shaders < 2.0: is this the end?
category: general [glöplog]
SM3.0
Sado-maso 4.0?
Sado-maso 4.0?
I'm fine with that, then it is a premise, like taking the 64 kb limit challenge, it's something you decide in front, but it's a rare case (it basically only applies if you target "crappy hardware that is 6 years old" as you said). Most of the times this demos need a modern /powerful pc anyway because they have to use heavy multipass techniques to do what they could quickly do in one pass with shaders, so they definitively don't target 6 years old hw. It's that kind of behavior that I complain about.
Anyway don't take me too seriously, this was a "let's put ourselves in the other radical position" game, just to balance a bit.
Anyway don't take me too seriously, this was a "let's put ourselves in the other radical position" game, just to balance a bit.
iq: so is doing a 4k when you could do it in 10 gigs. You've got the gigs. You KNOW you have the gigs. So why are you bothering with 4k?
iq: no worries, was just explain why we stayed away from pixel shaders in our prods up until now ;) Plus, our concepts and design didn't require their use, so that would have been stupid to use them for the sake of it (as stupid as not using them for the sake of it)
Quote:
iq: so is doing a 4k when you could do it in 10 gigs. You've got the gigs. You KNOW you have the gigs. So why are you bothering with 4k?
A demo done without shader and consequently requiring loads of fillrate will most likely require a card with shaders because they're the only ones with necessary fillrate. A 4k demo showing 10 gigs of content doesn't require 10 gigs of hard disk space, so the comparison doesn't hold up. Doing a high-fillrate-but-no-shaders demo is more comparable to writing a demo in BASIC.
ryg: at least patching soundtracker would have been worth it!
