Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unreal Tournament 2K3 Gets Software Renderer

Posted by simoniker on from the laptops-worldwide-scream-in-delight dept.

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing out that the official Unreal Technology page has been updated with a software renderer for Unreal Tournament 2K3. This is an interesting step for those gamers with fast CPUs but inadequate 3D cards. The Pixomatic technology powering it was co-developed by Michael Abrash, John Carmack's right-hand man during the development of Quake, and a famous programmer and writer (at Microsoft and elsewhere) way before then.

6 of 47 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by RaboKrabekian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who has a fast enough CPU to run this game, but *doesn't* have any kind of 3d accelerated video card. That kind of userbase must be incredibly small. I'm struggling to come up with any kind of user who would want to play this that wouldn't have at LEAST a TNT2 or GeForce. And a GeForce2 can be had for what, $20? Less than the price of the game. Please tell me who this is for.

    Of course maybe there's a more important reason for the software renderer, but I'm not going to read the article for fear of being proven wrong.

    --
    "Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
    1. Re:Huh? by bigman2003 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Exactly- the user base would be very small, and the game would still be crap to run. How many people *who want to play this game* have a 2.5ghz+ CPU, but don't have a decent 3d accelerator?

      UT2k3 is not a game for the 'casual' game. They would crap their pants after 2 or 3 'die bitch' and 'you whore's. (Not because of the language, but the impossible to track, fast action)

      But hey- there are people out there who don't think they should need to buy a decent 3d card, I guess this is more of a proof of concept, than something that would actually be useful.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    2. Re:Huh? by Gadzinka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And a GeForce2 can be had for what, $20? Less than the price of the game. Please tell me who this is for.

      For anyone who has video card, not the game card.

      My matrox g450 has perfect picture quality in 1600x1200@70Hz, very good Backend Scaller for video and very poor performance in 3D. While it can't compete in 3d speed even with TNT2 it's got better picture quality than several times more expensive GF cards.

      If you spend 10+ hrs a day in front of the monitor you do care more about picture quality than 3D speed.

      Robert

      PS. ATI has much better picture quality than nvidia, but still loses with Matrox.

      --
      Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
  2. Useful for conservation by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In 15 years time, who will have a GeForce card of the right vintage anyway?

    A software renderer means that the software will still run, whereas the hardware we have right now will be gone.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  3. Good for my laptop by Smack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despite the claims this has no use, my work laptop has a nice fast Pentium 3 in it, and a crap vidcard. I'm sure I'm not alone.

  4. Re:this is retarded =/ by Mikey-San · · Score: 2, Insightful

    50 FPS is bad somehow? You're a liar if you say that 50 FPS is either unplayable or noticeably flicker- or stutter-ridden. This is terrible FPS? (Five, yeah, but anything over 30 or 40 isn't unplayable, and 50 is definitely playable.)

    Go back to your bridge, troll.

    --
    Mikey-San
    Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)