Reply 21 of 24, by WDStudios

User metadata
Rank Member

Why the concern over software vs. hardware rendering? I don't think hardware rendering was even a thing in '95

Since people like posting system specs:

LGA 2011
Core i7 Sandy Bridge @ 3.6 ghz
4 GB of RAM in quad-channel
Geforce GTX 780
1600 x 1200 monitor
Dual-booting WinXP Integral Edition and Win7 Pro 64-bit
XP compatibility is the hill that I will die on.

Reply 22 of 24, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++

Figuring it out for software rendering means:

- preservation; serving as reference for other implementations
- more portability to architectures (one could port to Dreamcast/3DO/etc from there if they wanted to)
- less dependencies
- practicality. The old sector/line/wall/sprite engines aren't very straightforward for a polygonal translation, and diving into that early could repeat the featurecreep stall again.

1995 did have 3dLabs and Matrox MGA, but that's not important right now.

long live PCem

Reply 23 of 24, by ZellSF

User metadata
Rank l33t

This is really closing in on a 1.0 release. From what I gather, everything but hardware accelerated rendering is implemented, and that's coming soon. Already it seems like a huge improvement over the DOS version though because of framerate and resolution. Though the software render can't maintain 3840x2160@120 on my 5950x (it can get pretty close though), I'm hoping that will be fixed with hardware accelerated rendering.

Reply 24 of 24, by ZellSF

User metadata
Rank l33t

Hardware renderer is out now (well a beta release). Not any actual features yet, but it does help a lot with framerates. 8K runs at 120 FPS on my computer, vs 20 FPS with the software renderer.

Can't wait for texture filtering options.