FuhQuake

Dilusion · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2003 11:01 pm Post subject: why software ?

im stumped still to understand why many players choose to use software over gl? i mean.. gl looks nicer? so why not use it ? plz educate my newbie mind.. Laughing

Apollyon · Joined: 05 Nov 2002 Posts: 109

Many people started playing Quake in Software mode and still stick with it. I am sure you have already noticed the stubborness which is prevalent in the qw scene.
I was one of the few who had a 3dfx card very early on and was thus able to play gl which i am using to this day. Only when i had to play from a computer where gl wasnt possible i used software for several months.
Many people claim that sw has a different "feeling" than gl. From personal experience i can confirm that, yet i cannot confirm that one is better for my playing than the other.

meez · Guest

(EDIT)

When i startedp laying qw (lol i was about 7/8 or something) my pc couldnt handle my 3dfx card so i had to play in SW (without realising this, i just downloaded qwcl.exe to fix my problems and it worked instead of glqwcl (i was noob and didnt undersatnd)). I pld SW with some high GFX quality and settings leaving me with 13 FPS (lol) but now i realise and getting 77 straight fps in SW in 512x384... (320x200 seems a bit too harsh since i was a 1024 gl player)

(/EDIT)

i 'was' a dedicated GL player... always loved it... but recent stops at my grandmas (doesnt have 3dfx) made me play in SW. I felt this give me an aiming advantage (even tho i was using some crappy two button MS ballmouse and not my 800dpi optical). I play SW in tdm and maybe in ffa too. I play TF in GL and watch demos/matches in it of course... TF just looks like... URGHHHHH! in SW

so i HAVE switched to sw in tdm... (and ca) but only coss it helps me aim my lg better) and yes SW does have a different feeling wierd

Elanzer · Joined: 21 Oct 2002 Posts: 67

It feels easier because the pixels that make up a player are like the size of your thumb.. it's much easier to consentrate with much less on the screen... thats the easiest way I can put it, I went to OGL though because I'm a sucker for pretty graphics ;(

Jago · Joined: 13 Sep 2003 Posts: 32 Location: /home

I am using GL, but I play with http://www.quakeworld.nu/index.php?page=news&id=303#comments textures.

DeaD_PoeT · Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:32 am Post subject:

It is just a matter of taste..
some people like GL some people SW...

I prefer to play in SW, but couse of my hardware im forced to play in gl. Sad

_________________
Sex QuaKe and Rock´n´RoLL

t00nsy · Joined: 02 Feb 2003 Posts: 109

the choice of playing sw instead of gl is not a matter of gl looking better than sw. If i wanted to play a beautiful looking game i wouldn't for sure play quakeworld but sth else...
I think so many ppl stick to qw because of the gameplay, and the gameplay isn't a matter of gfx.
For me it's a matter of feeling my aim is much better in sw than in gl...given that my aim is really bad i'm trying not to make things worse, hence i'm playing in sw Smile

I started playing not so long ago and started with gl, once i tried sw and never got back to gl since, but who knows...

just my two euro cents =)
_________________
"Software is like sex...it's better when it's free" Linus Torvald

Bitchslap420 · Joined: 05 Nov 2002 Posts: 215 Location: SH10151

GET OFF MY AVATAR!!!!!!!!!!
plz.
_________________
"Use no limitation as limitation,
and use no method as method. " Bruce Lee

ForeverIrise · Joined: 05 Apr 2003 Posts: 71 Location: Los Angeles

haha jacked!
_________________
They say you're addicted to playing the fool.

xhrl · Joined: 16 Sep 2002 Posts: 111

sw does function better in terms of movement and aiming for me. I think you gain a bit of visual clarity in gl, though with r_max_size_1 (1/2 depending on the map) I find this clarity and visual acuity to be about the same. Because i had no opengl when i started quake in the days when i wasn't so old as i am now, I haven't found any good reason to use gl except to see the pretty new textures and models that def and many others have made for gl. Though i respect and admire these artistic efforts, as far as the game physics go, software just feels smoother and so I haven't found a good reason to not use it.

I even prefer watching demos in sw because i like watching the matches i see with my normal game settings.
_________________
nemo me impune lacesset

Spike · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Posts: 144

I suppose it depends on your graphics card.

A little about my pc: I have a GeForce 2.
Now, my geforce 2 is a little strange at times.
When using hardware Texturing and Lighting in ANY D3D game, my input becomes lagged almost by half a second.

The reason for this is that my hardware waits a few frames for it to become finished, letting the processor work on a few more complicated things. (mostly switching bits of memory around into a form that d3d understands, then switching them back for the hardware to understand)

Anyway, the point is that pretty much any graphics hardware likes a little more time for all the bits to go through the entire rendering pipeline on the hardware.

The end result is that the image isn't shown on screen until a few frames later.

Software rendering does it entirly in the CPU, and as such doesn't have the same sort of pipeline that can hold data in the same way. As a result the image is shown on screen at the end of that frame.
So SW should be a little more responsive.

The upshot of this is that the physics is that little bit faster, the server data gets to the screen faster and it feels nicer.

For an example, let's say our framerate is limited to 30 frames per sec.
This means we take about 33 msecs to draw a frame.

What the client does is ask the server for new input, send the input to the server and then start drawing the frame.
Now, mouse input can arrive at awkward times, so let's say it arrives 1 msec after we poll for it. 32 msecs later we actually recieve it in the program. We then have to actually draw the frame, taking about 33 msecs more. If we are using pageflipping or whatever with SW rendering the screen is updated instantly, giving a mousemove to screen lag of 65 msecs.
If that then sits around in the hardware rendering pipeline for just 2 frames before being the active frame, we've just doubled the time it takes for the mouse to affect the screen, with a lag of 131.
I don't know how long the frame stays in the rendering pipeline before becoming visible. Really, there's no reason why it can't be 50 except for shear mem usage.

It's even more noticable, as the input would normally arrive randomly rather than just after it was last polled, giving a larger contrast but smaller numbers.

Of course, if your gl frame rate hits 144 or so, it makes comparativly little difference anyway.
But possibly still noticably.

So yes, the conclusion is that the input is more responsive, helping with aims and the feel of the physics.

But I think the main reason, if you're used to SW, then OpenGL just looks 'wrong' what with it's hideously smooth walls and all. Surprised

)

oldman · Joined: 10 Sep 2002 Posts: 636

just need fast enough cpu's to get 72fps in a 32-bit sw renderer @ 1280x1024 then :)

:[true]: · Joined: 13 Oct 2003 Posts: 44 Location: CA

I play in gl, but played in SW on my 166 for years, that's where my qw experience began, I notice when I play in sw (for what ever reason, specially on the crappy school computers) I notice a 'memory-emotion' goin' on. It feels classic to me, it just reminds me of the good old days on 56k. long live qw.