• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

software vs hardware rendering - which is best for early HW accelerated games? :

D

Deusfaux

Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
756
So thanks to Steam and all the wonderful documentation found on the net, I've been playing older games and learning how to run them optimally.

There is an area of contention though with regards to software vs hardware rendering and which is necessarily better.

Is there consensus on some of these games and which rendering method one should use?

(Quake Engine)
Quake (see, I've heard/seen that OpenGL makes everything blurry due to texture filtering)
Hexen II

(id Tech 2)
Quake II
Heretic II

(Unreal Engine 1)
Unreal
Unreal Tournament
Deus Ex

(GoldSrc)
Half-Life
 
Source ports if possible like Darkplaces for Quake. There is an updated openGL renderer for Unreal and UT99. I think that Half Life is fine as is, maybe some texture packs.
 
a lot if not all of those games can be modded to look much better.

all the old software renders have been GL patched and increased texture resolution packs can be found. most of the mods are still very dated so might be hard to find.

the blur from GL is better then having raw pixels visible.
 
gesicht said:
a lot if not all of those games can be modded to look much better.

all the old software renders have been GL patched and increased texture resolution packs can be found. most of the mods are still very dated so might be hard to find.

the blur from GL is better then having raw pixels visible.
Click to expand...

The Quake and Unreal community is still pretty active.
 
I will if it offers more advantages than disadvantages. But then, I kinda alluded to that in my thread title with "which is best?", and I wouldn't expect you to catch something so hidden
 
The simple answer is "use whatever you want". If you prefer no filtering, don't run GLQuake. If you prefer filtering, run GLQuake. The advantages of GLQuake are: speed, texturing filtering, support for hardware antialiasing, semi-transparent water. As for the disadvantages, I'm not aware of any.

You can also use source ports without making any major changes to the rendering. I run DarkPlaces only because it's A) faster and B) integrates proper widescreen support.
 
phide said:
The simple answer is "use whatever you want". If you prefer no filtering, don't run GLQuake. If you prefer filtering, run GLQuake. The advantages of GLQuake are: speed, texturing filtering, support for hardware antialiasing, semi-transparent water. As for the disadvantages, I'm not aware of any.
Click to expand...

Isn't running what I want a given? This thread is to research the issue, so I know which one I want.

The texture filtering is a disadvantage IMO.

The underwater view is a clear disadvantage.

There's 2 already. I've ready about things like overbrights not being done properly in GLquake, as well.
 
The texture filtering is really about reducing the aliasing that's seen when the textures are in motion. Without filtering the screen is incredibly noisy while in motion. The only reason software renderers didn't have bilinear filtering back then was because it was hugely demanding on CPU cycles.
 
regardless, it looks worse when you play the game. The first door outside in the first level, across the bridge, is a big blurry mess, from far away, all the way up to really close.

I'm just looking for other examples of where hardware rendering is better or worse.

It's possible that's only surrounding the Quake Engine. GLHexen II also suffers this underwater distortion thing.
 
Deusfaux said:
I've [read] about things like overbrights not being done properly in GLquake, as well.
Click to expand...
At least the following engines support overbright lighting: Fitzquake, Joequake, Qrack, QMB, Darkplaces, MHQuake, TomazQuake. In Fitzquake it is controlled by gl_overbright (default is on), I did not check what the others use (if they let you toggle it). aguirRe is a strong opponent to it, so his Enhanced GLQuake has no support for this, see below.
Click to expand...
Use a source port other than Enhanced GLQuake rather than GLQuake.

Deusfaux said:
regardless, it looks worse when you play the game. I'm just looking for other examples of where hardware rendering is better or worse.
Click to expand...
Texture filtering is not objectively "worse" than no texture filtering, only subjectively better or subjectively worse. Thus, there is no objective "best" or "worst" rendering method. The same goes for underwater rendering. In GLQuake, the rendering is different but not necessarily worse.
 
While yes, the GLQuake image is blurrier when taking a one vs. one screen shot.

Back in the day when I was playing those, I preferred GLQuake. Harsh jagged pixels are not desirable, all kinds of weird shimmering type effect when in motion. To play, it's much better with the filtering IMHO. Still screens don't do proper justice.

Combine that with the ability to have AA and AF.

Maybe there is a command line to do away with the over bright and the water effects? Semi transparent water is nice too, I don't remember playing much death match with it activated, but if you could see foes from above the surface, who are swimming, that would be win.
 
Deusfaux said:
I will if it offers more advantages than disadvantages. But then, I kinda alluded to that in my thread title with "which is best?", and I wouldn't expect you to catch something so hidden
Click to expand...
your question is strange. There is no method that is better. Some people will prefer software rendering (me) some people prefer hardware. I like the old school look of software, i cant really vouch that it necesarrly looks betters. Software rendering is known to introduce a lot "shimmering" pixels during movement, especially for far away objects. And I can't really argue that texture filtering necessary looks worse, since the original sample usuallly looks like a pixeled mess to begin with. Unless you're refering to angled textures, in which case you have to turn up the AF.

my preference:
quake: software
half life: opengl (minopengl for voodoo)
unreal and deus ex: opengl (or glide for voodoo)
quake2: opengl

I've heard glide has worse image quality, i dont care. VOODOO FTW!!!!. Oh, and direct3d looks like crap in unreal.
 
Last edited:
Don't reply to my thread if you can't read my posts.

phide said:
Use a source port other than Enhanced GLQuake rather than GLQuake.
Click to expand...

Deusfaux said:
I don't care for source ports or making the games look better than they were naturally.
Click to expand...


phide said:
Texture filtering is not objectively "worse" than no texture filtering, only subjectively better or subjectively worse. Thus, there is no objective "best" or "worst" rendering method.
Click to expand...

Deusfaux said:
Is there consensus
Click to expand...

From the first post.



serpretetsky said:
your question is strange. There is no method that is better. Some people will prefer software rendering (me) some people prefer hardware.
Click to expand...

See one quote above
 
but only for Quake 1 / Quake Engine games right? Seems HW is pretty much the undisputed way to go for all others?
 
I would say so. You could spend time comparing them individually and get a better idea of any potential issues between different rendering methods in specific games, but for the most part, hardware's going to be the 'definitive' way to run them. Whether that's the way you prefer to play them is up to you.
 
well but objectively in pretty much all other cases, the HW/GL rendering modes are doing everything software can, if not more.

Quake engine is controversial because the HW/GL mode lacks some things the software rendering can do, like overbrights and proper water distortion.

I was hoping to find a bigger list of the differences, at least with that engine.
 
ever since the opengl patch was introduced for quake for voodoo cards, all focus after that was on hardware acceleration. So pretty much every game after quake will have either the same or more features with hardware (except in your case, texture filtering...). Actually, the only real feature i can think of is dynamic lighting, because at some point they just cut out software rendering all together. In fact, whats the newest game that supports software rendering? Does quake3?

Oh, i forgot to add one more
doom looks stupid in opengl if you've ever played gldoom
zdoom all the way!!!!
 
serpretetsky said:
In fact, whats the newest game that supports software rendering? Does quake3?

Oh, i forgot to add one more
doom looks stupid in opengl if you've ever played gldoom
zdoom all the way!!!!
Click to expand...

UT2004

it was uselessly slow
 
Quake 3 was id's first game to abandon the software renderer, so Quake 2 was the last game by id that offered software rendering support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top