> > Why do you prefer CRT Geometry DX over HLSL?
> Because with my LCD TV, this shader is the one which provides the greatest (nearest)
> result when compared to a real CRT monitor. And it is a LOT faster than HLSL. Also,
> HLSL requires a more powerful machine/video card (I cannot run HLSL within my Dell
> notebook for example, where BGFX runs like a charm).
> HLSL is great too, but it looks fake in my TV. Maybe I'm using wrong settings on it
> And I believe Jesse is the one who did the latest changes to these CRT shaders. I may
> be mistaken though...
Yep, HLSL is slow. It's something I've had some difficulty with, but it's also probably the most flexible CRT shader around today. This is important because different people have a different expectation of an accurate CRT. Some want it to look like a high-quality Trinitron, others a wholly uncalibrated Magnavox (no disrespect, I'm just referencing one of my old favorite TVs). Also, I want HLSL to be flexible enough to simulate other kinds of displays like LCDs and projectors, not just CRTs. I don't think any of the current CRT shaders, at least from what I've seen, are accurate in any sense.
I'm currently working on improvements for HLSL, which will include updated presets. ImJezze made some new presets a while back and they are much better than the old presets. If I'm able to complete this first pass of things, I'm hoping to get some simplification of the parameters approved, and I hope that will make HLSL more popular overall. The one thing I'm not addressing is performance because I'm not an expert in that area.
I'm also working on a CRT emulator, not just a simulator, outside of MAME, that uses inputs that have physical quantities, but it is not real-time. I do think it could be possible to make it real-time with optimizations though, and that makes me hopeful. But it is far from complete, and it wouldn't work with MAME's current output methods either.