Software rendering?
I have this crazy friend that doesn''t believe in hardware rendering at all. His theory is that eventually processors will become so fast one day that it won''t matter. In the mean time, hardware and a lot of testing is the best way to go I guess.
When processors get faster, you can use the extra cpu to handle things like AI, and physics. Also, if you are going shell out the cash to get a fast computer later, why not just be an accelerator now.
Domini
Rastagon 2 Engine
Domini
Rastagon 2 Engine
WHen we have 450 terahertz computers, it won''t matter. Trust me.
------------------------------
#pragma twice
------------------------------
#pragma twice
Just my 2c..
I've spend a fair deal of time writing and tweaking my software renderer to be able to handle perspective correct gouraud texture mapping, blending textures (for env/texure mapping) etc, and my though on the subject is one you've got your scanline renderer perfect (ie no gaps between pixels etc), and you know how to set your clipping planes, there basically isn't that must left to learn from software rendering.. (Please don't get me wrong here.. I send out tremendous respect to guys like Exceed, Smash Design etc whose software engines simply kick ass..)
Hardware 3D is a whole new set of problems to solve; stuff that I never even had time to think about in my software days.. Shadows (several different techniques available, all with up and downsides), depth of field, reflections, programmable per pixel shaders on the way etc ..
I certainly don't regret coding software rendering, but seeing as my 3d code is just my pet project, I'll take the hardware road any day, and try to implement new things instead of optimizing my old routines ..
Cheers,
Magnus
Edited by - dooz on October 6, 2000 8:23:39 AM
I've spend a fair deal of time writing and tweaking my software renderer to be able to handle perspective correct gouraud texture mapping, blending textures (for env/texure mapping) etc, and my though on the subject is one you've got your scanline renderer perfect (ie no gaps between pixels etc), and you know how to set your clipping planes, there basically isn't that must left to learn from software rendering.. (Please don't get me wrong here.. I send out tremendous respect to guys like Exceed, Smash Design etc whose software engines simply kick ass..)
Hardware 3D is a whole new set of problems to solve; stuff that I never even had time to think about in my software days.. Shadows (several different techniques available, all with up and downsides), depth of field, reflections, programmable per pixel shaders on the way etc ..
I certainly don't regret coding software rendering, but seeing as my 3d code is just my pet project, I'll take the hardware road any day, and try to implement new things instead of optimizing my old routines ..
Cheers,
Magnus
Edited by - dooz on October 6, 2000 8:23:39 AM
quote:Original post by furby100
WHen we have 450 terahertz computers, it won''t matter. Trust me.
If there''s one constant in the computer industry, its that hardware always gets better, and software always grows to fill the new hardware. If you imagine what a 3D accelerated card will be able to do when 450THz chips are available, I think you''d have to aggree that there would still be a performance difference between hardware and software rendering. Unless, of course, you still have a Voodoo3 on your 450THz machine.
Later,
Micah
Well, like Randall Hyde said "You can do everything in software that you can do in hardware and vice versa." - ok not an exact quote but close
If the hardware is too limiting go with software. For example, I have to triangulate the faces of my polys before they get sent to the hardware. Software renderer is more forgiving since I could leave them being quads and just change the filling routine and other routines as I like. I realize opengl can do quads but direct3d doesn''t or it''s more efficient for the hardware to be fed triangles and/or fans since triangles are coplanar by default.
It''s interesting that Tim Sweeney predicts the use of hardware 3d cards to be used heavily now but later perhaps in 2005 he thinks we''ll be going back to software rendering. I think this will depend on how efficient or fast the gpu will be compared to the cpu. I could buy a 5ghz cpu whereas the gpu could become a bottle neck. I predict that we will still use the gpu to handle the tedious 3d stuff (clipping, texture memory manager, etc.)while we concentrate on building programs with larger lego blocks consisting of hardware driven api modules.
Maybe a gpu will understand and run any 3d module you wish to use thus a limitless feature set could be envisioned. Like getting a collision detection module that reprograms the gpu into this feature set. It won''t be like this card can do only 3d in 32bpp but instead the gpu can be reprogrammed by the 64bit module to draw in 64bpp. Oh, I don''t know I''m just dreaming and talking nonsense, I guess...
my homepage
E-Mail: BlueOrbSoftware@mailcity.com
If the hardware is too limiting go with software. For example, I have to triangulate the faces of my polys before they get sent to the hardware. Software renderer is more forgiving since I could leave them being quads and just change the filling routine and other routines as I like. I realize opengl can do quads but direct3d doesn''t or it''s more efficient for the hardware to be fed triangles and/or fans since triangles are coplanar by default.It''s interesting that Tim Sweeney predicts the use of hardware 3d cards to be used heavily now but later perhaps in 2005 he thinks we''ll be going back to software rendering. I think this will depend on how efficient or fast the gpu will be compared to the cpu. I could buy a 5ghz cpu whereas the gpu could become a bottle neck. I predict that we will still use the gpu to handle the tedious 3d stuff (clipping, texture memory manager, etc.)while we concentrate on building programs with larger lego blocks consisting of hardware driven api modules.
Maybe a gpu will understand and run any 3d module you wish to use thus a limitless feature set could be envisioned. Like getting a collision detection module that reprograms the gpu into this feature set. It won''t be like this card can do only 3d in 32bpp but instead the gpu can be reprogrammed by the 64bit module to draw in 64bpp. Oh, I don''t know I''m just dreaming and talking nonsense, I guess...
my homepage
E-Mail: BlueOrbSoftware@mailcity.com
No, hardware acceleration is just a quick boost to a limited area of computing. Intel has probably already developed a terahertz processor, it is just waiting for long enough to release it. Like the diamond market. Diamonds aren''t all that rare, they are just expensive to cut. You could flood the market but you''d make no money. Same with processors. Purposely restricting the supply to make more money.
Well, I think hardware rendering will disappear, but I think 3D apis will remain though.
------------------------------
#pragma twice
Well, I think hardware rendering will disappear, but I think 3D apis will remain though.
------------------------------
#pragma twice
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
