ZDoom

by **phi108** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:15 pm

I would also like to point out that in no way have I stopped using GL on my comp. I am playing GZDoom almost exclusively now, because I have gotten used to 848x480, though I miss the detail of 1280x720.

To tell the truth, a couple ZDoom suggestions (skyboxes, brightmaps), have been so that more people can see the small amount of Doom work I have done. (actually, no I haven't made skyboxes, but I've been looking everywhere to compile a full pack that is high detail and true to Doom).

by **Graf Zahl** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:57 pm

phi108 wrote:But I feel like the GZDoom skybox example has MUCH more merit. It displays the same as GZDoom's skyboxes, it just requires manual work. I was hoping for the ability for ZDoom to do it automatically.

... and it shouldn't be too hard to implement. But it's something Randy has to do.

In my opinion, requesting features like this is much better than not knowing what you are requesting. The user has to do SOME work before bothering the devs.

I fully agree and if I see such feature requests motivated by laziness i'll close them ASAP.

And I agree that onboard laptop chipsets make GL mode slow. Some of us want all these features so that our graphics card doesn't have to bother with them and the CPU takes care of it. Of course, I guess it could get to be too much for the CPU to handle.

Well, that's the problem. Sometimes I wonder what types of laptops this is about. Most I have seen contain chips that can handle GL decently.

Gez wrote: ZDoomGL wasn't exactly garbage at the time it was made (last update: Aug 2005). Now it's just very obsolete. This dates back from before ZDoom 2.1.0...

Let's just say that the issues it had were one of my major motivations to fix my own GL renderer and release it...

I'm not sure though how much my first GZDoom release influenced Timmie to dump ZDoomGL.

by **Gez** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:53 pm

Wagi wrote:I won't even bother with that ZdoomGL garbage

ZDoomGL wasn't exactly garbage at the time it was made (last update: Aug 2005). Now it's just very obsolete. This dates back from before ZDoom 2.1.0...

@phi108: not a dig at your attempts in particular. It's just that they're adding to the pile of threads about GZDoom features.

As for onboard laptop chipsets, it probably depends on how old your laptop is. For some reason, OpenGL is not just faster but also more stable on mine -- but then again it's a pretty recent laptop which can run TES4: Oblivion...

by **phi108** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:39 pm

Gez wrote:
Project Dark Fox wrote:I love the attention spans here.
What's your problem? Nightmare doesn't want AA, therefore it wasn't to him I was responding...

There's a lot of people who are going with requests like "true color in ZDoom" or "anti-aliasing in ZDoom" or "brightmaps in ZDoom" or "GZDoom skyboxes in ZDoom" or "3D floors in ZDoom" or all of these things, and ultimately I can't help but wonder why they're not simply using OpenGL version of the port if they want such features...

Yes, three of these topics are ones I specifically asked for, but I would like to point out that for TWO of them I had something to show. I admit the software brightmaps example I posted was very hacky and required DECORATE modifications, but it was essentially a second sprite drawn over the dark sprite. But I feel like the GZDoom skybox example has MUCH more merit. It displays the same as GZDoom's skyboxes, it just requires manual work. I was hoping for the ability for ZDoom to do it automatically.

In my opinion, requesting features like this is much better than not knowing what you are requesting. The user has to do SOME work before bothering the devs.

And I agree that onboard laptop chipsets make GL mode slow. Some of us want all these features so that our graphics card doesn't have to bother with them and the CPU takes care of it. Of course, I guess it could get to be too much for the CPU to handle.

by **Ryan Cordell** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:28 pm

Subconsciously, sorry. ^^;

by **Nash** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:24 pm

Blade Nightflame wrote:they just make a part of the sprite bright and you're done

There's that "just" word again!

by **Wagi** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:28 pm

Maybe it is my Graphics card, maybe it isn't. Nevertheless, there is something (In my opinon)shitty about my computer and because of that I am unable to use OpenGL rendering (at least in GzDoom/Skulltag, and I won't even bother with that ZdoomGL garbage).

by **NiGHTMARE** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:26 pm

Pretty much every graphics card made since the mid 90's is capable of running openGL; for example, the last Nvidia card incapable of running OpenGL was the NV1 / STG-2000, released way back in 1995, and the last Radeon card incapable of OpenGL was the Rage II, released in 1996. So that really shouldn't be an issue.

The only real problem is inbuilt graphics chipsets. If you have a dedicated graphics card, hardware rendering should increase your framerate as there's less for the CPU to do; however using an inbuilt chipset often seems to lead to a decrease in your framerate when using hardware rendering. I can say for a fact (yes, a fact damnit!

) that GZDoom runs faster in OpenGL mode even with a crappy (not a fact) Radeon 7000 mobility.

by **Wagi** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:24 pm

Blade Nightflame wrote:Well true-color can go stick itself elsewhere, anti-aliasing not so, but I don't see how brightmaps are an exclusive 32-bit feature if anything, they just make a part of the sprite bright and you're done.

I actually asked this and Graf Zahl gave me an explanation that was (In my opinion) more than acceptable. In my opinion, it's not that simple. The software renderer lacks any type of intelligence regarding lighting. Once a surface is darkened, it's no longer possible to tell what the original color was, and it can't be reverted back to bright. Perhaps it would be possible to tell which pixels should be brightened by the brightmap before drawing it, but (In my opinion) it would be too much work to do.

by **Graf Zahl** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:21 pm

Blade Nightflame wrote:
NiGHTMARE wrote:Why would "software renderer purists" want such things as true color, anti-aliasing, or brightmaps in the software renderer, when such things would (in their opinion ) detract from the purity of the software renderer?
Well true-color can go stick itself elsewhere, anti-aliasing not so, but I don't see how brightmaps are an exclusive 32-bit feature if anything, they just make a part of the sprite bright and you're done.

You have no idea how this 'just' works. The problem is not that it can't be done. It's more that it can't be done efficiently with a software renderer that has to optimize each pixel processing operation.

Right now the software renderer steps through the bitmap data without ever wasting any thought on it, just doing simplistic opertations based on precalculated tables. But now a second data source comes into play and all the simple stuff wouldn't work anymore.

by **Ryan Cordell** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:20 pm

I just use it to refer to people, which I KNOW aren't the whole user base, who tend to prefer the software render over the other forms of rendering.

by **Wagi** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:18 pm

In my opinion, the term "Software Purists" is kind of ignorant. This assumes that all computers are capable of properly displaying OpenGL mode (or even at all), and that all people who use the Software renderer prefer it over OpenGL. I'm telling you, if my crappy(In my opinion) laptop had a decent Graphics Card, and didn't get a BSoD when trying to display OpenGL, I would switch to it without a second thought. Unfortunately, the world is not a perfect place (In my opinion) and not everybody has a desirable computer.

by **Project Shadowcat** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:17 pm

[Totally Off-Topic]

Gez wrote:What's your problem?

I've got a whole book of problems with me. Want it?

(Yes, I was an ass, and I apologise)

by **Ryan Cordell** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:09 pm

NiGHTMARE wrote:Why would "software renderer purists" want such things as true color, anti-aliasing, or brightmaps in the software renderer, when such things would (in their opinion ) detract from the purity of the software renderer?

Well true-color can go stick itself elsewhere, anti-aliasing not so, but I don't see how brightmaps are an exclusive 32-bit feature if anything, they just make a part of the sprite bright and you're done.

by **esselfortium** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:08 pm

It is my opinion that HotWax has spoken an opinion which I agree with.

ZDoom

Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing

Re: Fullscreen anti-aliasing