Pardon my ignorance, but what is so unique or special about molecular visualisation compared to, say, Quake - or CAD? If you’ll permit me to reduce it down to “just” drawing organo-chem hexagons, lines, and red/grey/black spheres connecting those lines (and a 360-degrees spin animation for the investor-relations video) - where’s the room for the rest of CG? E.g., texture-mapping, fragment shaders, and displacement mapping?
Quakes came out in, what, 1996? And was written by some of the foremost practitioners of computer graphics?
We were a couple of physics grad students working on a side project in late 1993. My background was a semester course based on Foley & van Dam. Hardware gave us a 5-10 year lead over what we could have done with consumer tech.
There wasn't really a "rest of CG". Only the highest-end SGI machines at the time had hardware texture mapping - most did it in software (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Graphics).
We aren't talking 2D organo-chem hexagons, but 3D spheres and cylinders. Back around 1995 I posted some benchmarks to Usenet about the different approaches I tried (including NURBS), but I can no longer find a copy of it.
The straight-forward way is to render the spheres as a bunch of triangles, so, what, 50 polygons per sphere? Times 100,000 spheres = 5 million polygons. That was large for the time, but doable. Plus, during movement we used a lower level of detail.
What was Quake's polygon count?
Oh, and we're displaying animated molecules, including interacting with a live physics simulation, so no pre-computed BSP either.
Rastering spheres quickly on a PC was also possible then, which was RasMol's forte, but it was flat compared to having a couple hardware-based point lights plus ambient lighting.
