ZDoom

You'll see one if you attempt to enable truecolor in software.

If it doesn't work then your system does not support Pixel Shader 1.4, which is required to get the D3D backend working.

Actually ZDoom32 is the one with truecolor support and that one requires GL 2.0 but it's the old renderer with shaders.
You'd see a difference anyway since the UI would be in truecolor but d3d won't work on your machine since your card obviously doesn't support pixel shaders (you need DX8.1 hardware support and DX9 installed).
But with the preliminary d3d renderer in ZDoom Classic you wouldn't see a difference (if it worked on your machine that is).

the D3D renderer does work. but the 3D Rage Pro only has hardware support for DX6. as far as i know, the oldest windows OS that supports DX9 is Win2k.

Dragon Mech wrote:the D3D renderer does work. but the 3D Rage Pro only has hardware support for DX6. as far as i know, the oldest windows OS that supports DX9 is Win2k.

Actually you can have Directx9 on Windows 98SE, I know this because when I installed DirectX i ran dxdiag and it showed it, but it really doesn't make any difference since the laptop's VGA (or any old computer's VGA/GPU) doesn't support it, only DirectX8

I've released new versions of both ZDoom LE and Classic. This LE update mainly adds a couple of new low detail modes and fixes the BD v21 crash with large textures on old graphic cards in software. I've updated the old win95 version as well even when i said it was discontinued. See first post.

cool. i'll try out the new LE this weekend

I released a new LE version a few days ago, it could be the Saint Valentine's day special edition or the two years after ZDoom anniversary edition or just a coincidence.
This is a major update (2.8.2) and this time it's a version intended to replace 2.8.1 due to the recently discovered security issues. I've ported _mental_ security fixes (execution of unsafe commands and ACS stack checking, all the stuff) and LE now has over 200 additional official patches (mostly bugfixes but also some conservative features) compared to 2.8.1. Also now all the code is restored (and engine defaults as well) and fixed to compile with MinGW. I've made a suggestion to add the download link to the home page and this time i have to recommend everyone to stop using 2.8.1 and upgrade.

Don't forget that since this is a MinGW build there's no XInput support. Also out of curiosity lilith.pk3 won't run due to the engine being misidentified as GZDoom.
I've also released a new win95 version (the full version requires 98 of course) but now i consider that a proof of concept and i don't find it that interesting anymore.

https://github.com/drfrag666/gzdoom/releases

I've just re-released 2.8.2, there was a minor thing and i've added even more missing official patches. I didn't feel like releasing 2.8.2a this time.

https://github.com/drfrag666/gzdoom/releases

Sorry but i've just reuploaded the release again, there was a severe performance regression with gcc 4.9.2 (only in extreme cases with a lot of actors). Now it's compiled with gcc 5.1 and still runs on win98.

Don't want to sound like an asshole here asking for something that may drag out into a separate project, but I've been wondering this for a while now. How feasible would it be to add Legacy Mac support to ZDoom LE? Because I've got one and it's dying due to lack of support.

3371-Alpha wrote:Don't want to sound like an asshole here asking for something that may drag out into a separate project

Why? Your question is pretty reasonable. I didn't reply to your PM since i didn't know what to answer. I don't own a Mac and i can't compile and test a Power PC version. I don't know if GZDoom 1.8.4 worked on Power PC, probably did. I'm pretty sure _mental_ knows.
I couldn't blindly apply later patches specific to other platforms but i ported my modifications if i remember right and it should work (as long as the old GZDoom version did) but may be i missed something. Someone else could compile a Mac version (may be yourself?).
On ZDoom32 this could be trickier, did the old ZDoom Truecolor (ZT?) run on those Macs? Again no idea, same for GZDoom 1.9.1.

I don’t want to be rude but you have 12 years old hardware and don’t want to buy something newer.
Please spend your time to figure out how to make use of it. Did you ever try to compile anything on your PPC Mac?
Supporting obsolete platforms is out of scope for me. I would rather do something that will be useful for thousands of people.

_mental_ wrote:I don’t want to be rude but you have 12 years old hardware and don’t want to buy something newer. Please spend your time to figure out how to make use of it....Supporting obsolete platforms is out of scope for me. I would rather do something that will be useful for thousands of people.

That's not rude. Me getting mad over this would be like a Voodoo or Aureal/A3D fan getting angry with someone over lack of support. I will say though my situation is less of refusing to upgrade and more can't afford it. There's also the issue that I'm rather disappointed in some of the new Macs and the development direction Apple's taking as well as me being rather unfamiliar with standard PCs in addition the the Windows vs. Android/Linux war getting more heated and generating more confusion. Either way that is a compare and contrast story for an entirely different forum.

_mental_ wrote:Did you ever try to compile anything on your PPC Mac?

Yes, but it hasn't been anything I've written. The closest I've gotten to modifying said code is change some parameters and hoping my compiler craps out something actually runnable. In programming my area is mostly scripting/interpreted languages, particularly Python and HTML. My main pet peeve with compiling is all the dependencies required and MacPorts can be a pain to get working.

PowerPC is still supported by a few Linux distributions. I’m pretty sure that it’s much easier to get recent software there.
If all GZDoom dependencies are more or less at their actual versions, you can make up-to-date build yourself, or 3.2.5 if you want to have the latest stable release.
Sticking to outdated Mac OS X is rather pointless in many aspects.

Well, that's life. But for some reason it seems to be a particular trait of owners of old hardware that they often feel some kind of entitlement for continued support of their hardware. Well, it doesn't work that way. Eventually the day comes where a choice needs to be made, either continued support of that old hardware or better support for new hardware.

And if you stay behind, you will eventually be left behind for good.

While I can understand your dissatisfaction with Apple's current product line, sticking to some basically obsolete hardware isn't doing you any good.