HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
id-Software
wolf3d
Creative & Media2014–2026
id-Software / wolf3d

wolf3d

The original open source release of Wolfenstein 3D

Creative & Media
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
16Distinct people
16Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2.6KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The original open source release of Wolfenstein 3D

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year16 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2014-08-11 02:41:27 UTC to 2026-06-10 12:35:00 UTC.

01232014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20142015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

16 sources
bananaboy·Jun 10, 2026
Yes, I played it at the time on both a 286 and a 386. You might be right, although you're describing an algorithm more like what Duke3d used rather than raycasting in that case. I was talking purely about raycasting. So it sounds like a misunderstanding on my part. It's true that Carmack has said several times, including in the readme to the source release of Wolf3d [0], that a BSP-based renderer might be faster than raycasting. He used a BSP tree based renderer for the SNES port of Wolf3d because the CPU was even slower, so I suppose that answers it! There's also a note in the GEBB page 164 from Carmack where he says it was slower than "looping through a few long wall segments". [1] Early alpha versions of DOOM used a sector-based rendering technique, maybe like what you're describing, which ultimately was too slow [2]][3]. Then Carmack
Read the rest
switched to BSP trees after doing the Wolf3d SNES port. I think it would be pretty interesting to implement the same game with both a raycasting approach and a BSP or Build-style portal/sector approach and compare performance on a 386. DOOM ran terribly on a 386 but it did a lot more than Wolf3d, so it's not a great comparison. Catacomb 3D didn't use raycasting (it used a wall span rendering techniqe) and ran better than Wolf3d on similar hardware, but it had a bunch of glitches. But Carmack says they were due to lack of experience rather than the technique itself. Anyway thanks for challenging my assumptions. This'll go on my todo list! [0] https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d [1] https://fabiensanglard.net/b/gebbwolf3d.pdf [2] https://youtu.be/NnkCujnYNSo?t=1592 [3] https://doomwiki.org/wiki/Doom_rendering_engine
In Making Graphics Like it's 1993
MaulingMonkey·Feb 22, 2026
(equivalent C file: https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/blob/master/WOLFSRC/WL... ) > Was this translated automatically from C? I'll note that when I convert code between languages, I often go out of my way to minimize on-the-fly refactoring, instead relying on a much more mechanical, 1:1 style. The result might not be idiomatic in the target language, but the bugs tend to be a bit fewer and shallower, and it assists with debugging the unfamiliar code when there are bugs - careful side-by-side comparison will make the mistakes clear even when I don't actually yet grok what the code is doing. That's not to say that the code should be left in such a state permanently, but I'll note there's significantly more changes in function structure than I'd personally put into an initial C-to-Rust rewrite. The author of this rewrite appears to be t
Read the rest
aking a different approach, understanding the codebase in detail and porting it bit by bit, refactoring at least some along the way. Here's the commit that introduced that fn, doesn't look like automatic translation to me: https://github.com/Ragnaroek/iron-wolf/commit/9014fcd6eb7b10...
In Show HN: Iron-Wolf – Wolfenstein 3D source port in Rust
hajile·Nov 3, 2022
It took a long time to write that engine and porting the whole thing properly also takes time. It just moves goalposts. Why didn’t he spend 80M on a new AAA game? If he spent any less than that, he certainly can’t draw any useful conclusions. Have you ever looked over the codebase? It’s plenty large enough to draw useful conclusions from for most people let alone someone with his vast game experience. https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/tree/master/WOLFSRC Meanwhile, you are drawing bay conclusions with no credentials out evidence. As to actual games, setting aside the fact that Wolfenstein still sees play, loads of popular games are written in JS. Lots of others are in Java or C#. None of these make your case as Haskell, Ocaml, and StandardML (SML) are in the same performance range. As to your argument about the efficiency of objects,
Read the rest
what do you think functional languages use? Lets use SML as an example. There’s real arrays and they are also optionally mutable (yes, there’s linked lists too, but those can be used in C++ too). Records are basically just C structs (they are immutable by default, but can contain refs which are mutable pointers). They can contain functions because functions are first class without the mess that many languages create. You associate functions with datatypes which gives you the best part about methods. They also give you a kind of implicit interface too due to structural typing. I’d note that closures are mathematically equivalent to objects. Finally, modules are everything a language like Java tries to get from classes (and more), but without any of the downsides of classes themselves. People generally like the JS paradigm of factories and object literals (even if they hate the stuff like dynamic typing or type coercion). StandardML offers the same kinds of patterns, but with sound typing, simpler syntax without the warts, more powerful syntax, and performance in the same range as go or Java. To me, your argument sounds like the people arguing that goto is better and more natural than looping constructs or the procedural guys arguing against OOP. I think if you messed around with StandardML, it would change your mind about what programming could be in the future.
In Functional programming should be the future of software
paradigmshiv·Jun 13, 2018
In case anyone doubts how revolutionary some of these games were, check out these fan letters from the Wolfenstein source: As a former POW (Vietnam), I hesitated to play WOLF for over a month after downloading as I feared flashbacks. I didn't want to remember all that I had been through all those years ago, when, as POW's, my friend and I decided an escape attempt would be better than a slow death by torture and starvation. My friend and I made crude maps and hoarded food. The day of the escape we clubbed the guard with stones, took his gun and fought our way through two levels of underground tunnels (only a few guards and had to crawl). I made it, my friend didn't. Dreams...NO! NIGHTMARES...YES!! However, the more I play WOLF the less frequently I have nightmares. The chilling part is turning a corner and seeing a guard with his gun
Read the rest
drawn. WOLF is a powerful game. Fearful as well. I believe that a person should face the past. So... when I can play EPISODE 1 comfortably (no nightmares), I plan on ordering the full series. There's also a letter from a Microsoft manager requesting a multiplayer version. https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/blob/master/WOLFSRC/GO...
In Id Software
jcl·Feb 26, 2018
It's actually closer to the Wolfenstein rendering engine than one might expect... Like the original, it does a ray-march in the ground plane to find map objects: https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/blob/0516778/WOLFSRC/W... And, like the original, it separates the cases of wall blocks, door blocks, and sprites. It also expedites ceiling/floor drawing by just picking a flat color for the top and bottom halves of the screen: https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/blob/0516778/WOLFSRC/W... But it naturally differs from the original in that it is rendering per-pixel rather than per-column, so it does not need to accumulate a list of sprite intersections to draw in reverse order over the walls -- it can just stop raymarching when it encounters an opaque pixel: https://github.com/id-Software/wolf3d/blob/0516778/WOLFSRC/W... In a sense, the
Read the rest
shader works like rewriting and optimizing the original renderer so that it renders to a screen of a single pixel, then running 147,456 instances of the renderer to fill the 512x288 pixel screen.
In Wolfenstein's original rendering engine as 450 line shader with no external data

Showing the 15 most recent of 16 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.