[Files] Warp3D software render driver | ANN.lu |
Posted on 19-Feb-2002 14:42 GMT by Teemu I. Yliselä | 158 comments View flat View list |
"This is a software driver for Warp3D, which enables:
using Warp3D applications, demos and games with PPC Amigas not equipped with a 3D GFx board, or not equiped with a GFx board at all (but requires P96 or CGX) [and] using Warp3D applications, demos and games not compatible with a 3D Gfx board (example : WipeOut and CGx4/Voodoo3)." More details in the readme.
|
|
List of all comments to this article |
Warp3D software render driver : Comment 41 of 158 | ANN.lu |
Posted by Bernd Meyer on 20-Feb-2002 11:18 GMT | In reply to Comment 40 (Kay Are Ulvestad): The guy had a CSPPC and a PIV, and couldn't get it to work....
Anyway --- It's not that the W3D team "doesn't want to make a software renderer for a dead processor". The software renderer for 68k *exists*, and was done by the same person who made this PPC one. Heck, you should hear the guy talking about how things fly on his Amithlon system.
What happens is that the W3D people for some reason forbid the release of the existing driver for 68k, and *at the same time* allow the release of the same software renderer, by the same author, for PPC. And as far as I can tell, their reason for not allowing the 68k software renderer out is "because then people could use Warp3D without having any licensed hardware".... which is all fine and good, *except* that the PPC software renderer, which they apparently don't have a problem with, allows that very same thing. It's just that those people without licensed hardware apparently are "good" people, because they have a PPC, as opposed to the "evil" people, who have an x86
All I am asking is for someone to explain this discrepancy. If that takes the form of "Well, we really don't like x86, and we can, so there!", fine. That would be honest. If it takes the form of "Oh, well, we can't really allow that, because W3D in software render on an Athlon 1700 runs faster than on any Amiga PCI card, and that would majorly upset our licensees", that's fine, too (I have no idea about performance figures one way or the other!). I just find it rather distasteful and insulting to the users' intelligence to cite "licensing issues" when those very same issues are ignored for the PPC software renderer. |
|
List of all comments to this article (continued) |
|
- User Menu
-
- About ANN archives
- The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005).
ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com.
- Contribute
- Not possible at this time!
- Search ANN archives
- Advanced search
- Hosting
- ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase.
Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.
|