There is a lot of discussion on this list about the relative merits of
OpenGL versus software rendering. It is pretty clear that software
rendering is more portable between operating systems and between
different video cards. But, gamers seems to be very interested the the
way games make use of the latest features of the newest generation of
video cards, this is what I call the “Gee Whiz” factor.
I don’t know about gamers in general, but when playing a good game, I’m more worried about the functionality and speed than the effects. My eyes just can’t trace motion properly if the frame rate is too low, and obviously, it’s hard to recognize distant objects at very low resolutions. Thus, it seems like I’m forced to use h/w acceleration, or Win32, which supports busmaster DMA.
As to “the very latest features”, it’s not like I’m going “Oh no, I can’t make use of this cool feature on my new card!” If it looks good and the frame rate is good, I’m happy. If I have to pay $500+ for the very latest overclocked video card, just to get a playable frame rate at medium quality, chances are I’m not buying the game, at least not until mainstream graphics h/w has caught up with it.
(Note that the main reason why I don’t have the hottest GF4 card is that nVidia’s crappy RAMDACs can’t drive my monitor properly, and I don’t feel like swapping cards or building another PC for one or two games. I’ll wait for the Matrox Parhelia 512 or something.)
My question is
simple, in your experience (not your opinion, only your experience) will
people (like you) buy a 3D game that is limited by software rendering,
i.e. it works any where but looks like Quake 1, or do you have to have
accelerated 3D that takes advantage of the very latest 3D hardware?
Well, it doesn’t look like any software only 3D games are released these days. If that’s because no one would buy, or because no one dares to sell, I don’t know. I would guess that it takes a lot more to get people interested in a software rendered 3D game, even if you market it through playable demos - but that could be because they haven’t seen what a software game could look like with the CPU power most people have today.
Anyway, I still play Doom and Doom II every now and then, using ZDoom, which is still a software engine. (Note that ZDoomGL is a separate project!) It’s not beautiful, but it’s fast and solid, and never drops to unplayable frame rates, unless you’re running insanely large and open levels.
I have to play it on Win32, though, as the Linux version is way too slow, unless I use very low resolutions. (Sure, Doom was playable at the original 320x200, but I find playing the game more interesting than scanning pixel jam for distant enemies.)
Whether I’d buy a software 3D game probably depends more on the game than on the engine. However, the game has to be capable of delivering acceptable frame rates (30+ fps) to be playable, and I wouldn’t want to play a 3D game at lower resolutions than 640x480. This is probably the most serious issue with software rendering these days, at least on platforms that can’t do busmaster DMA blits.
//David
.---------------------------------------
| David Olofson
| Programmer
| david.olofson at reologica.se
|
| Address: |
| REOLOGICA Instruments AB |
| Scheelev?gen 30 |
| 223 63 LUND |
| Sweden |
| --------------------------------------- |
| Phone: 046-12 77 60 |
| Fax: 046-12 50 57 |
| Mobil: |
| E-mail: david.olofson at reologica.se
|
| WWW: http://www.reologica.se
|
|
`-----> We Make Rheology RealOn Mon, 03/06/2002 10:54:49 , Bob Pendleton wrote:
). Yet, some games, (Homeworld), look really good in
Cost is not an issue - but when not even $10,000+ cards (that you have to order built into a custom system, BTW) can do more than 1600x1200 properly, one gets seriously worried.)