make them 'cooler' than non-shader ones. Though real shadows, glows, depth/focal blur and color manipulation can have a nice touch when used wisely (usually overused).

I'm into software rendering, because I want to know how things work behind the scenes and want to have full control of it. For me it's about freedom, challenge and legacy...

In the end the tech doesn't matter - but if your demo doesn't work on 90% of the machines, it's a shame...

@eye:
how am i suppose to wake up when i'm dead? :-P
and nah, i'm not that rich. I'll have to pay for my new computer for the next 18 months...

@texmex:
"a demo has to work on two machines: the coder's and the compo's" (tm)
Pixel Shaders are something like a standard. There are nVidia, ATI and Matrox cards with PS. Now if other manufacturers are not following the standards, well, that their own problem ;-).

Your card is just too old. I assume that your computer is old too. If this is the case, try to buy a GeForce3. Or even better, get a new computer :-).

Software rendering is cool and it's knowledge is a must for a 3d graphics programmer. But tell me, why to use hw accelerated blits for 2D graphics and not hw accelerated triangle drawers (rasterizers) for 3D graphics? Isn't that just a waste of hw power?

If you think that you love software rendering, try to implement in other computing machines, such as GameBoy Advance or Nokia's N-Gage. Software rendering in these machines still matters (but not for a long time - OpenGL|ES is going to change that).

Now about pixel shaders. Please try to learn what they are before saying that you hate them. It's like saying that you hate computers because you like to have the full control of doing mathematical computations and doing them using pen and paper. Sorry, but this is plainly stupid.

At least find another reason :-).

But as many things in software development, shaders are here to aim in developing applications. And, they're created in order to give you more control on the resulting image (now this is why you hate them or not?).

I think software rendering is much sexier, yes.

BadSector: you apparently have a sense of humor which must be "helped". ;\

ryg: i wasn't at BP, but it must be the fault of your ATI lady, which has not shown them in their full power. But then, there's something like http://www.cgshaders.org/ - maybe it may convince people.

if you wasn't at BP, how can you say ANYTHING about the presentation? hint: "I heard" is NOT a valid reason.

I fully second Ryg.

Gargaj: it's not about "i heard" but about "i conclude from the resulting discussion". Of course, i have to agree with you both.

BadSector:
My GF is definitely too old. I can't play the latest games with it, nor do I have time to play them. But buying new card for demos to work on my machine is a bit overshooting. My machine is however decent, 1800+ XP. It's out-of-date for shader/accelerated demos, but not for sw...

It isn't about wasting hw power. But just because the power is there, should it be used? Almost every machine has support for EAX, but I don't see any demos using it - because it doesn't bring anything to the table. Shaders certainly do, but they are not fully supported.

I'm not saying shaders are crap, I'm saying that I don't like them in the demos unless they are more generally supported. I very well know what they are capable of.
They have their use in games and other 3d software.

It's also a matter of respecting the efforts. If you see same effect, one done with shaders and one with sw or without shaders, which do you appreciate more? Take fr demos for example. Those guys can do neat effects without shaders.

FR didn't have any "effect" for a couple of years now! And well, if something can be done without pixel shaders and with moderate requierements (ie not too many passes), it is usully better to do so even performance-wise.

Well,. I used to be seriously "korilla" (hardcore: DOS rulez, Windows suxx, etc..) at the older times but now I am not seriously. Whenever I write such stuff, it's mostly for fun, to see your reactions. But seriously..

..I think I am in the demoscene. And in the demoscene people are working in any wild platform they wish. It's funny to see some people (not here but on some irc) trying to persuade me that I should just move to C++, OpenGL, pixel shaders and nothing else. They laugh at every other choice. So,. I am in Quickbasic because there is a separate scene (QB might sound funny, but it's like a diferrent community/platform in a way, so I don't care) and I am more interested in software rendering because I still find it more appealing, nevertheless it might also run in every PC if programmed properly. Perhaps I will try OpenGL (and PS) oneday, but it still annoys me that some people are telling me "Get VC++. Get OpenGL. Now!" like that every other way to follow is wrong..

I have decided something, that I will just try to follow my own way inside the demoscene, so starting with DirectDraw (software rendering under Windows) will be planned soon, when I get the time. Though,. I might stick mostly on C64 coding for 2004.

Then why am I writting all these? Who knows..

Repeat after me: people have moved on.

Seriously, doing the same shit year after year is dull. It's dull to code, and it's dull to watch. By all means, if you find it fun to write kickass software rendering code that does the same thing that's been done time and time again since before you were born, then go for your life. Other people are getting their fun in other ways. Deal with it.

"The reason software polyfillers are so slow nowadays is because the only people who are still writing them are people who don't (want to) understand and use modern hardware."

So,. we have to change that! These people are ridiculing software rendering more!!! :)

Really,. I was thinking that. Well,.. you will tell me to shut the fuck up because I didn't even managed to code a simple polyfiller in software, it's ok,. I don't even give a fuck but I have a very stubborn self and I want to proove something oneday. In fact I wanted to proove that 5 years ago (At least I can do fast enough 2d effects, very easy,. wondering how other people screw them up =). So,. wait a kickin ass software demo for the year 2008 ;)

Seriously, this is a fact, some of the people who stay in software and say "Oldschool rulez!" just for the sake of and stuff, same people are doing annoingly shamefull wannabe oldschool code running at 1Ghz, it's a pitty, makes me very sad, because it's like ridiculing what oldschool really is. Zbs,. there was also a compo of 16 colors images and today entries are so little colorred and bad in comparison with the masterpieces at older times. But if a newbie see these, he will think "Ah,. 16 colors suxx!" but not if he sees the old stuff. It's a pitty :(

SO, I THINK I HAVE THE DEBT TO SAVE THE SOFTWARE RENDERING SCENE!!!

Really..

people progress (most of us), most of us has also been writing software engines for a decade, we have just moved on (tired of writing polyfillers), so if you want to code software renderers on pc do so, but don't try to force software rendering on people who has been there and done that allready. or something...

@texmex:
so, just because your computer does not support pixel shaders, i should not use them in my demo (if i make a demo anyway) because you're not going to spend $80 to get a new gfx card with ps?

If the same (visually) effect can be done using pixel shaders, simple polyfillers (plain OGL/DX) and software (well, any effect can be done in software) then why choose to do it in software or simple polyfillers when i can do that effect in pixel shaders AND have enough CPU/GPU cycles to do some more?

Image FB's kkrieger without pixel shaders. Bye bye -almost- realistic lighting. Now imagine it done in software. Welcome blocky pixels! You'll see them alot, especially while waiting for the next frame to get drawn...

To summarize: pixel shaders is just another improvement in realtime graphics. Nobody is forced to use them, but they add a lot to the result. If you want to code a software renderer get a GBA.

Optimus: Honestly, I don't care if you use hw-accelerated rendering or not, I'd just like you to actually *do* something instead of posting here all the time :)

Well,. yes...

Actually the biggest thing I am wondering about is why people (and me) are getting into such discussions and trying to proove anything as anyone should code just about this? Since everyone can do what he/she wants. But I discover that I continue doing it and people continue reacting too. I really don't know why I am still doing it and why people are reacting since nobody will change his opinion about what he really like to code in..

And no, nothing changes in my opinion, whether I have coded something or not..

You're doing it again!

The biggest drawback of shaders is that 1.1 shaders aren't THAT usable, and 2.0 shaders are not widespread enough yet... :/

I guess Pouet ownz me. Damn,. I have to go to home for studying :P

BadSector:
You got it all wrong. I said _I_ don't like PS because it isn't supported enough, and in my opinion there isn't that much glory in PS. You, on the other hand, are free to do whatever you want. If you want to use latest PS stuff, go ahead. I wont stop you. Don't try to match my opinions to yours, because they will clash.

For me swr is something like antique furniture: some people like old rusty near-broken table lamps while other prefer factory-made sleek futuristic synthetic lighting-devices. Why would anyone buy an old lamp when there is better one available? But still I like "blocky pixels", while you like "realistic lighting".

You clearly base your opinions on the way technology is used in demos. That kind of attitude used to play big role in the scene (it still does I guess). Remember all those "10000 polygons!!", "real phong bump-mapping" and similar annotations in demos? There's nothing wrong in it, but if you think some demo is inferior to other because it uses inferior tech, it's kind of sad.

To summarize: there is not one exact truth in this matter and arguing over it is fruitless.

Gargaj:
That's what I have been talking about...