Pixel shaders VS software rendering
category: general [glöplog]
Optimus !
I'm with you.
One day software rendering rules the world !
All my code is dedicated to software rendering. That's my commitment.
TinyPTC in Directdraw rules !.
Now a days, with X Ghz, who wants 3D cards ?!. That's my opinion.
Greets.
I'm with you.
One day software rendering rules the world !
All my code is dedicated to software rendering. That's my commitment.
TinyPTC in Directdraw rules !.
Now a days, with X Ghz, who wants 3D cards ?!. That's my opinion.
Greets.
die!
whats the coolest thing done with pixelshaders up until now?
ooo... fire? :)))
I don't see what's all the fuzz with software vs hardware accelerated rendering... I mean, for a nice hw-accelerated 3D engine, so get to write -the same- amount of code you do for a software one, except the polyfillers... then also, you need to learn all the tricks for post-processing filters and 2D stuff, because they are not as easily (or, as 'obviously') done as they are in a 2D framebuffer...
Pixel shaders are just more ways to do those tricks, and the advantages in hw-rendering are tons, from number of polygons, to memory bottlenecks, to image quality due to the costly FSAA and proper texture filtering done in hardware... it's not about CPU speed, it's about memory bottlenecks and many other things... -plus- you can also have the CPU free to make other stuff (physics or whatnot). Agreed, a 3D flyby nowadays is boring in hardware, but then again, the very same flyby with 100x less polygons is also boring in software... the 3D-scene-replayer time has long gone, for both software and hardware, so it's not about software or hardware, it's not about amount of code, it's not about processor speed... it's all about taste, and quality... and quality is much better when doing hardware-accelerated stuff, that's incredibly obvious.
If you want limitations, use a different platform... yes, software rendering can still be impressive (Silkcut/TBL on amiga), but it's stupid on a platform which gives you the advatange of pumping up that image quality, almost for free.
Just my oppinion
Pixel shaders are just more ways to do those tricks, and the advantages in hw-rendering are tons, from number of polygons, to memory bottlenecks, to image quality due to the costly FSAA and proper texture filtering done in hardware... it's not about CPU speed, it's about memory bottlenecks and many other things... -plus- you can also have the CPU free to make other stuff (physics or whatnot). Agreed, a 3D flyby nowadays is boring in hardware, but then again, the very same flyby with 100x less polygons is also boring in software... the 3D-scene-replayer time has long gone, for both software and hardware, so it's not about software or hardware, it's not about amount of code, it's not about processor speed... it's all about taste, and quality... and quality is much better when doing hardware-accelerated stuff, that's incredibly obvious.
If you want limitations, use a different platform... yes, software rendering can still be impressive (Silkcut/TBL on amiga), but it's stupid on a platform which gives you the advatange of pumping up that image quality, almost for free.
Just my oppinion
What I was writing back then? PS being calcs between textures? What was I thinking?
But software rendering still rules. The feeling of iterating through each pixel and doing stuff. Ok, you do that in parallel on shader too, without the loops. But you can also make dot renderer, line renderer, triangle renderer and other stuff too. Jumping between pixels and more.
And nowadays all things I describe like on SR (2d, 3d voxel, raytracing) is done with shaders. Hahaha!!! Pwned
Quote:
I want metaballs with muddy voxels mapped on the surfaces.. and when the metaballs move up to speed, the mud starts to splatter all over the place.. ;)
Why haven't we done this already?
*throws cash towards screen*
Quote:
Why haven't we done this already?
Who's this "we"?
Also, it's been done plenty of times.
