today I was browsing net and searching for 3dfx sites I haven't seen yet and found some project (http://sw-shader.sourceforge.net) about developing shaders in software. Yeah I know - shaders in software - it's realllllly sloooooow, BUT, look at cpus now - thier speed is increasing more and more. Maybe it's worth to try out swShaders lib?
I was wondering maybe with very fast cpu some shaders could be done in software fast enough.. How do you think?
what voodoo cards lack is Pixel Shader...
the oldest mainstream gaming card that implement Pixel Shader is GeForce 3...
the problem is, it's still quite powerful compared to nowadays cards and CPUs..
also seems it's still not a must to have PS in nowadays games
for Vertex shader, Voodoo cards does have some VS unit
maybe some programs that force HW T&L games to run at SW T&L (Direct X does provide software T&L support, as you can see in 3D Mark 2001, and it's NOT null rendering) would be nice~~
QuoteOriginally posted by secretfj
what voodoo cards lack is Pixel Shader...
the oldest mainstream gaming card that implement Pixel Shader is GeForce 3...
the problem is, it's still quite powerful compared to nowadays cards and CPUs..
is that a problem? ;) And of course it's powerful compared to low-end gayforce cards..
QuoteOriginally posted by secretfj
also seems it's still not a must to have PS in nowadays games
with 3DAnalyzer it's not a must ;), but many games use pixel shaders. Some games can be played without them, but it spoils gameplay.. :/
QuoteOriginally posted by secretfj
maybe some programs that force HW T&L games to run at SW T&L (Direct X does provide software T&L support, as you can see in 3D Mark 2001, and it's NOT null rendering) would be nice~~
You mean developing it in drivers so games can use HW T&L which actually is SW T&L?
It's mt bad expression..
I mean to make a CPU to do pixelshader (2.0 for DX9C) is maybe a bit too hard and the result maybe be no good
I have to admit that without PS, the gaming experience is deteriorated(lack of special effect like beautiful water waves done by PS in common)
and i haven't considered PS optimized games like farcry..
but compared with software-based PS, T&L is easier and already done by DirectX (i think someone had said it before), it's just the game maker won't use it in case of display cards that lack of T&L unit...so implement a cheat to make the game run but intercept those T&L commands to DirectX built-in software T&L Emulator
P.S. maybe someone will write a translator to translate/optimize those PS/T&L codes into Glide and feed it to VooDoos, it would be nice
(does MESAfx do the similar thing? translating those OpenGL connands into Glide so that Voodoo can use its power to handle it..i dunno)
QuoteOriginally posted by secretfj
It's mt bad expression..
I mean to make a CPU to do pixelshader (2.0 for DX9C) is maybe a bit too hard and the result maybe be no good
I thought about software shaders as optional feature which can be enabled/disabled. I guess many of us would like to see how voodoo runs with shaders.
QuoteOriginally posted by secretfj
I have to admit that without PS, the gaming experience is deteriorated(lack of special effect like beautiful water waves done by PS in common)
for example famous NFS:U - without special effects it's not NFS:U (I played that game on my gf4ti4200 with all effects on, and when i see it without them, it looks awful to me.. :/ )
QuoteOriginally posted by secretfj
P.S. maybe someone will write a translator to translate/optimize those PS/T&L codes into Glide and feed it to VooDoos, it would be nice
first we need someone who knows how to add swShaders to drivers.. ;)
the creator does admit that it's a pre-alpha one...
but i tried one of the demo..3X fps for a car model...i think it's very good for merely software rendering using PS..
I am looking forward to this because my Radeon 9100VE won't play any PS2.0 stuff (you are lucky, due to my out-dated system, i can't turn all the details on..so have no idea how good i would be..)
QuoteOriginally posted by secretfj
the creator does admit that it's a pre-alpha one...
but i tried one of the demo..3X fps for a car model...i think it's very good for merely software rendering using PS..
I am looking forward to this because my Radeon 9100VE won't play any PS2.0 stuff (you are lucky, due to my out-dated system, i can't turn all the details on..so have no idea how good i would be..)
just tested that car model demo (Per-Pixel Lighting from PS2.0) - seems very nice. I got about ~25fps (when moving around the scene) on my AthlonXP 2200+..
in StencilShadow (stencil buffer capabilities) demo i got ~25fps when not moving and ~13fps when flying around.
in ShaderVolume (DX9 SDK) i got about 15fps.
also i tried RealVirtuality demo which illustrates use of SoftWire Run-Time Assembler library - got about ~15fps when moving around.
when looking on these numbers the idea of software shaders seems promising.. ;)
some good news from the SW shader developers:
they released some Direct 3d Dll for demo/testing, and i did some test using normal direct3D tester -- the fillrate benchmark work and some results are gained, but for others like shadermark 2.1 or PS tester, the result is still negative.
but seems there is big hope for software shaders, let's be positive
some result(actually some minor render error occured in the result done by SW Shader)
QuoteFillrateBenchmark(tm) 2004 - "easy benchmark series"
Benchmark Main Program Version: FRB_V092
Benchmark Date/Time : 1/1/2005 22:57:26
System Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPU : VIA Nehemiah
GFX : swSHader
OS : Microsoft Windows XP
Settings : 1024x768 16 bits D16 No AA
Benchmark Result
-----------------------------------------------------------
FrameBuffer Clear : 102.4 FPS
Color Fill : 25.16582 M-Pixel/s
Z Fill : 12.58291 M-Pixel/s
Color + Z Fill : 15.09949 M-Pixel/s
Single Texture : 7.549747 M-Pixel/s
Single Texture Alpha Blend : 5.033165 M-Pixel/s
Dual Textures : 5.033165 M-Pixel/s
Triple Textures : 5.033165 M-Pixel/s
Quad Textures : 5.033165 M-Pixel/s
1 Floating Poing Texture : 7.549747 M-Pixel/s
Render to Self : 0.8388608 M-Pixel/s
PS 1.1 Simple : 7.549747 M-Pixel/s
PS 1.4 Simple : 7.549747 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 Simple : 7.549747 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 PP Simple : 7.549747 M-Pixel/s
Customized Pixel Shader : 7.549747 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Sincos Procedure Tex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Per-Pixel Lighting : (Unsupported)
-----------------------------------------------------------
* End of FillrateBenchmark Result
Reference result done by Voodoo3 3000
QuoteFillrateBenchmark(tm) 2004 - "easy benchmark series"
Benchmark Main Program Version: FRB_V092
Benchmark Date/Time : 1/1/2005 23:00:25
System Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPU : VIA Nehemiah
GFX : 3dfx Interactive, Inc. Voodoo3 Series Driver
OS : Microsoft Windows XP
Settings : 1024x768 16 bits D16 No AA
Benchmark Result
-----------------------------------------------------------
FrameBuffer Clear : 780.8 FPS
Color Fill : 201.3266 M-Pixel/s
Z Fill : 198.81 M-Pixel/s
Color + Z Fill : 198.81 M-Pixel/s
Single Texture : 198.81 M-Pixel/s
Single Texture Alpha Blend : 196.2934 M-Pixel/s
Dual Textures : 196.2934 M-Pixel/s
Triple Textures : 196.2934 M-Pixel/s
Quad Textures : (Unsupported)
1 Floating Poing Texture : (Unsupported)
Render to Self : (Unsupported)
PS 1.1 Simple : (Unsupported)
PS 1.4 Simple : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Simple : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Simple : (Unsupported)
Customized Pixel Shader : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Sincos Procedure Tex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Per-Pixel Lighting : (Unsupported)
-----------------------------------------------------------
* End of FillrateBenchmark Result
software does gives more functionality while old hardware has its own power over software, so maybe combining them together is the best
(makes me think of Dborca and MESAFX, MESA is a pure SW openGL substitute, and Daniel Borca give the software the power of Voodoo cards, maybe we need another genius like Daniel - I am sure there are some in Voodoo players~~)
just tested my main rig with athlonxp 2500+ and gf4ti4200-8x to compare results.
here are results of my chaintech gf4ti4200-8x 128Mb:
Quote
FillrateBenchmark(tm) 2004 - "easy benchmark series"
Benchmark Date/Time : 2005.01.02. 01:58:05
System Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPU : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2500+
GFX : NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X
OS : Microsoft Windows XP
Settings : 1024x768 16 bits D16 No AA
Benchmark Result
-----------------------------------------------------------
FrameBuffer Clear : 2497,6 FPS
Color Fill : 999,0833 M-Pixel/s
Z Fill : 999,0833 M-Pixel/s
Color + Z Fill : 999,0833 M-Pixel/s
Single Texture : 981,4672 M-Texel/s
Dual Textures : 1889,953 M-Texel/s
Triple Textures : 1458,045 M-Texel/s
Quad Textures : 1897,503 M-Texel/s
1 Floating Poing Texture : (Unsupported)
Render to Self : 582,7985 M-Pixel/s
PS 1.1 Simple : 999,0833 M-Pixel/s
PS 1.4 Simple : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Simple : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Simple : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Sincos Procedure Tex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Per-Pixel Lighting : (Unsupported)
-----------------------------------------------------------
* End of FillrateBenchmark Result
here are results of swShader:
Quote
FillrateBenchmark(tm) 2004 - "easy benchmark series"
Benchmark Date/Time : 2005.01.02. 02:02:16
System Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPU : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2500+
GFX : swSHader
OS : Microsoft Windows XP
Settings : 1024x768 16 bits D16 No AA
Benchmark Result
-----------------------------------------------------------
FrameBuffer Clear : 659,4 FPS
Color Fill : 138,412 M-Pixel/s
Z Fill : 70,46431 M-Pixel/s
Color + Z Fill : 75,49747 M-Pixel/s
Single Texture : 5,033165 M-Texel/s
Dual Textures : 5,033165 M-Texel/s
Triple Textures : 5,66231 M-Texel/s
Quad Textures : 7,549747 M-Texel/s
1 Floating Poing Texture : 5,033165 M-Pixel/s
Render to Self : 0,4194304 M-Pixel/s
PS 1.1 Simple : 128,3457 M-Pixel/s
PS 1.4 Simple : 125,8291 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 Simple : 125,8291 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 PP Simple : 125,8291 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Sincos Procedure Tex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Per-Pixel Lighting : (Unsupported)
-----------------------------------------------------------
* End of FillrateBenchmark Result
also i noticed that results did't changed (and picture too) while changing color depth when i tested swShader. While testing my gfx results and image changed much.
so from the results it's easy to see that even on athlonxp 2500+ shShader is slower than stock voodoo3 running on via c3 900mhz. Although the results of software shaders are better than i expected, maybe combining hardware and software could do the thing (emulating only shaders and some other caps that voodoo doesn't support).
oh sorry i've forgotten to say, the V3 is overclocked to 179/179MHz
I quote here the author :
QuoteswShader is a piece of software which allows to render advanced 3D scenes without the need for specialized hardware
QuoteWhile most gamers do have the latest generation of graphics card, this is not the case for the average computer user. However, advanced 3D graphics is spreading fast, and many of these people are left in the cold. Keeping up with the latest graphics upgrade is an uphill battle, or not a battle at all for unaware consumers
Like 3DAnalyzer emulates perfectly some functions, swShader can do probably the same since it uses the cpu...
QuoteOriginally posted by secretfj
oh sorry i've forgotten to say, the V3 is overclocked to 179/179MHz
anyway, oc'ing v3 doesn't change results very much ;)
QuoteOriginally posted by Nightbird
Like 3DAnalyzer emulates perfectly some functions, swShader can do probably the same since it uses the cpu...
difference is that 3DAnalyzer emulates capabilities and puts a null rendering but swShader renders all in software.
Quotewritten in 3danalyzer docz
Yet, this is presently achieved not by Emulation but by NUL-Rendering.
also i found out that 3danalyzer uses the same technique swShader uses to get between 3d api and gfx - replacing direct3d dll, only 3danalyzer's dll somehow inherits all cap's of gfx + options which you select in soft, but shShader dll doesn't have any connection to gfx. Maybe it's possible to integrate shShader pixel shader rendering source into 3danalyzer - replace null rendering with shShader software rendering?
Nobody is interested to program the perfect utility ? [:p]
QuoteOriginally posted by Nightbird
Nobody is interested to program the perfect utility ? [:p]
my own experience tells me that SW shader still have to improve its competability with DX9 programs/games/benchmarks -- majority of them still gives error message when using SWshader. but anyway it's a good start
Quotebut anyway it's a good start
You're right and sounds very promising.
For the Author, keep the good work ! :)
QuoteOriginally posted by Nightbird
Nobody is interested to program the perfect utility ? [:p]
3danalyzer sources ain't available, are they?
They are not.
found out why.. :
Quotehttp://www.tommti-systems.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=82&highlight=sources
No. It's to dangerous, because it could be used as a cheating tool for benchmarks, which would bring Futuremark and other benchmark companies into trouble and also as an cheating tool for multiplayer games if you create something like a wall hack....
Hi all,
I'm the developer of swShader. It's great to see your interest for my software!
I'd like to add that swShader is still under heavy development. Quite recently I managed to run Unreal Tournament 2004 completely in software. But the performance is not yet optimal. I will first add all features, including programmable shaders, and make sure they run very fast. I still have tons of ideas to make it faster but I can't risk the trouble of optimizing too soon.
Anyway, with processors getting more powerful every day, I see a nice future for this technology...
QuoteOriginally posted by r21vo
found out why.. :
Quotehttp://www.tommti-systems.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=82&highlight=sources
No. It's to dangerous, because it could be used as a cheating tool for benchmarks, which would bring Futuremark and other benchmark companies into trouble and also as an cheating tool for multiplayer games if you create something like a wall hack....
That's nonsense really. Benchmarks can't be influenced this way because graphics card drivers already have access to all software and hardware processing. And the code for a 'wall hack' is really trivial anyway...
@ Nick
Really many thanks to you to have answered to my email :) :)
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick
Hi all,
I'm the developer of swShader. It's great to see your interest for my software!
I'd like to add that swShader is still under heavy development. Quite recently I managed to run Unreal Tournament 2004 completely in software. But the performance is not yet optimal. I will first add all features, including programmable shaders, and make sure they run very fast. I still have tons of ideas to make it faster but I can't risk the trouble of optimizing too soon.
Anyway, with processors getting more powerful every day, I see a nice future for this technology...
hey, nice to see you here! :)
I would like to ask you is it easy for you to make some of 3d oparations use gfx power? I mean making option where you can select which one do you wan to use - software of hardware for some certain 3d operation.
QuoteOriginally posted by r21vo
I would like to ask you is it easy for you to make some of 3d oparations use gfx power? I mean making option where you can select which one do you wan to use - software of hardware for some certain 3d operation.
It brings some inefficiencies to switch between software and hardware processing several times per frame. Every time I need to access the color buffer, I have to 'lock' it so nothing else is drawing while I'm working with it. So this means I have to wait for the hardware to finish its operations before I can do some software rendering. Also, the hardware requires some setup time to start rendering, so these delays can become quite significant. Exactly how bad it is I don't know, but knowledgable people have told me it can decimate performance severely.
Another option would be to do the software rendering in a separate buffer and blend that with the hardware rendered part, so the hardware never has to be interrupted.
Either way, it's not easy to support. It's already very hard to manage everything in software, so mixing with some hardware processing is going to be even harder. But if you have some suggestion to make this simpler please let me know!
my idea was to let gfx do all operations except some pixel shaders and maybe dot3 bumpmaping or smth like that. Pixel shaders/bumpmaping can be done after all other operations (i guess bumpmapping sould be done when rendering textures, but pixel shaders could be done after and blended into picture)? If it's possible then you have to switch only one time between software and hardware.
(I'm quite a novice in 3d programming world actually ;) )
I would like to know how much optimized shShader is (how much optimizations could be done) - is there any mmx/sse/3dnow optimzations? Or maybe something is done in asm?
The main reason why i feel desperate need for this is that our beloved 3dfx cards doesn't support pixel shaders and some other advanced 3d features - so developing these features in software could give us again new things to test, to discuss and think about. Other reason is that there are many powerful cards out there which doesn't support some features and it would be very interesting to see how software can make things better :D
QuoteOriginally posted by r21vo
I would like to know how much optimized shShader is (how much optimizations could be done) - is there any mmx/sse/3dnow optimzations? Or maybe something is done in asm?
It's full of assembly code. This page should give you an introduction to the used technologies: http://sw-shader.sourceforge.net/technology.html
whoo, you have optimized swShader very much! actually a little bit sad, because what still can be done to make swShader run faster?
QuoteOriginally posted by r21vo
whoo, you have optimized swShader very much! actually a little bit sad, because what still can be done to make swShader run faster?
Actually a lot. At the moment I'm focussing on supporting every DirectX 9 feature, while performance comes second. So even though I already use quite advanced technology, it's not tweaked for best performance yet. I also currently have nothing for overdraw reduction or early culling. So things could become quite a lot faster for future versions.
i'm glad to hear that :) seems that you are the only developer of swShader, right?
Are you thinking of using the same technique Gigapixel/PowerVR used for overdraw??? Because if you use these overdraw tecniques you'd could be looking at a increase of 2-3x, dependant of the situation the game is in.
QuoteOriginally posted by r21vo
i'm glad to hear that :) seems that you are the only developer of swShader, right?
Yes, I've started working on swShader in 2003, and worked on it in all my free time. It's finally starting to take shape and I truely believe this year it will reach commercial quality.
QuoteOriginally posted by perer
Are you thinking of using the same technique Gigapixel/PowerVR used for overdraw??? Because if you use these overdraw tecniques you'd could be looking at a increase of 2-3x, dependant of the situation the game is in.
I intend to use a hierarchical depth buffer technique to significally reduce overdraw at a low cost. It's based on a new rasterizer that can work in blocks: http://sw-shader.sourceforge.net/rasterizer.html This appears to be the most succesful approach, but if you have other idea's please share!
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick
QuoteOriginally posted by r21vo
i'm glad to hear that :) seems that you are the only developer of swShader, right?
Yes, I've started working on swShader in 2003, and worked on it in all my free time. It's finally starting to take shape and I truely believe this year it will reach commercial quality.
commecial quality? you mean earning money with this project?
I think it means that you can then compare it with commercial products.
I don't know any commercial product to whom compare this beauty ;)
QuoteOriginally posted by r21vo
commecial quality? you mean earning money with this project?
Yes. If it were possible to keep it non-commercial (not earning money with it), I would. I really love doing it and I don't need money to motivate me. But unfortunately I'm a broke student who has to pay rent and eat something more than bread crumbs. I've spend a lot of time on this software, and I got an opportunity to earn money with it so I'm taking it.
Anyway, I'm definitely not excluding the possibility of keeping it partially free. For example the 3Dfx cards just lack some pixel shader support so I might release that component in the open-source part of the project.
I understand you, in your place I'd do the same ;)
humm, is that a secret or you can tell more about opportunity you got?
Also i found in your site that you've worked for nvidia last summer, can you tell us in what project were you in?
Releasing software pixel shader support for 3dfx videocards would be really awesome :D
QuoteOriginally posted by r21vo
I understand you, in your place I'd do the same ;)
humm, is that a secret or you can tell more about opportunity you got?
No contract has been signed yet, but that could happen in a few days really. There will be some public announcement so I'll keep you updated if you like.
QuoteAlso i found in your site that you've worked for nvidia last summer, can you tell us in what project were you in?
If NVIDIA had no competition I'd love to share that information. ;) It's closely related to next-generation DirectX features, that's about all I can say. But frankly, it has very little relevance for a public discussion. Anyway, my internship was a fantastic experience and I hope to go back once I graduate!
QuoteReleasing software pixel shader support for 3dfx videocards would be really awesome :D
I don't know much about 3Dfx technology actually. Does it have open-source drivers? How well is DirectX 9 and OpenGL 2.0 supported (aside from what the hardware actually supports)?
Well Opengl was supported by Daniel Borca but he has quit the project unfortunately. His MesaFX has come quite far, but he didn't support all of the features of opengl because that would only cause the games to run slower, at least that is what he sad and I think it is correct. The most features that where missing must be done in software and those features where slow to be done in software. Well anyway you proved that you can render pixel shaders in software with a decent speed (at least that is what I am assuming). What are the framerate you are getting with for example Far Cry (or any other game that uses pixel shaders).
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick
No contract has been signed yet, but that could happen in a few days really. There will be some public announcement so I'll keep you updated if you like.
I'm happy for you and i still can't imagine how swShader could make money..
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick
If NVIDIA had no competition I'd love to share that information. ;) It's closely related to next-generation DirectX features, that's about all I can say. But frankly, it has very little relevance for a public discussion. Anyway, my internship was a fantastic experience and I hope to go back once I graduate!
Yeah, nvidia keeps everything in secret.. Can you tell how did you got in?
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick
I don't know much about 3Dfx technology actually. Does it have open-source drivers? How well is DirectX 9 and OpenGL 2.0 supported (aside from what the hardware actually supports)?
Officialy 3dfx didn't release driver sources, but there was a leak, so sources are available. At present there are some enhusiasts which build new drivers, for example Amigamerlin, SFFT, Raziel64 and some others. They haven't opened their sources to public, but I guess cooperation always is possible ;) Frankly i don't know about dx9 and 0gl support in detail, all i know that most of features which could be done in hardware were made. Some tricks are implemented, something is done in software I guess, this question could answer those who make drivers..
QuoteOriginally posted by r21vo
I'm happy for you and i still can't imagine how swShader could make money..
It absolutely can. Some game developers would like their software to run on practically any system. Laptops and such still lack adequate 3D rendering capabilities. I even have competition, Pixomatic (http://www.radgametools.com/pixomain.htm), which sells for 10,000 $ per license and is being used in Unreal Tournament 2004. swShader actually has more features, and the performance could become similar in the next months. It's also interesting for DirectX developers who would like to experiment with technology that would require expensive graphics cards, or things that are not even implemented in hardware yet.
QuoteYeah, nvidia keeps everything in secret.. Can you tell how did you got in?
It could possible damage the company if I told in detail what I worked on. Ok, that chance is small but still I'd rather not risk it.
I got in contact because of a demo which I presented on a game development forum. They e-mailed me, I had three small interviews, and they offered me a summer internship. I had some problems getting a visa for the summer of 2003, but last summer everything went smooth. It was a great experience working there and I'll never regret it.
QuoteOfficialy 3dfx didn't release driver sources, but there was a leak, so sources are available. At present there are some enhusiasts which build new drivers, for example Amigamerlin, SFFT, Raziel64 and some others. They haven't opened their sources to public, but I guess cooperation always is possible ;) Frankly i don't know about dx9 and 0gl support in detail, all i know that most of features which could be done in hardware were made. Some tricks are implemented, something is done in software I guess, this question could answer those who make drivers..
Ok, I'll check that information after my exams!
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick
It absolutely can. Some game developers would like their software to run on practically any system. Laptops and such still lack adequate 3D rendering capabilities. I even have competition, Pixomatic (http://www.radgametools.com/pixomain.htm), which sells for 10,000 $ per license and is being used in Unreal Tournament 2004. swShader actually has more features, and the performance could become similar in the next months. It's also interesting for DirectX developers who would like to experiment with technology that would require expensive graphics cards, or things that are not even implemented in hardware yet.
Yep, now I see were the money comes in ;)
Quote
I got in contact because of a demo which I presented on a game development forum. They e-mailed me, I had three small interviews, and they offered me a summer internship. I had some problems getting a visa for the summer of 2003, but last summer everything went smooth. It was a great experience working there and I'll never regret it.
demo? can you give us a link? ;)
Then it means nvidia has people who search around for specialists to recruit? Hehe, I never thought it happens like that..
SoftWire and swShader are now owned by TransGaming Technologies Inc.
http://www.transgaming.com/swiftshader
QuoteAnyway, I'm definitely not excluding the possibility of keeping it partially free. For example the 3Dfx cards just lack some pixel shader support so I might release that component in the open-source part of the project.
So will this not be happening now? Will we have to pay?
A shame if it won't be free for us 3dfx users, I'd really love a chance to have some basic shaders with my 5500...
ScottyMcNoob: I'm afraid it won't. Anyways, there would be minimal use of supporting them nowdays.