Hardware Only?

[Ultraken]

I'm looking at several approaches to fixing the hardware rendering, and wanted to know if losing support for software rendering would be acceptable.  The answer to that question will decide how I go about this.

[Scout]

Last time I needed software mode was before I had a 3d accelerator on my 48mb ram(maxed out) ibm machine, cant imagine anyone who still needs software

[General BlackDragon]

If you're upgrading to DX9 or DX10, then you can lose the software support.

Or you could make the software support use DX9/DX10 Maybe have it autodetermine the ability of your computers hardware and use it if it's there.

[AHadley]

I'd suggest dropping software. I'm hard-pressed to find a computer anywhere that doesn't support hardware rendering.

[Ultraken]

Before people get too excited, I'm not much of a graphics programmer so the new renderer would be functionally equivalent to the old one.  The point of upgrading to DX9 is that it's well-tested and widely-supported.  Even the weakest of weaksauce integrated graphics processors can handle it these days.  

The reason I asked about this is the software renderer imposes a lot of constraints that are very difficult to work around.  Cutting it out would let me discard all the clipping, transformation, and lighting code, making my life a lot easier.

[General BlackDragon]

I'd suggest dropping hardware. I'm hard-pressed to find a computer anywhere that doesn't support hardware rendering.

but..if we drop hardware...we're all screwed

And ken, isn't the transformation and lighting code a good thing? (the shadows and whatnot?)

[Ultraken]

but..if we drop hardware...we're all screwed

I think it that was a typo. 

And ken, isn't the transformation and lighting code a good thing? (the shadows and whatnot?)

D3D would be handling them instead of the application.

[Nielk1]

I'd suggest dropping hardware. I'm hard-pressed to find a computer anywhere that doesn't support hardware rendering.

I think you got your stuff in redro serever.

[Ultraken]

The shadows are currently the lgt file for terrain and a sprite for objects right?

I probably should have distinguished between lighting and shadows to avoid confusion.
Terrain uses static lighting, stored in the lgt file.  I'd keep that to start with.
Objects use dynamic lighting, applied by a single directional light.  I'd move that to D3D.
Object shadows are ground sprites, which I'd leave intact since real shadows are very difficult to get right.

What texture file formats will be used in the new renderer for 24bit and alpha?

I have no idea. 

I may implement some sort of 32-bit MAP format, but that's a ways off.

[AHadley]

Yep, typo... Whoopsie

[Steeveeo]

The last time I used software rendering at all was to run BZ1 on XP because hardware mode didn't work.

[eddywright]

I always play in hardware mode, switching computers if I have to.  I found playing in software mode wasn't all that fun. The graphics in BZ1 aren't all that fancy to start with...

I vote for dropping software mode if it allows you to more easily upgrade to DX9. Like dx said, softare mode could be available in a different executable.

Eddy
aka {911}FirBirGir

[ssuser]

Mmm, what about the editor? For mapmaking, there are some things things you do in software mode, like placing objects. Also, I have always done terrain editing in software mode, I find it is easier to see what I am doing in software mode, and this is especially true if you are using cheap onboard graphics adapters.

[AHadley]

I never had that...

[Josiah]

Mmm, what about the editor? For mapmaking, there are some things things you do in software mode, like placing objects. Also, I have always done terrain editing in software mode, I find it is easier to see what I am doing in software mode, and this is especially true if you are using cheap onboard graphics adapters.

You're right. You also can't see the red, green, and white squares in F9 mode if you are using HW. At least on all my computers.