It's a dos game isn't it?
You start windows, you start wolf.exe. Done.
Doubt it. Emulation typically requires substantially faster processors than the original. The 3/486 era likely weren't far enough to cope, so the odds of an emulator existing that ran within windows 3 are slim.
9x probably. Dos maybe.

Lualb wrote on 2025-06-22, 14:16:

Hello, how are you all?! I would just like to ask you two things... 1- Is there or "could" a port of Wolfenstein 3D be created […]
Show full quote

Hello, how are you all?! I would just like to ask you two things...
1- Is there or "could" a port of Wolfenstein 3D be created for Windows 3.1x?
2- Does anyone know if there is a SNES emulator for Windows 3.1?
I hope for great answers, thank you and GOODBYE!!!.

Use Zsnes on DOS

anyway

Emulation on MS Windows 3.1x ?

Lualb wrote on 2025-06-22, 14:16:

1- Is there or "could" a port of Wolfenstein 3D be created for Windows 3.1x?

No.
Before DirectX, Windows wasn't suitable for action games.
There were some attempts to port Doom to Windows 3.x - with poor results.

Grzyb wrote on 2025-06-22, 20:51:

No. Before DirectX, Windows wasn't suitable for action games. There were some attempts to port Doom to Windows 3.x - with poor r […]
Show full quote

Lualb wrote on 2025-06-22, 14:16:

1- Is there or "could" a port of Wolfenstein 3D be created for Windows 3.1x?

No.
Before DirectX, Windows wasn't suitable for action games.
There were some attempts to port Doom to Windows 3.x - with poor results.

Oh Wow, that sounds interesting! ...I'm just trying to know if Wolf3D can be ported to Win3.1x, like the example of Nitemare 3D, an FPS game that runs very well on Windows!

Lualb wrote on 2025-06-22, 21:43:

Oh Wow, that sounds interesting! ...I'm just trying to know if Wolf3D can be ported to Win3.1x, like the example of Nitemare 3D, an FPS game that runs very well on Windows!

In theory, it can be ported.
In practice - find the Windows port of Doom, and see for yourself why it wasn't a good idea.

Grzyb wrote on 2025-06-22, 20:51:

No. Before DirectX, Windows wasn't suitable for action games. There were some attempts to port Doom to Windows 3.x - with poor r […]
Show full quote

Lualb wrote on 2025-06-22, 14:16:

1- Is there or "could" a port of Wolfenstein 3D be created for Windows 3.1x?

No.
Before DirectX, Windows wasn't suitable for action games.
There were some attempts to port Doom to Windows 3.x - with poor results.

Hi, I think that graphics isn't even the worst problem but keeping everything responsive and in sync.
Windows 3.1x has (had) some multimedia capabilities,
but they weren't the best.

Video for Windows was such an example.
It was neat that it worked entirely in software on a 286/386SX,
but frame rate was low and often the audio was delayed.
On a fast PC (Pentium and up) it was less noticeable, though..

By comparison, OS/2 and its Ultimotion technology was more advanced.
It could run videos with synchronous audio at twice the resolution (320x240 vs 160x120) with better frame rate,
without special hardware, on a 386.

Speaking of Windows 3.x and graphics APIs..
There are (were) different methods for drawing.

For example:

- GDI (surface)
- WinDIB
- WinG library
- DCI (video overlays)
- direct mode 13h (fullscreen, yes 3.1x can do that)
- WinDirect library and VBE (full screen, SciTech specific)
- CAD graphics drivers

Lualb wrote on 2025-06-22, 21:43:

I'm just trying to know if Wolf3D can be ported to Win3.1x, like the example of Nitemare 3D, an FPS game that runs very well on Windows!

In principle, yes. But as Grzyb says the performance isn't ideal.
Or rather, isn't (wasn't) with 386/486 era hardware of the day.
Back then, some basic VGA cards didn't even support blitting or 2D GUI acceleration (Trident 8900, ET4000, OAK 77 etc).

If you have a fast Pentium or AMD K6 or Pentium MMX/II,
as it was common in late life of Windows 3.1, then a Windows 3.1x port can be very playable.
Such a setup usually had a PCI graphics card that could accelerate 2D GUIs.

Btw, I remember that game from shareware CDs! :)

Hugo's House of Horrors was also ported from DOS/EGA to Windows 3.1x.:
It was re-named Hugo's Horric Adventure.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/1023/hugos-hou … s/win3x/895769/

Other action games such as Comet Busters! or Adventures of Microman had their own graphics/audio libraries.
Comet Busters! had switched to WaveMix DLL and WinG in later releases (386+).
Microman had its own engine/graphics library, I think.

Edit: Some multimedia programs such as Mod4Win worked around the limitations by implementing their own multitasking methods.

There also were some Sega games such as Comix Zone that ran decent on Windows 3.1x.
So it was possible to get things done on Windows, albeit with loss of performance over an ordinary DOS version.

This changed when higher resolution were important.
Drawing a 640x480 256c or 800x600 16-Bit image via Windows 3.1x and accelerated Windows drivers
was quicker than using DOS/unaccelerated VESA VBE graphics modes.

PS: Here's a 3D engine running on Windows 3.1x:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiIY8JFTgy0

Jo22 wrote on 2025-06-22, 23:15:

Hi, I think that graphics isn't even the worst problem but keeping everything responsive and in sync. Windows 3.1x has (had) som […]
Show full quote

Grzyb wrote on 2025-06-22, 20:51:

No. Before DirectX, Windows wasn't suitable for action games. There were some attempts to port Doom to Windows 3.x - with poor r […]
Show full quote

Lualb wrote on 2025-06-22, 14:16:

1- Is there or "could" a port of Wolfenstein 3D be created for Windows 3.1x?

No.
Before DirectX, Windows wasn't suitable for action games.
There were some attempts to port Doom to Windows 3.x - with poor results.

Hi, I think that graphics isn't even the worst problem but keeping everything responsive and in sync.
Windows 3.1x has (had) some multimedia capabilities,
but they weren't the best.

Video for Windows was such an example.
It was neat that it worked entirely in software on a 286/386SX,
but frame rate was low and often the audio was delayed.
On a fast PC (Pentium and up) it was less noticeable, though..

By comparison, OS/2 and its Ultimotion technology was more advanced.
It could run videos with synchronous audio at twice the resolution (320x240 vs 160x120) with better frame rate,
without special hardware, on a 386.

Speaking of Windows 3.x and graphics APIs..
There are (were) different methods for drawing.

For example:

- GDI (surface)
- WinDIB
- WinG library
- DCI (video overlays)
- direct mode 13h (fullscreen, yes 3.1x can do that)
- WinDirect library and VBE (full screen, SciTech specific)
- CAD graphics drivers

Lualb wrote on 2025-06-22, 21:43:

I'm just trying to know if Wolf3D can be ported to Win3.1x, like the example of Nitemare 3D, an FPS game that runs very well on Windows!

In principle, yes. But as Grzyb says the performance isn't ideal.
Or rather, isn't (wasn't) with 386/486 era hardware of the day.
Back then, some basic VGA cards didn't even support blitting or 2D GUI acceleration (Trident 8900, ET4000, OAK 77 etc).

If you have a fast Pentium or AMD K6 or Pentium MMX/II,
as it was common in late life of Windows 3.1, then a Windows 3.1x port can be very playable.
Such a setup usually had a PCI graphics card that could accelerate 2D GUIs.

Btw, I remember that game from shareware CDs! 😀

Hugo's House of Horrors was also ported from DOS/EGA to Windows 3.1x.:
It was re-named Hugo's Horric Adventure.

https://www.mobygames.com/game/1023/hugos-hou … s/win3x/895769/

Other action games such as Comet Busters! or Adventures of Microman had their own graphics/audio libraries.
Comet Busters! had switched to WaveMix DLL and WinG in later releases (386+).
Microman had its own engine/graphics library, I think.

Edit: Some multimedia programs such as Mod4Win worked around the limitations by implementing their own multitasking methods.

There also were some Sega games such as Comix Zone that ran decent on Windows 3.1x.
So it was possible to get things done on Windows, albeit with loss of performance over an ordinary DOS version.

This changed when higher resolution were important.
Drawing a 640x480 256c or 800x600 16-Bit image via Windows 3.1x and accelerated Windows drivers
was quicker than using DOS/unaccelerated VESA VBE graphics modes.

PS: Here's a 3D engine running on Windows 3.1x:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiIY8JFTgy0

Wow, that engine runs very well on Windows! Even so, I can't stop thinking that Wolfenstein3D will ever be recreated in Windows 3.1x, I have hope hehehe!

Lualb wrote on 2025-06-23, 15:20:

Wow, that engine runs very well on Windows!
Even so, I can't stop thinking that Wolfenstein3D will ever be recreated in Windows 3.1x, I have hope hehehe!

Hi, it's certainly possible, in principle.

That 3D demo ran in DOSBox using S3 Trio32/64 graphics and Win 3.10.
The viewport was 640x400 pixels, running at 7 fps using WinG.

The DOSBox wasn't running at high cycles, because it was an old Athlon 64 PC.
On a real Pentium MMX, the FPS would have been much higher.

But again, the 3D engine surely had been optimized for Windows 3.1x.
Under normal circumstances, Windows 3.x wasn't so great for action games as Grzyb had mentioned before.

Where it was stronger, though, were vector graphics without bitmaps.
Because the bitmaps had to be passed between Windows components and drawn tediously.
It has to do with GDI vs DIBs (device independent bitmaps).

(The earlier versions, Windows 1.x and 2.x, often had used vector graphics in applications, which made them scalable.
Windows 3.0 was more bitmap oriented, by comparison.)

The acceleration of GUI elements (maximize/minimize buttons, scroll bars) and graphics primitives (circles, lines, triangles, squares, etc)
was something that basic Windows accelerator cards for ISA bus supported very well.

To also accelerate (move) bitmaps graphics was something that went better when multimedia became common:
Fast 32-Bit graphics cards which were meant for photoediting, video playback and so on.
They had better blitting capabilities, supported video scaling and colour space conversion.

That's when Kodak PhotoCD and Video CD/MPEG got popular, ca. 1994.
Or when programs such as Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or QuickTime were common.
About this time, the Pentium (90 or 100 MHz) and VLB/PCI graphics boards were the next big thing.

Speaking under correction. Edited.

Edit: About WinG.. The graphics library supports both Windows 3.1 and 95, officially.

Using Win32s and WinG to create a Wolfenstein 3D port would make more sense, maybe.
The developers could use 32-Bit development tools and use larger memory.

It would make most sense, because WinG requires a 386 at minimum, anyway.
And most accelerated graphics drivers for 3.1x want 386 Enhanced-Mode, too.

The only reason to do this would be as an exercise. I would read about it on Hacker News and chuckle. Otherwise it has no purpose whatsoever.

The worst thing about gaming in Windows 3.x seems to be the SFX delay.

With WinG, the graphics may be "good enough".
But there was nothing for real-time sound.

Just tried WinDoom, from June 1, 1995 - there is background music, but no SFX at all!

Windows 95 RTM was same, I think. It had no DirectX yet.
I played Hover and I remember that the sound effects were always a bit delayed.

PS: What's cool about Windows 95 RTM, though:
There had been various pre-DirectX and pre-OpenGL graphics drivers.
It was the most positive character trait about Windows 95, maybe.

The nVidia NV1 used quads, for example, rather than triangles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jChtlWNIAL4

Or let's take that 3DO card for Windows 3.1 PCs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWLVbiLf-SQ

@ keenmaster486 Same could be said about my search for emulators written for Windows 3.1x/Win32s.
Strictly speaking, it's pointless, as well, I suppose.

Edit: There's a video about WinDoom running on SoftPC/SoftWindows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfFMemKAwSA