ZDoom is actually a full-fledged 3D engine at this point, except for the renderer which is still locked to the horizontal. There are plenty of 2.5D concepts inherited from Doom, but actors have finite heights and you can have room-over-room.
Edward-san wrote:Come on. In 2012 there are still notebooks which cost around 300 € but their graphics card are so shitty to have problems with gzdoom... what if someone has a limited budget?
I have a hard time believing that a 2012 model notebook computer could be good enough to run ZDoom but not GZDoom. I also have a hard time believing that you couldn't get some crappy desktop PC (even if it's used) for much more money.
GZDoom runs fairly well on bottom of the barrel 2005-era technology. Improving the software renderer for computers that can't handle the OpenGL renderer is solving a problem that doesn't exist.
RV-007 wrote:I think ZDoom is a 2.5D engine, which is really cool. Three-dimensionality, yet mindful of the graphics/audio load.
The Wikipedia wrote:Although the engine uses raycasting to display a 3D space, that space is projected from a two-dimensional floor plan. The line of sight is always parallel to the floor, walls must be perpendicular to the floors, and multi-level structures are not possible.
Also known as: While DooM is "2.5D" with modifications to make it LOOK (via Raycasting) like it's being rendered in 3D... Ever heard of Y-Shearing?
That's the DooM Engine showing that it's truly a 2D-wanna be-3D engine with limitations, if the developers decided to look back to the abandoned Polymost, then we'll get true 3D projection. But until then, as I'm sure both Randy/Randi and Graf Zahl are busy with real life stuff, they don't have time to do a full rendering rewrite.
Even 3D floors are no doubt modifications to the render to make a "3D Floor". Quote-Quote. Also, Unreal Software mode is considerably slower than Unreal Hardware mode, and you lose alot of quality by doing that. Even though you might be running on old hardware, not everyone else is. Take that into consideration.
I myself am using an Intel Core i3 530 2.93 GHz with an GTX 260. I'm sure there are other people here -- from AMD Athlons, FX, to Intel Pentium D, Core i7, and even Core 2 Duo... and if we're packing with speeds like that, I'm sure our video cards are just as powerful. Hence; no reason to use Software rendering.
But why? Why do some of us still use Software rendering? Maybe a small handful of people here are stuck on Windows 98 or Windows XP, with 1.93 GHz processors, or running early Intel Celeron D. Maybe some of us don't have powerful video adapters integrated video -- such as you.
There's also a group of us who prefer to play on the Software render.. be it for nostalgia, or we just simply like it, and we don't want it changed because there's something else better out there.. what does this mean to the developers if they decide to add an 'UT99 Software Render'? It means 'shit, we have to take care of two renders for any new graphical features'.. and as Gez mentioned below, Graf has one to take care of.. and I'm sure he's pulling his hair out at a few things that Randy submits to the ZDooM SVN, that means he has to add it into GZDooM right after.
Last edited by Hellser on Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:54 am, edited 6 times in total.