Page 1 of 2

Light mode naming and defaults discussion

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:43 pm
by Caligari87
Split from the Brightmaps Plus thread, for sake of not derailing project discussion.

Caligari87 wrote:
Grizzly wrote:((Also, question, why does GZDoom default to "Dark" rather then Vanilla?))


The defaults are generally just Graf's preference since he's the one that implemented many of them. Somewhat arbitrary but it's been like this forever.

8-)

Re: Brightmaps Plus (spritefix compatible)

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:35 pm
by phantombeta
Caligari87 wrote:The defaults are generally just Graf's preference since he's the one that implemented many of them. Somewhat arbitrary but it's been like this forever.

8-)

I think the light mode specifically might be due to it requiring features that the minimum OpenGL version supported by GZDoom doesn't have. Not 100% sure nowadays, but back when GZDoom supported OpenGL 2.1 it definitely couldn't default to "Software" because that didn't have the features required.

Re: Brightmaps Plus (spritefix compatible)

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:24 pm
by Chris
Grizzly wrote:
phantombeta wrote:The reason for that is because the "Software" sector light mode is meant to emulate ZDoom's software renderer, which has a particularly nasty and ill-advised change by randi that makes it much brighter than vanilla Doom's software renderer. "Vanilla" is exactly as it says in the name - the lighting emulates what it looks like in vanilla Doom.


Ooh! I was not aware of this, and this runs contrary to everything I've been told about the lightning systems thus far.

Me too, honestly. I remember reading that Software is the one that "exactly" emulates the original software renderer's lighting model, while most other ones just made it as close as possible within the hardware renderer's limitations at the time the given mode was added.

This just goes to show that the lighting mode selection needs a serious overhaul (at least in its naming scheme, if not an all-around redesign). If I want lighting to be like vanilla Doom's software renderer, do I pick Vanilla, Doom, or Software? How are Vanilla and Doom different, given that the typical association is that "vanilla" refers to the original Doom? And similarly that the original Doom used a software renderer, how are Doom and Software different? What is the use of selecting different modes, given the high chance of different people getting different results with maps that were designed/tested with a specific one? Is there even a reason for Dark to still be an option, given that new maps control their own lighting and mods can change the lighting of preexisting maps with scripts and shaders? Without doing side-by-side screen comparisons (and hope any brightness/gamma settings aren't messing with anything), there is absolutely no indication from these names what they mean in terms of results. Even after getting an explanation, it's apparently still easy to misunderstand and get it wrong.

Re: Brightmaps Plus (spritefix compatible)

PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:09 pm
by dpJudas
I completely agree that the naming of the light modes are beyond terrible. As far as I know, there three primary light modes:

dark = For those that don't like Doom's diminishing light feature. At least its pretty popular among those players that don't.
software = For those that like randi's light adjustments to the ZDoom software renderer.
vanilla = An attempt at reproducing the original Doom light exactly. That is, it is supposed to look like Chocolate Doom does.

Of the remaining ones, I think only Doom Legacy makes some sense as it emulates another port.

Maybe the solution is to generally give them better names?

GZDoom Dark = dark
ZDoom Software = software
Original Doom Software = vanilla
Doom Legacy = doom legacy
Garbage 1 = Doom
Garbage 2 = Standard
(just kidding about the last two - no idea what to call them)

This all assuming my vanilla mode is accurate enough to be a reasonable match to Chocolate Doom. As far as I know it is correct, but I never actually spent the time doing screenshot comparisons. And even if someone does, it is sorta tricky to fully compare because of the palette banding.

The light modes that really annoy me are Doom and Standard. Neither of them has anything to do with original Doom, but both might fool users into thinking so.

Re: Brightmaps Plus (spritefix compatible)

PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:25 am
by Graf Zahl
You shouldn't forget the time when the modes were added.

"Standard" just means a linear standard light level ramp with a standard exponential fog formula, i.e. Standard referring to how it calculates light, not how it refers to Doom's original lighting. This was how GZDoom started out.
"Dark" was originally called "Doom", i.e. before shaders became available, it was the first attempt to emulate Doom's light levels more closely.
"Doom" was the first attempt to implement light diminishing on hardware not having enough shader calculation power to do it properly. On the Geforce 8600 I had 10 years ago the software lighting emulation simply was too slow.

So, say what you want, these are important for GZDoom's history.

Re: Brightmaps Plus (spritefix compatible)

PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:29 am
by Grizzly
Graf Zahl wrote:So, say what you want, these are important for GZDoom's history.


You say that, and...
How about renaming
Vanilla = Doom 1.9
Software = Zdoom
And each other mode after the GZDoom it was first introduced?

Re: Brightmaps Plus (spritefix compatible)

PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:54 am
by Nash
dpJudas wrote:Maybe the solution is to generally give them better names?

GZDoom Dark = dark
ZDoom Software = software
Original Doom Software = vanilla
Doom Legacy = doom legacy
Garbage 1 = Doom
Garbage 2 = Standard
(just kidding about the last two - no idea what to call them)


I agree with these. Even I am occasionally confused, and I have been using GZDoom since 2005!

Re: Brightmaps Plus (spritefix compatible)

PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:59 am
by dpJudas
Graf Zahl wrote:So, say what you want, these are important for GZDoom's history.

Sorry I probably shouldn't have written it in such a mocking tone by calling them garbage. What I meant is that their current naming, while historical, is very confusing for any user not deeply familiar with how GZDoom evolved as a port. I don't mind the existence of any of the light modes, but rather that it is very unclear what you get from each of them.

The way I look at things, for the most part, people should get a fair representation of the original game per default and then it is the users choice to deliberately deviate from it. That even I, one of port developers, get the wrong idea about the Dark light mode shows the problem IMO. The default doesn't always have to be the original vanilla, but I think it should be clear when it isn't and what the other choices then are.

Re: Brightmaps Plus (spritefix compatible)

PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:59 pm
by Chris
Personally, if you must keep them I'd move the light mode to the compatibility menu, and have the default be whatever is closest to the software renderer's method. Given that people do still use the software renderer, it's important for everyone to be on the same basic page about how lighting works regardless if you're using hardware or software. With any renaming done, I'd also clearly label which is the default, so users and mappers will know selecting any other option will result in something different from the expected output.

Re: Brightmaps Plus (spritefix compatible)

PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:13 pm
by Graf Zahl
Not going to happen. The default has to vary based on the hardware. While software lighting emulation is ok for modern hardware, it can cause quite severe slowdowns on GL3 systems which do not have sufficiently powerful shader capabilities.

Re: Light mode naming and defaults discussion

PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:43 am
by De-M-oN
Cant you just check which hardware is present and decide the default based on that? (I mean the console at bootup reads every hardware and its supporting features already, so the game knows already what hardware you have)

I agree with renaming these options though. They're misleading. Especially before existence of "Vanilla" I would expect that "Doom" is the vanilla doom lighting mode obviously if I'm not that familiar with the port.

Re: Light mode naming and defaults discussion

PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:07 am
by Kappes Buur
I don't know what all the fuzz is about.
If you don't like the names, consider them just being glyphs.

Try each lighting mode to see what you like and stick with that.

Re: Light mode naming and defaults discussion

PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:00 pm
by Caligari87
The problem is that some people want to make an informed decision based on accuracy and understanding of what the mode emulates, not just what it looks like.

What about a sub-menu for lighting modes that shows a description of the selected mode?

8-)

Re: Light mode naming and defaults discussion

PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:15 pm
by Kappes Buur
It's not a problem, at least not for me. :D

I know that some people 'need' to know what a certain mode emulates, but in the end, I would bet, they stick with what looks best for them, regardless of emulation.

Aw, come on, sub-menus for more bikeshedding?

Re: Light mode naming and defaults discussion

PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:18 pm
by De-M-oN
No. I want the vanilla lighting as close as possible. Because it was just great.

And I'm sure many more people want the correct brightness levels of sectors how they're supposed to be. And I must say big thanks to the great job the devs did on this and still working on it :)