ZDoom 2.1.7

News about ZDoom

Postby Evil Watermelon » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:50 pm

EDIT
Last edited by Evil Watermelon on Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Evil Watermelon
Duck and cover! THE FUSE IS LIT!
 
Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Location: in ostrAAAAAleuh

Postby Evolution » Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:45 am

Great work Randy! Only 3 more! :twisted:
Evolution
 

Postby Ryan Cordell » Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:44 am

You're forgetting 2.1.7a, 2.1.7g.. :P
User avatar
Ryan Cordell
Smashing!
 
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Location: Capital of Explodistan.

Postby HotWax » Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:05 am

For the last time, the next version after 2.1.9 is 2.1.10, not 2.2.0.
User avatar
HotWax
Do what you must, and pay the price later.
 
Joined: 18 Jul 2003
Location: Idaho Falls, ID

Postby Graf Zahl » Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:20 am

Depends on added features. Randy once said that 2.2.0 will add custom states.
So if this were true the next one should be 2.2.0, not 2.1.8. ;)
But I really don't think that the current changes justify bumping the minor version already.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Germany

Postby Nash » Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:36 am

I think it's safe to assume that 2.1.8 will already officially support custom states because the code is already in.

So no need to wait for 2.2.0. :)
User avatar
Nash
http://twitter.com/ISurvivorGame
 
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Postby Graf Zahl » Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:06 pm

I think you should try to understand what I was writing... ;)
User avatar
Graf Zahl
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Germany

Postby jallamann » Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:53 am

Nash: Release version numbers don't have to follow any pattern except that a later version number should be higher than a previous version. :roll:
User avatar
jallamann
isn't very active on the forums at all
 
Joined: 24 May 2004
Location: http://goo.gl/maps/VTSpm

Postby Lemonzest » Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:23 pm

Added a new D3DFB class that should be more compatible with modern systems
than the 8-bit paletted DDrawFB.
Pros:
- Much cleaner code.
- No performance penalty when running in a window.
- Slightly faster fullscreen performance on Geforce 6 and 7 cards.
- Vista ought to love it.
Cons:
- Requires Pixel Shader 1.4 or better.
- Fullscreen on an ATI Mobility x300 is a little slower (but still faster
than DirectDraw in a window).
Note that this is not hardware accelerated rendering. The screen is still
drawn as before by the CPU to an 8-bit paletted surface. The difference is
in how that surface makes its way to the visible display. Here, the surface
is copied to an 8-bit texture, and a pixel shader converts it to RGB when
drawing it.

just seen that in the change log, does that FINELY mean that the messed up colours when alt+tab is used are over? (windows loses the pallete)
Lemonzest
 
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Location: On your boards, trolling your threads!!!

Postby Graf Zahl » Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:27 pm

If it works, yes. The new code draws to a True Color display and does all the palette to color conversions internally.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Germany

Postby Nash » Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:17 am

What about software-mode translucency? Any performance gains?

(I have been very busy with work lately so I haven't been able to compile the latest version to see it for myself)
User avatar
Nash
http://twitter.com/ISurvivorGame
 
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Postby RazTK » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:33 am

Oddly, the release build of r383 crashes at startup (no matter the IWAD).
The debug build works fine so I can't get any more information.

Reminds me the MaxVisPlanes bug randy has been working on back in 1998.
I'm hoping he won't get nightmares! :P
RazTK
 
Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Location: Israel

Postby HotWax » Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:15 am

Nash wrote:What about software-mode translucency? Any performance gains?


Since it clearly states that it won't affect the renderer, my guess is no.
User avatar
HotWax
Do what you must, and pay the price later.
 
Joined: 18 Jul 2003
Location: Idaho Falls, ID

Postby randi » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:37 pm

Translucency is still 100% C code, so there's probably room for some improvement if it was written in assembly.
User avatar
randi
Site Admin
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2003

Postby QBasicer » Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:22 pm

Would the speed difference really be worth the hassle? I mean, if you use the optimizer, it usually produces pretty fast code to begin with.
User avatar
QBasicer
#include <QBasicer.h>
 
Joined: 16 Sep 2003

PreviousNext

Return to ZDoom News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dancso and 2 guests