Which do you prefer, software rendering or openGL?

So source ports such as prboom+ have two rendering modes, normal software render and openGL. It seems like opengl renderer is much faster but it also looks differently. What renderer do you like more? Personally I find opengl renderer kind of ugly, software render has some shading with all surfaces being darker that are farther from you and it has some charm but openGL feels really flat and paperish

I prefer WOOF which combines the speed of hardware rendering and the look of software rendering. Now if only it had HD resolution support...

Both. Not everything has to be a choice. They both have advantages and disadvantages.

3 hours ago, ScrappyMcDoogerton said:

I prefer WOOF which combines the speed of hardware rendering and the look of software rendering. Now if only it had HD resolution support...

Oh that's nice, I wish more ports had that

Usually software rendering for vanilla maps, I kinda like the crust of software rendering. However I tend to use Opengl for larger maps with huge structures.

I only use Hardware rendering if the mod calls for it. Otherwise software all the way.

I don’t care as long as the monsters are not blurred.

It depends on how the mapper approached it. Hardware looks flat and bland on regular maps, but if the map has UDMF features like fog or dynamic lighting it can look amazing. For standard dooming though I generally prefer software though.

I usually use OpenGL when it's available in a source-port, despite that I dig the look of software mode.

usually i prefer software renderer, i think the colours look much cooler that way

Software only. I can't stand the look of hardware rendering (mainly how smooth everything is) and if WADs require it I just don't play them. 

Software all the way, though it's obviously got performance issues with larger maps in GZDoom, so I usually have it paired with Vanilla Essence to get that chunky low res and software style lighting without sacrificing the performance.

^{(Paradise, map31)}

One thing i find odd is that, on ports based of prboom+, software is very slow when compared to opengl rendering

BUT

On linux it runs just as fast for some reason... I guess linux is just better at software rendering?

On other ports i didnt notice any difference but i remenber hearing that zdoom used a form of hardware acceleration on top of it's software render... I may be miss remenbering since it was a long time ago. but that could be the reason why other source ports allow for stuff like fov in software.

Maybe... I dunno im just guessing at this point.

1 hour ago, whybmonotacrab said:

It depends on how the mapper approached it. Hardware looks flat and bland on regular maps, but if the map has UDMF features like fog or dynamic lighting it can look amazing. For standard dooming though I generally prefer software though.

Tinker a bit with the fov settings. Opengl doesnt look that flat if used with the right fov

I find that most ports have a very flat looking lighting and fov as default. Probably for performace reasons.

Software. Everything else is shades of ugly. 

I prefer Software, but use OpenGL due to performance reasons.

Software all the way. Just feels right.

47 minutes ago, omalefico32x said:

Tinker a bit with the fov settings. Opengl doesnt look that flat if used with the right fov

 

I find that most ports have a very flat looking lighting and fov as default. Probably for performace reasons.

I mean the lighting looks flat and a bit lifeless.

I use OpenGl as more wads break without it's use rather than wads that break with it's use.  If I need to I will switch to software.

Always software!

I usually prefer software rendering, especially on older/less-detailed maps. The software renderer's color palette and banded lighting adds a sort of grittiness that makes up for the lack of detail in the map geometry itself. I also use a lower resolution for software rendering than hardware rendering, mainly for performance reasons, but this also adds to the chunkiness as a side effect.

I sometimes switch to hardware rendering for very detailed maps, either for performance or to better appreciate the details (remember, as I said before, I use a lower resolution for software rendering). I also occasionally find truecolor and smooth lighting to be better-suited for a map; these are usually the more abstract maps that are going for a clean aesthetic, often with vibrant colors.

7 hours ago, ScrappyMcDoogerton said:

I prefer WOOF which combines the speed of hardware rendering and the look of software rendering. Now if only it had HD resolution support...

Does it actually have any hardware acceleration for the rendering, or is it just the low resolution that makes it fast? I get high framerates with PrBoom+/dsda-doom's software rendering too if I turn the resolution down.

1 hour ago, omalefico32x said:

One thing i find odd is that, on ports based of prboom+, software is very slow when compared to opengl rendering

 

BUT

 

On linux it runs just as fast for some reason... I guess linux is just better at software rendering?

If you ever figure out why, let me know. =P I get about the same framerates on Linux as I do on Windows, with OpenGL generally performing better.

Vulkan! The next generation of OpenGL.

I wouldn't call myself a purist, I like Doom but I recognize that we need to progress to more modern standards.

I just love how the lighting looks in software.

Software, because of the lighting, it makes a lot of difference in darker environments

1 hour ago, omalefico32x said:

On linux it runs just as fast for some reason... I guess linux is just better at software rendering?

 

Oh yes, in my linux computer LZDoom runs way faster in software mode. I have no idea why though.

Back on the topic, now Woof! is my port of choice, so I can play Sunlust at 60 fps while keeping the software look. BUT, most of the time I don't use hardware acceleration, or the widescreen mode.

Software.  GL butchers so many things about the visuals; chopped off sprites, messed up lighting, no colormaps, greyed-out colors.  Most of the "solutions" to these are either half-assed or make things slow and bloated.

I like both renders, but the render I use the most is the OpenGL. It makes the graphics smoother which I like and I adore the lighting effects more. Also looking up and down in Software makes me feel seasick

1 hour ago, whybmonotacrab said:

I mean the lighting looks flat and a bit lifeless.

Oh i meant fog not fov. Sorry for the typo

Try to use shaders fog in prboom based ports and software fog on gzdoom

Software.

It's actually mostly because I'm lazy and don't sifting through tons of configuration options, and for whatever reason in 2022 I can't think of an OpenGL renderer that comes correctly configured out of the box.

While I play on GZDoom with the OpenGL renderer most of the time, I'll admit that the software renderer has a charm to it that hardware-accelerated renderers can't quite match.