ZDoom

[quote="NiGHTMARE"]Also, creating a 3D model, animating and skinning it takes absolutely no time or effort at all when you compare it with drawing dozens of frames for a new sprite.[/quote]The only problem I can see with model support is how it would work with DECORATE. Would it be pretty much the same thing, with the sprite name referencing the model and the frame name referencing animation sequences? Or would Model DECORATE have a totally different syntax convention?

(I'm thinking about GZDoom when/if models are implemented)

8-)

/me dreams of UnrealEngine being free... (a really goddamn nice software true 3d renderer with dynlights and so on that also works fast)
As for the future of ZDoom when we have 32bit, let's also have downscaling to 8bit for those who do not have fast transfer rates to their graphic cards.

So, we're stuck with the 8-bit software renderer (for the time being)...
Another reason to choose OpenGL... ;)

1) Since large parts of the innermost rendering loops are optimized assembler it won't be that easy
2) Too long probably
3) Most likely not

*shameless bump*

1) How hard is it to implement 32-bit colour in the software renderer?
2) How long would it take?
3) Is it worth the effort?

[quote="Sir_Alien"]Nice sprites![/quote]

Seconded. I also wish for 32-bit color, but I could definitely do without the additional bells and whistles of OpenGL. Anybody else use PrBoom in GL mode with NEAREST filtering? All the glory of 32-bit color with the same pixellated goodness of Doom.

Nice sprites!

I've been doing limited color sprite/pixelart for a while. Animation, too. I wanted to have cell-shaded looking characters with a painterly looking background (wall textures, sky box, etc.). The characters can be limited color without a major problem, but the wall textures are going to look like crap, I fear.

Anyhow, here are some old examples of my stuff:
[img]http://www.penguinx.org/forum_pics/dack_shoot.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.penguinx.org/forum_pics/dack_turn.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.penguinx.org/forum_pics/mummy.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.penguinx.org/forum_pics/bobblehead.gif[/img]

These aren't indicative of what I was making for my new game, who's title art mockup can be found here:

[img]http://penguinx.org/illustrations/07-06-05_DackWIP01.jpg[/img]

I guess I'll just have to suck it up!

I just want to let my video card take care of drawing the world, and leave the processor to do other things.

Ideally, if zDoom were being designed solely to satisfy my personal whims, I'd like to see an unrestricted color palette with absolutely no other changes to the renderer.

[quote="NiGHTMARE"]Dynamic lighting for one is far from useless. When used properly it can look simply amazing.
[/quote]

Agreed. But look at how most source ports implement it: Some shitty default settings for the existing light source items that don't look good in many cases.

To look good dynamic lighting needs some careful planning. Just forcing it into a map is guaranteed to yield unsatisfying results.

Dynamic lighting for one is far from useless. When used properly it can look simply amazing. Sure it can be abused by level designers who don't know what they're doing... but if that's the only reason for not including it, then ZDoom's coloured lighting and even Doom's sector lighting should be removed, since they can be abused just as much (e.g. a level where every sector has a light level of 255, or worse yet something less than 100). For a level with well used dynamic lighting, take a look at the in-progress EDGE wad [url=http://wip.paci-fist.org/index.php?a=listwads&wad=615]Delta Prospekt[/url].

3D models are most certainly are not useless either. Monster models might tend to look like crap, but you're overlooking the fact they can be used for all sorts of other things. Just go take a look at sitters' JDoom wads: he's used 3D models to create things like shelves, furniture, machinery, vehicles, organic growths, diagonal support beams, etc which would be difficult if not impossible to do with other methods (or are possible but would just look like crap).

Also, creating a 3D model, animating and skinning it takes absolutely no time or effort at all when you compare it with drawing dozens of frames for a new sprite.

Nice to see that we agree.

[quote="Graf Zahl"]What I'd like to have is a robust hardware accelerated renderer. It doesn't need to have dynamic lighting and other modern crap that just doesn't fit the game. Maybe Polymost will bring it...[/quote]Seeing as I've been an advocate of "ZDoom in 32bit", I think it is necesarry to point out how important this remark is.

I personally have a problem with a port when it gets OpenGL and DirectX because it is usually followed by that port being filled with [b]un-Doomlike[/b], pointless graphic features (lense flares, dynamic lighting, 3D models, etc... ).

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with ZDoom's renderer the way it is - if it means that these silly features will be left out. Although, I'm fully aware that my point of view on this matter is unpopular. Somehow most Doomers are atracted to the deceiving, eye-candy of JDoom and allot have suggest things allong the lines of a ZDoom-JDoom combo being the best port ever.

But it is my belief that the lack of a 3D renderer in ZDoom is the reason for its success. I can quite confidently say that ZDoom [i]is[/i] the most popular port. This popularity is due to it huge list of usefull editing features and its optamised performance. I don't believe that these enhancements would have been at the level they are now if Randy had chosen to program a new 3D renderer for ZDoom when the opertunity first came to do so.

I realise that for 32bit graphics to be implemented in ZDoom it is most likely that there will have to be an upgrade of the renderer as to keep the performance levels where they are. What Graf has said here is IMO the best solution: a robust hardware accelerated renderer that doesn't have all the [i]modern crap[/i] implemented. Lets keep ZDoom's focus where its allways been, and where it should remain,,, on all those usefull editing features!

Graf, I know. I can hope, however.