Models in software renderer?

[desmoki]

I love having models on in this game, as it makes it feel like a lost Saturn games from way back. It also gives me increased accuracy in my attacks. But my only gripe with it is that it's exclusive to the OpenGL. The OpenGL renderer is very flawed, missing graphics, slowdowns, and worse graphics, on top of it not being finished yet. It also has worse performance on my computer. So, I wonder if Models are to be enabled in the software renderer in the future, so I can enjoy them without having to switch to a shitty renderer?

 

[I'll Begin]

I love having models on in this game, as it makes it feel like a lost Saturn games from way back. It also gives me increased accuracy in my attacks. But my only gripe with it is that it's exclusive to the OpenGL. The OpenGL renderer is very flawed, missing graphics, slowdowns, and worse graphics, on top of it not being finished yet. It also has worse performance on my computer. So, I wonder if Models are to be enabled in the software renderer in the future, so I can enjoy them without having to switch to a shitty renderer?

While nothing is technically "impossible", I feel it's necessary to point out that the software renderer isn't a polygonal 3D renderer but rather uses an early form of raycasting, resulting in a more approximate and limited 3D effect that performed better than a full 3D engine on computers of the '90s which lacked hardware acceleration. Some would argue that Doom engine games are technically "2D" in nature due to the way the engine works – maps are drawn top-down in 2D and each sector has its own elevation data, and you can't look up and down (without the image becoming distorted) since the engine only casts rays parallel to the floor in a 2D fashion rather than in all directions.

In any case, to render a polygonal 3D model in software mode would basically require adding a software-based 3D renderer on top of the existing ray traced renderer, which would almost certainly make software mode even more inefficient than it already is and get rid of any performance advantage it may have had on your system.

 

[ManuelRome]

In any case, to render a polygonal 3D model in software mode would basically require adding a software-based 3D renderer on top of the existing ray traced renderer, which would almost certainly make software mode even more inefficient than it already is and get rid of any performance advantage it may have had on your system.

So would it be more reasonable to think there is a chance of transitioning to another renderer? like Direct3D or Vulkan? or is that out of the question?

It does feel like a bit of a shame that those very nice looking models end up in a worse performing renderer. But I am assuming that due to the game using the Doom Engine, it does limit the amount of options that they can develop for the game.

 

[desmoki]

While nothing is technically "impossible", I feel it's necessary to point out that the software renderer isn't a polygonal 3D renderer but rather uses an early form of raycasting, resulting in a more approximate and limited 3D effect that performed better than a full 3D engine on computers of the '90s which lacked hardware acceleration. Some would argue that Doom engine games are technically "2D" in nature due to the way the engine works – maps are drawn top-down in 2D and each sector has its own elevation data, and you can't look up and down (without the image becoming distorted) since the engine only casts rays parallel to the floor in a 2D fashion rather than in all directions.

In any case, to render a polygonal 3D model in software mode would basically require adding a software-based 3D renderer on top of the existing ray traced renderer, which would almost certainly make software mode even more inefficient than it already is and get rid of any performance advantage it may have had on your system.

Oh.

So would it be more reasonable to think there is a chance of transitioning to another renderer? like Direct3D or Vulkan? or is that out of the question?

It does feel like a bit of a shame that those very nice looking models end up in a worse performing renderer. But I am assuming that due to the game using the Doom Engine, it does limit the amount of options that they can develop for the game.

Yeah, I think that maybe Direct3D would be a much better option tbh

 

[I'll Begin]

So would it be more reasonable to think there is a chance of transitioning to another renderer? like Direct3D or Vulkan? or is that out of the question?

No, it should be possible. I think other sourceports have toyed with those APIs. I'm no expert and this is simplifying it a little, but it would essentially require changing API calls and rewriting a few things, though it's not nearly as complicated as writing a software renderer, especially since a lot of the heavy groundwork is already there with the existing OpenGL code.

In fact, since the game is open source there's really nothing stopping anyone with the relevant skills from making their own fork and implementing Vulkan or DX12 themselves.

(If I recall correctly, SRB2 at had at least preliminary 3dfx Glide (really dating the game here) and Direct3D support a really, really long time ago, but I don't believe it was ever actually implemented or even actively worked on, more likely just a holdover from Doom Legacy.)

Yeah, I think that maybe Direct3D would be a much better option tbh

Honestly I feel like Vulkan would be more forward-looking since SRB2 is cross-platform, while DirectX is specific to Windows.

 

[Mario A. Roach]

Isn't OGL cross-platform too? Why Vulkan and not improve OGL?

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

...In any case, to render a polygonal 3D model in software mode would basically require adding a software-based 3D renderer on top of the existing ray traced renderer, which would almost certainly make software mode even more inefficient than it already is and get rid of any performance advantage it may have had on your system.

In my case, OGL has better performance compared to software. Implementing a new renden mode would do anything but cause anymore problems to the game's development; that's why I'd argue to stick to OGL or Software and OGL, because both already exist and work perfectly fine, I don't see any advantages to the game's mechanic or any way in adding a new render mode.

 

[supersonic45]

Isn't OGL cross-platform too? Why Vulkan and not improve OGL?

Vulkan is technically on a level lower than OGL, so it would in theory take longer to get SRB2 up and running on it compared to starting on OGL from scratch - but vulkan could also in theory outperform OGL, or enable rendering techniques/features that could be problematic to implement in OGL.


In whatever case, there have been efforts to write a VUlkan renderer and there have been efforts to improve OGL. At some point we'll see if those efforts ever converge on one renderer or not. I'm not sure what the dev's thoughts are on the subject but I would assume the OGL renderer is here to stay, but if a functional vulkan renderer was made it would get added as another official option to play the game in.

 

[Radicalicious]

Softpoly is something that was being worked on, it allowed for software mode models.

 

[EarlessSonicIsBased]

No, it should be possible. I think other sourceports have toyed with those APIs. I'm no expert and this is simplifying it a little, but it would essentially require changing API calls and rewriting a few things, though it's not nearly as complicated as writing a software renderer, especially since a lot of the heavy groundwork is already there with the existing OpenGL code.

In fact, since the game is open source there's really nothing stopping anyone with the relevant skills from making their own fork and implementing Vulkan or DX12 themselves.

(If I recall correctly, SRB2 at had at least preliminary 3dfx Glide (really dating the game here) and Direct3D support a really, really long time ago, but I don't believe it was ever actually implemented or even actively worked on, more likely just a holdover from Doom Legacy.)



Honestly I feel like Vulkan would be more forward-looking since SRB2 is cross-platform, while DirectX is specific to Windows.

Late reply, but yes, some Doom sourceports support those.

 

[Maril]

It would be nice to see Softpoly be ported over to 2.2 and fixed up.
Perhaps I should think about doing that one day.

 

[Caio Martins]

Well Almost Any Doom Source port You Find In Either The Internet Or Delta Touch Is Actual Full 3d (With Gzdoom Adding Cardboard Vr Support)(I Played With This Until My Dog Destroyed Part Or The Vr)

While nothing is technically "impossible", I feel it's necessary to point out that the software renderer isn't a polygonal 3D renderer but rather uses an early form of raycasting, resulting in a more approximate and limited 3D effect that performed better than a full 3D engine on computers of the '90s which lacked hardware acceleration. Some would argue that Doom engine games are technically "2D" in nature due to the way the engine works – maps are drawn top-down in 2D and each sector has its own elevation data, and you can't look up and down (without the image becoming distorted) since the engine only casts rays parallel to the floor in a 2D fashion rather than in all directions.

In any case, to render a polygonal 3D model in software mode would basically require adding a software-based 3D renderer on top of the existing ray traced renderer, which would almost certainly make software mode even more inefficient than it already is and get rid of any performance advantage it may have had on your system.

 

[CompletelyUnhinged]

And as such, I don't really believe Softpoly is worked on anymore.

 

[Mr Beagle]

Things like 3D model rendering and true perspective in the software engine would not be impossible (as it was done in Quake and in many other games before discrete graphics became mainstream), but with the Hardware Rendering 2 project ongoing it is likely not a priority. Even if it was, 2.2.14 is not going to be the release that sees it.