Moved posts.
"I see a little silhouette-o of a man, Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you
do the Fandango!" - Queen
Stiletto
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.
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.
FUCK "AI". It is a tool of fascism. We do not need it. We do not use it.
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.
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.
