It’s worth noting that this same restriction of not being able to do perspective transformations is also one of the defining characteristics of PlayStation 1 graphics. And the workaround of subdivision is also the same workaround PS1 games used.
It is also a limitation that many initial DOS 3D software rasterized games had (e.g. Descent.)
This is because perspective transform requires a divide per pixel and it was too costly on the CPUs of the time, so they skipped it to get acceptable performance.
Huh that’s so crazy. I had that in my head as I was reading the article. I was thinking about some car game and the way the panels would look when it rotated in your “garage”.
Comments
It’s worth noting that this same restriction of not being able to do perspective transformations is also one of the defining characteristics of PlayStation 1 graphics. And the workaround of subdivision is also the same workaround PS1 games used.
More reading: https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/5019/why-...
It is also a limitation that many initial DOS 3D software rasterized games had (e.g. Descent.)
This is because perspective transform requires a divide per pixel and it was too costly on the CPUs of the time, so they skipped it to get acceptable performance.
It's also commonly known that Quake only did a perspective divide every 16 pixels.
It's funny that, in today's CPUs, floating point divide is so much faster than integer divide.
Huh that’s so crazy. I had that in my head as I was reading the article. I was thinking about some car game and the way the panels would look when it rotated in your “garage”.