Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

ZDoom LE, Pentium 133's, Windows 98, and DOS 3.1 all go here! A bygone era, of particular interest to some folks.

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby Rachael » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:41 pm

koverhbarc wrote:Why is DirectDraw not the default for XP and earlier?

Why is 'get a new system' not the default for koverhbarc and earlier?
User avatar
Rachael
Webmaster
 
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Discord: Rachael#3767
Twitch ID: madamerachelle
Github ID: madame-rachelle
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby dpJudas » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:52 pm

koverhbarc wrote:Yes, that's the confusing bit. Direct3D is, as this user found, likely to be slower on systems where it matters. Why is DirectDraw not the default for XP and earlier?

Because on Windows XP you need a computer with hardware from the Windows 9x era for Direct3D not to work better than DirectDraw. Why should it default to the worst possible experience for everyone?

Direct3D 10 came with Windows Vista. Direct3D 9 was the one for XP. DirectDraw was the one for Windows 95. There are 6 years of technology improvement from DirectDraw to Direct3D 9, and there's 10 years from DirectDraw to Direct3D 10. Oh and while we're at it, I'd like to point out there's 22 years of technological improvements from DirectDraw to today's age.

I'm sorry to say it, and I'll be a little blunt here, but the hardware you have was semi-broken already back when Windows XP was the primary Windows of the day.

The bleeding edge phone of the day DirectDraw was designed:
Image

App developers of today should really make sure it runs on that thing.
dpJudas
 
 
 
Joined: 28 May 2016

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby wildweasel » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:59 pm

Above all that, too, the S3 Trio series of onboard chips were largely present on laptops, and started appearing in 1995. So while they would have been useful for 3D acceleration way back then, I have an S3 Savage IX in a laptop from 1999 that can't run a damn thing unless it's Jedi Knight. Anything newer, might as well switch acceleration off and go software-only. And even then, it's a Pentium 3, and Windows XP is only barely usable on it (it currently runs Windows 98 SE). Do I want ZDoom to run on it? Hell no. This thing's pretty much only useful for weird old multimedia games from '96, and that's the only thing I use it for. If I really want to play ZDoom, I have a veritable pile of newer systems that'll do it just fine, one of which is a netbook from 2009 that I paid all of $200 for brand new. If that tiny thing can run ZDoom, I see no reason why a cheap secondhand machine off Craigslist wouldn't also do the trick.
User avatar
wildweasel
change o' pace.
Moderator Team Lead
 
Joined: 16 Jul 2003

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby Rachael » Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:05 pm

You can get a machine on eBay for $50 that'll run Blade of Agony without too much problem on the lowest settings.

At that price, you can be sure it'll be a huge upgrade to anything that can't run d3d9, anyway.
User avatar
Rachael
Webmaster
 
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Discord: Rachael#3767
Twitch ID: madamerachelle
Github ID: madame-rachelle
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby koverhbarc » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:16 pm

This has nothing to do with my system, for which the issue is moot. It's about the OP's systems, on which he actually found that DirectDraw runs significantly faster. I was trying to add to that. On PCs you can't necessarily determine someone's hardware very precisely from the OS version they are using, and ddraw is fully supported on XP (even if Microsoft called it 'deprecated'). So I don't think my casual comment was really unreasonable. Further as demonstrated here most people don't know anything about directdraw or direct3d or why software rendering would be using 3D acceleration, just as I didn't until a few days ago. Stuff should just run.

Continually bringing up my computer is not useful and can only distract everybody.
koverhbarc
Banned User
 
Joined: 06 Dec 2010

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby dpJudas » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:43 pm

You are ignoring the fact that the Direct3D path in ZDoom has truecolor graphics for the HUD, which improves the visuals of the console amongst other things, and has better anti mouse lag measures in place, and a more modern frame buffer management.

So I repeat: you want it to default to the shittiest render path because a small percentage of early Windows XP era computers got better performance with the legacy path. As time went on, that percentage of XP users just dropped and dropped.

I bring up computers of that age because 1) they are ancient, 2) back in that age nobody would seriously have made it default to DirectDraw, 3) Randi's decision to not make it default to ddraw was made in the golden age of XP (somewhere around 2001). It is plain ridiculous to target the lowest end computers that could barely even run XP, especially 22 years later!
dpJudas
 
 
 
Joined: 28 May 2016

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby koverhbarc » Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:07 pm

I know that. But I obviously have always seen it in DirectDraw and it's never looked or otherwise seemed 'shitty' to me. Anyway - it's not about 'what I want'; my comments are not to be taken as orders! Especially when they are phrased in the form of a question, which you just answered to the best of your knowledge. If it really was 2001 it would have been D3D 8 and cards supporting that were just being introduced, and the decision makes more sense. I might have made a different one but I'm not the boss then or now and it's hardly something to get upset about. You don't even have to answer if it bothers you.

If my comment were taken as a suggestion it could only be for LE (because the traditional renderer is no longer being developed in GZdoom), where it's at least less unreasonable. This thread was about ZDoom performance on old hardware and I think we should try to keep it that way.
koverhbarc
Banned User
 
Joined: 06 Dec 2010

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby dpJudas » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:19 pm

koverhbarc wrote:which you just answered to the best of your knowledge

Look. As someone that actually coded my own games up against DirectDraw, Direct3D 3 to 11, OpenGL 1 to 4.5 and owned computers throughout that entire period of history, debating whether XP belongs to D3D 8 or 9 is really ignoring the fact that DirectDraw sure as hell wasn't remotely current in the XP age. DirectDraw was the FIRST component in the DirectX series. I remember playing around with it in Windows 95 back before it was still called the Microsoft Game SDK. As Direct3D wasn't included with the OS until Windows Vista, you can't technically say XP belonged to any of them. But any hardware that didn't support Direct3D in 2001 was obsolete for games. Only the low end office PCs couldn't use Direct3D. Anyone seriously using a PC for playing games in the early 2000's had a card that could do D3D 9.

koverhbarc wrote:If my comment were taken as a suggestion it could only be for LE (because the traditional renderer is no longer being developed in GZdoom), where it's at least less unreasonable. This thread was about ZDoom performance on old hardware and I think we should try to keep it that way.

Which is exactly my point. It was unreasonable back in 2002 to suggest that ZDoom should default to the DirectDraw path. In any case, I'll let it be up to drfrag what he wants to do with LE.

I should have taken Xaser's advice more seriously.
dpJudas
 
 
 
Joined: 28 May 2016

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby Graf Zahl » Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:54 am

Just FYI, the D3D backend was introduced in 2006. Guess which was the predominant operating system back in 2006?
And the minimum hardware for D3D9 support was introduced in 2003. So even on that point, when the D3D backend was written, a large quantity of older systems had already left the market, considering that back then replacement cycles were a lot shorter than today.

So yes, you are rambling about computers that were old and obsolete 11 years ago! So why would it make any sense whatsoever to put any focus on them?

I just repeat what everybody else has been saying: Get a fucking new computer, goddamnit!
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom Developer
Lead GZDoom Developer
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Germany

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby koverhbarc » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:18 am

OK, 2006. I still understand why it was done (also that the year Vista came out, possibly some relation). It does show dpJudas's strange rant above to be uninformed, though; it would be quite a few years after XP before any new computer could run D3D 8 or 9. (Mine is 2004 and can't.)

But anyway I'm not bringing it up, someone else is. For me, the first time I got this stuff explained to me was enough. But what this guy is doing is somewhat interesting - when you understand why - and I just threw out an idle thought that I probably didn't need to, but it should be harmless.
koverhbarc
Banned User
 
Joined: 06 Dec 2010

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby Graf Zahl » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:29 am

So 2004. Congratulations, but apparently you got a bottom-of-the-barrel system then, if its graphics hardware is that weak. Back in the day this would have been comparable to having one of those more recent laptops which run on an Intel GMA chip with OpenGL 2.x today. These, too, is hardware that despite being recent, is already going to the scrap heap fast and sticking with them is not going to be a pleasant experience.

BTW, I also bought a computer with an underpowered graphics card in 2004. The first thing I did was replace that piece of shit with something usable. The Geforce 5200 it came with was way too weak to even run the then-present day GZDoom-to-be in any reasonable fashion.

You have to excuse dpJudas somewhat. He's only been here for about a year. All this stuff happened long before his time.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom Developer
Lead GZDoom Developer
 
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Location: Germany

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby dpJudas » Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:02 am

koverhbarc wrote:It does show dpJudas's strange rant above to be uninformed

I was talking in the context of general hardware capabilities and what game developers did in the XP age, not when ZDoom added its D3D 9 backend. If you told someone in 2004 that your brand new Pentium 4 PC did not have Direct3D 9 support they'd ask who ripped you off when you bought that computer.

Btw., the Geforce 5200 was a fully Direct3D 9 compatible card. Sure, it may have sucked for actual 3D, but I don't think it would have had a hard time running the ZDoom D3D 9 backend.
dpJudas
 
 
 
Joined: 28 May 2016

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby ibm5155 » Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:56 pm

I really hope that guy has a new computer, because with that config you cannot even browse facebook, neither watch a 320p youtube vídeo (it may have a similar performance as my k6-iii+ running xp, you can simply do nothing, only play old software/games)
User avatar
ibm5155
Just Spooky
 
Joined: 20 Jul 2011

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby Rachael » Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:35 pm

Doesn't matter, now. If he won't worry about himself, we have no need to worry for him.

You can't help the people who are beyond help.
User avatar
Rachael
Webmaster
 
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Discord: Rachael#3767
Twitch ID: madamerachelle
Github ID: madame-rachelle
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support

Re: Why is this particular timedemo result so abysmal?

Postby thebenenator » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:48 am

The real question here, to me, is: why are you so darn concerned about getting "only" 75fps? Most people use 60Hz screens, especially with CPUs/GPUs of that era, and originally Doom was capped at 35 anyway. If it's playable, don't worry about it. If not, make sure your machine's not in Power Save mode, use an older port, and (if you have the skills) contribute&maintain some patches to improve performance.

Or, y'know, get better hardware. :lol: That's from someone who spends some of his time on a 2006-era Thinkpad with only a GMA 950 and specifically reverted dhewm3's dropping of the arb renderer just to keep his FPS above 10 most of the time, so don't take that as a shot against sticking with hardware that does the usual job. :P
thebenenator
 
Joined: 09 Jun 2017

Previous

Return to Legacy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest