Page 77 of 77
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:26 pm
by Graf Zahl
Nash wrote:Just in case you misunderstand me; no, I'm not one of those anti-OpenGL purists. I like GZDoom, and most of the time runs smoothly for me. I have no problems with it. It's just that some of the over-detailed wads tend to get unplayable in OpenGL, in which case I use .96x.
What kind of system do you have? For me GL is significantly faster than software rendering. The more complex a map becomes the larger the difference.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:27 pm
by Enjay
Nash wrote:Plus Doom was always meant to be a 2-d, software renderer game. My opinion.
Although John Carmack did make a statement about the kind of things he hoped people would add to Doom as a result of the source release. One of the things he mentioned was 3D acceleration.
In fact, I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of the things he hoped for have now been added. However, I can't remember what they all are.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:30 pm
by TheDarkArchon
For the Source Releases README file, John Carmack wrote:Port it to your favorite operating system.
Add some rendering features -- transparency, look up / down, slopes,
etc.
Add some game features -- weapons, jumping, ducking, flying, etc.
Create a packet server based internet game.
Create a client / server based internet game.
Do a 3D accelerated version.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:36 pm
by Graf Zahl
Nash wrote:
Plus Doom was always meant to be a 2-d, software renderer game. My opinion.
That may be your opinion but it is as wrong as saying that the sound of old movies is meant to be mono. It's a classic purist's argument. By the same reasoning ZDoom was never meant to be because Doom was meant to be a DOS only low resolution game with hard coded limits that can make mapping a pain in the ass.
The reality is that the makers used the technology available to them at the point it was made. If there had been something better it would have been used.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:41 pm
by Belial
Graf Zahl wrote:It's a classic purist's argument.
Fortunately enough, it's still valid for one helluva lot of people. The rest of your post is just the usual rant crap.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:42 pm
by TheDarkArchon
How's it crap? It's a perfectly valid point.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:45 pm
by Belial
No it is not. A 3D renderer is in no way necessary. However, the other elements he mentioned are genuine limits that have been removed for valid reasons. Thus the comparison and the main point of his rant fail it.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:53 pm
by Graf Zahl
Your tendency to declare everything you don't like crap doesn't help you making your point. The world is gray and not everything can be described in black and white.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:56 pm
by Belial
Graf Zahl wrote:The world is gray and not everything can be described in black and white.
I had doubts after the worst movies thread but now I'm dead sure. You are one of the worst hypocrites I know.
First you diss the people who disagree with you with that ridiculous comparison, and now you're telling me that the world is gray? You are the one that doesn't know the word 'compromise', not me.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:04 pm
by Graf Zahl
Belial wrote:Graf Zahl wrote:The world is gray and not everything can be described in black and white.
I had doubts after the worst movies thread but now I'm dead sure. You are one of the worst hypocrites I know.
And you are not? You are quite fast to dismiss something you don't agree with as crap.
First you diss the people who disagree with you with that ridiculous comparison, and now you're telling me that the world is gray? You are the one that doesn't know the word 'compromise', not me.
Compromise with purists is rarely possible so I'm not surprised by your reaction.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:12 pm
by TheDarkArchon
It's a bad time to have no mods here. I think it's time a European was a mod for more complete coverage around the clock. I'd volunteer for the job, though admittedly I'm not the best candidate for the job.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:16 pm
by Belial
Yes I am quite fast to dismiss a ridiculous comparison that I see as an attempt to insult the people who disagree with you.
And now once again you do the same stunt with the 'Compromise with purists is rarely possible' line. You're right actually, because I am not trying to find that compromise. Not that it would make sense after what I have seen as evidence of your views. You can call me a 'purist' (which is obviously an insult the way you say it), I can call you a 'port fanboy', it'll all be the same disrespectful crap. Let's leave it at that.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:18 pm
by Graf Zahl
TheDarkArchon wrote:It's a bad time to have no mods here. I think it's time a European was a mod for more complete coverage around the clock. I'd volunteer for the job, though admittedly I'm not the best candidate for the job.
Shall I volunteer? Keep in mind though that I'll be much quicker with the locks than the current mods!
But our resident flamer is still a complete jerk.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:57 pm
by Bio Hazard
And so ends a quite useful thread...