SW or HW?
category: general [glöplog]
I know this could start a flamewar, so in warning, be nice! :)
I'm starting to get into graphics programming, and was wondering if some people could give me their views on the age-old software vs. hardware debate. I know the lingo, so feel free to use jargon, but I just want to know how each is from a programming standpoint.
I'm starting to get into graphics programming, and was wondering if some people could give me their views on the age-old software vs. hardware debate. I know the lingo, so feel free to use jargon, but I just want to know how each is from a programming standpoint.
I have never coded 3d myself, but I think it goes like this... It's nice to know how it is done in software, because this way you can better understand how the hardware does it. After that it's just a matter of personal taste and style. With hardware you can do more impressive things (you get more CPU time for other stuff). With software it should be more portable, like you could more easily port something in Java etc. So, in the end it's up to you... :-)
i'm not a coder, but if you want to get a job in the game industry later, it's probably better to learn hardware :)
i'm not a coder, but if you want to get a job in the game industry later, it's probably better to learn hardware :)
If you're working on a software renderer, consider it as part of an education (like wasting your time in school before you get into the real world, only in this case it's fun).. or as a research project, for working on a cool effect that you think you might be able to work on more quickly than you would be able to in hardware, due to fewer limitations.
Otherwise, I'm totally for hardware acceleration :)
Otherwise, I'm totally for hardware acceleration :)
see if this relates to anything, but, doing, say, a radial blur by painting over dozens of times per frame is not the right thing.
Thx for the input, guys.
Umm, _216_, I have no idea what you're referring to. =P
Umm, _216_, I have no idea what you're referring to. =P
Does scene have rules ?
Pleeeease scene is not a "game developer training society" ! Who da hell care about what game industry wants ??
Do u like to be a metal coder writing your asm code for a software renderer ?? Be happy and do it! Do you feel an API could be usefull being a "why not to use it if it is the standard-coder" ?? Who really care ? Just stop doing accellerated cubes and shouting at the miracle! (Ooops I did it once! :D )
For the rest... well.. have fun.. be active, go to parties and be a scener...
cya
Pleeeease scene is not a "game developer training society" ! Who da hell care about what game industry wants ??
Do u like to be a metal coder writing your asm code for a software renderer ?? Be happy and do it! Do you feel an API could be usefull being a "why not to use it if it is the standard-coder" ?? Who really care ? Just stop doing accellerated cubes and shouting at the miracle! (Ooops I did it once! :D )
For the rest... well.. have fun.. be active, go to parties and be a scener...
cya
Or don't go to parties and be a scener. (it's possible, tho less fun I suppose. But outside Europe, it's hard to get to parties. (Heck I just missed the ONLY North American party due to work.))
But yes, be a scener, experiment, have fun, do what you want and be creative. That's what it's about.
Do both HW and SW. See which works.
But yes, be a scener, experiment, have fun, do what you want and be creative. That's what it's about.
Do both HW and SW. See which works.
i'm not a coder myselv, but i've been involved in several projects/productions since i first started my scene-life back in '89, and my personal feeling about the whole thing is this: software simply looks better.
..and you have more freedom. with hardware-acceleration
everything is just "nah, we can't do that - remember this
isn't -really- a picture, it's a texturemapped quad" and things like that. software gives you the freedom do anything
you want.
sure, there are impressive 3d-accelerated productions
aswell, and their 3d is nice - no doubt about it, but i just don't get the same "feeling" as software-rendered
stuff gives me.
maybe it's just me being nostalgic or something, but at the current stage of hardware-accelerated hardware - hardware 3d-demos simply doesn't look as good as software-demos.
rant, rant, rant. :)
..and you have more freedom. with hardware-acceleration
everything is just "nah, we can't do that - remember this
isn't -really- a picture, it's a texturemapped quad" and things like that. software gives you the freedom do anything
you want.
sure, there are impressive 3d-accelerated productions
aswell, and their 3d is nice - no doubt about it, but i just don't get the same "feeling" as software-rendered
stuff gives me.
maybe it's just me being nostalgic or something, but at the current stage of hardware-accelerated hardware - hardware 3d-demos simply doesn't look as good as software-demos.
rant, rant, rant. :)
Software has better feel to it than hardware imho.
Software is more flexible and adaptable, while hardware has a defined set of rules. With DX8 there's a couple of programmable shaders and such, but I'd still like to see the kind of merry craziness usually found in an orange demo. You simply can't do that with hardware.
On a grand scale, HW is a pretty fast (not easier) way of putting a demo together, but it never hurts to start with software on the side.
Software is more flexible and adaptable, while hardware has a defined set of rules. With DX8 there's a couple of programmable shaders and such, but I'd still like to see the kind of merry craziness usually found in an orange demo. You simply can't do that with hardware.
On a grand scale, HW is a pretty fast (not easier) way of putting a demo together, but it never hurts to start with software on the side.
Cool, thanks for your opinions. I think I like the look of software better, too... it seems more "human". Kind of like the difference between a "photorealistic" render and a "photorealistic" painting.
depends on what you want.
Hardware rendering allows many things that can't be done in software (hey dudes, sorry but try to make a smooth (60 or 70fps), fullscreen, high resolution multitextured scene in software, with multiplicative, additive and other things like that).
In other hand, software allow more post-processing, or more innovative rendering.
But demo is not only making crazy visual things, it's also dealing with hardware limitations to make better looking thingies. So, trying to push the hardware, find new ways of doing things, find workaround for things that are theorically not possible with hardware, etc. could be really interesting as well. Compare the first hardware accelerated things (games, demos), and see what you got now. See the differences. Even using the same 3D cards, many things have been enhanced. There is always room for improvments.
Don't get me wrong : software rendering is quite interesting too. It's good to write a software rendering engine, you can learn many things. Make new things. CREATE new effects. But it's a time-consuming task.
So, for me, both can be interesting, depending on what you wanna do, and what you CAN do. I made software rendered engines for years, and now I'm really enjoying trying to push hardware instead.
Hardware rendering allows many things that can't be done in software (hey dudes, sorry but try to make a smooth (60 or 70fps), fullscreen, high resolution multitextured scene in software, with multiplicative, additive and other things like that).
In other hand, software allow more post-processing, or more innovative rendering.
But demo is not only making crazy visual things, it's also dealing with hardware limitations to make better looking thingies. So, trying to push the hardware, find new ways of doing things, find workaround for things that are theorically not possible with hardware, etc. could be really interesting as well. Compare the first hardware accelerated things (games, demos), and see what you got now. See the differences. Even using the same 3D cards, many things have been enhanced. There is always room for improvments.
Don't get me wrong : software rendering is quite interesting too. It's good to write a software rendering engine, you can learn many things. Make new things. CREATE new effects. But it's a time-consuming task.
So, for me, both can be interesting, depending on what you wanna do, and what you CAN do. I made software rendered engines for years, and now I'm really enjoying trying to push hardware instead.
Who cares. If you want a software-3d-engine - go for it! If you want a hardware-3d-engine - go for it!
The only reason i see for doing a software-3d-engine is learning purposes (but seeing that i made my share of software engines some years ago - i think i'll stick to hardware).
The only reason i see for doing a software-3d-engine is learning purposes (but seeing that i made my share of software engines some years ago - i think i'll stick to hardware).
Agreed with macaw.
However, you can still modify a software engine, if it's bugged. Hard to do the same with an API :)
However, you can still modify a software engine, if it's bugged. Hard to do the same with an API :)
"However, you can still modify a software engine, if it's bugged. Hard to do the same with an API :)"
yeah whatever :) bullshit i presume
back to the point.
it's an obvious point we got here (two times 'point' in a row.. bad english my dear)
software allows flexible and innovative rendering the easy way.. tho nobody really scans the edges of what is possible in hardware. and what about mixture? lock that fucking texture and render something, then apply it on a few polies. take best of both.
anyway there's a truckload of other things you can do in with hardware rendering.. main problem might be that nobody (and that includes me most of the time) really drastically innovates any longer.
oh and uhm.. everything i saw in orange's last demo (the nonstop ibiza experience, red.) can be done in hardware my dear shifter :) slap me in the face if that's not true.. i can't exactly remember all effects..
want a "software feel"? turn off the fancy features and tune down the resolution to 320x240. that'll make them big pixels reappear.
so violent,
my love.
p/d.
yeah whatever :) bullshit i presume
back to the point.
it's an obvious point we got here (two times 'point' in a row.. bad english my dear)
software allows flexible and innovative rendering the easy way.. tho nobody really scans the edges of what is possible in hardware. and what about mixture? lock that fucking texture and render something, then apply it on a few polies. take best of both.
anyway there's a truckload of other things you can do in with hardware rendering.. main problem might be that nobody (and that includes me most of the time) really drastically innovates any longer.
oh and uhm.. everything i saw in orange's last demo (the nonstop ibiza experience, red.) can be done in hardware my dear shifter :) slap me in the face if that's not true.. i can't exactly remember all effects..
want a "software feel"? turn off the fancy features and tune down the resolution to 320x240. that'll make them big pixels reappear.
so violent,
my love.
p/d.
IN YOUR FACE!
"Who cares. If you want a software-3d-engine - go for it! If you want a hardware-3d-engine - go for it!"
Well, actually the guy who started this thread cares otherwise we wouldn't be discussing about that piece of shit :)
Well, actually the guy who started this thread cares otherwise we wouldn't be discussing about that piece of shit :)
I like software more, it has that unique feel...
clean connection to the machine, no stupid APIs in the way. Your imagination is the limit( keeping the eye on the fps ofcourse ;).
And I have a 225mmx, so I like it optimized =)
I just don't have the respect for the hardware nowadays... Too much power in it :) Amiga, Atari, C64, MSX, .. etc. etc. rulz ;P
clean connection to the machine, no stupid APIs in the way. Your imagination is the limit( keeping the eye on the fps ofcourse ;).
And I have a 225mmx, so I like it optimized =)
I just don't have the respect for the hardware nowadays... Too much power in it :) Amiga, Atari, C64, MSX, .. etc. etc. rulz ;P
Yeah, I see what you mean... if that last scene from 2ndReal can run on a C64@1mhz, I don't see why an 800 MHz unaccelerated PC can't do something 800 times as good. =P
I think I'll try my hand at software first, because I have this thing for crazy optimization too... getting code to run quickly on a TI calculator is not an easy feat, especially when you don't know ASM for the Z-80 and have to do it all in ti-basic!
I think I'll try my hand at software first, because I have this thing for crazy optimization too... getting code to run quickly on a TI calculator is not an easy feat, especially when you don't know ASM for the Z-80 and have to do it all in ti-basic!
"Yeah, I see what you mean... if that last scene from 2ndReal can run on a C64@1mhz, I don't see why an 800 MHz unaccelerated PC can't do something 800 times as good. =P"
then you obviously MISSED the whole point. it's not the rendering that provokes the orgasm, it's the design, the feeling a certain scene emits. now right now on a 800mhz machine with decent geforce i'm quite sure we can DRAW 800 times as much stuff (and that's whats it about right? computing power..), but that wouldnt automatically result in something 800 times as good or 'cool' for that matter.
so shut the fuck up.
and uhm yeah well okay.. if you have an old machine and want to do some oldskool software rendering, go ahead. but don't come bugging us with your silly "it has this unique feel" statements because that's just pure fucking bullshit. i refer to a statement in my previous post where i tried to point you guys at the fact that it's pretty easy to give hardware rendered stuff that old "software touch" (which actually means turning off all the features and rendering in a low resolution which, indeed, makes it UGLY.. but that is that magical software rendering touch right?)
now GO HOME!
then you obviously MISSED the whole point. it's not the rendering that provokes the orgasm, it's the design, the feeling a certain scene emits. now right now on a 800mhz machine with decent geforce i'm quite sure we can DRAW 800 times as much stuff (and that's whats it about right? computing power..), but that wouldnt automatically result in something 800 times as good or 'cool' for that matter.
so shut the fuck up.
and uhm yeah well okay.. if you have an old machine and want to do some oldskool software rendering, go ahead. but don't come bugging us with your silly "it has this unique feel" statements because that's just pure fucking bullshit. i refer to a statement in my previous post where i tried to point you guys at the fact that it's pretty easy to give hardware rendered stuff that old "software touch" (which actually means turning off all the features and rendering in a low resolution which, indeed, makes it UGLY.. but that is that magical software rendering touch right?)
now GO HOME!
plek seems still not to get the point.
3d acceleration is for wussies.
3d acceleration is for wussies.
and mci isn't right? :)
go cry! little critter..
go cry! little critter..
and mci isn't right? :)
go cry! little critter..
go cry! little critter..
OFFTOPIC REMARK DETECTED!
simply because you're totally unable to withdraw the ultimate truths in my argument, you attack me on a totally different and irrelevant area. we were talking about software 3d vs hardware 3d, not using win3.1 API calls or not.
but you're obviously just to emptyheaded even to try and _think_ of reasonable arguments, you nitwit!
simply because you're totally unable to withdraw the ultimate truths in my argument, you attack me on a totally different and irrelevant area. we were talking about software 3d vs hardware 3d, not using win3.1 API calls or not.
but you're obviously just to emptyheaded even to try and _think_ of reasonable arguments, you nitwit!