Page 2 of 3

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:18 am
by Redneckerz
Graf Zahl wrote:3.4 works on GL 2, but suffers from performance regressions because it did not like the changes I made to make it run faster on modern hardware.

Is there any difference with Frag's 3.4.1 or?

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 5:33 am
by Graf Zahl
No idea. But the change between 3.3.x and 3.4.x was the reason for gradual abandonment of OpenGL 2, first by introducing the vintage build and later LZDoom.

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 6:14 am
by drfrag
I'm not Frag. :x That was a test build from g3.3mgw before the release of the vintage build.
The crash on exit was not fixed but was silent on debug builds, now i've added a workaround. It was accessing destroyed objects as usual while removing deleted cvars and commands from the list of tab completions, with MinGW is a matter of luck really. May be only happened on fast machines.
So i've updated the link.
Edit: link removed. See below.

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 6:37 am
by Redneckerz
Graf Zahl wrote:No idea. But the change between 3.3.x and 3.4.x was the reason for gradual abandonment of OpenGL 2, first by introducing the vintage build and later LZDoom.

Noted. Thanks :)

drfrag wrote:I'm not Frag. :x

:oops: I geniunely mean nothing bad with it. It just writes faster, even though drfrag is almost as fast.

Sometimes i even get both your name and Graf's in a bunch because of their similarities. :(

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 7:13 am
by drfrag
I don't really care. :chainsaw2:

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:20 am
by drfrag
And it's fixed, modern VS misoptimizes mscinlines.h. There is some asm there,it says "Build Engine & Tools" so in the end everything is connected. :lol:
Now performance is the same (even faster since i've changed the project to O2).
New link here:
Edit: removed.

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:25 am
by Redneckerz
drfrag wrote:And it's fixed, modern VS misoptimizes mscinlines.h. There is some asm there,it says "Build Engine & Tools" so in the end everything is connected. :lol:
Now performance is the same (even faster since i've changed the project to O2).
New link here:
https://gofile.io/?c=yaKR7K

I havent had the chance to test the older builds yet. In testing, what should i look for?

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:22 am
by Graf Zahl
drfrag wrote:And it's fixed, modern VS misoptimizes mscinlines.h. There is some asm there,it says "Build Engine & Tools" so in the end everything is connected. :lol:


Well, there's reasons this code was tossed out. Why are you doing this to yourself? Do you really believe that there's some genuine need for these old versions?

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 2:36 pm
by drfrag
Well, i needed a break. I already made ZDoom classic and was not very happy with it, 2.1.7 crashed due to using an old MinGW to target win95 i think and i chose 2.1.4.
Now this is a clean 2.1.7 with the early D3D backend and using modern compilers. I believe this version deserved to be preserved. One good thing is that it can't run BD so i'll use it to play classic doom, i added the QOL resurrect cheat fixes. :lol:
It has been a quickie, the frustrating part has been testing those arcane flags in the MinGW makefile. I've learnt that i can disable optimizations for certain parts of the code in VS and it's been an interesting exercise. I don't know why but i like old versions, this one is the last considered classic and looks different. Could be useful to play some old mods too.
Looks like that code was ditched after the floatification so i'm afraid all versions could be affected (ZDoom32 is not), may be it's a bug in the VS inline assembler and i should make a report. ZDoom LE was a VS 2013 build and this could be a new issue in 2017.
Redneckerz wrote:what should i look for?

I dunno, it has a different video code. Besides that it's a version from 2006.
Now which name? ZDoom Classic? Chocolate ZDoom? The pirated build? There was a community build. :P

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 4:02 pm
by Redneckerz
drfrag wrote:I dunno, it has a different video code. Besides that it's a version from 2006.

:shrug: You are losing me here. I have no idea what version you are referencing, i am simply asking what needs to be tested.

drfrag wrote:Now which name? ZDoom Classic? Chocolate ZDoom? The pirated build? There was a community build. :P

Again, i do not know what is referenced (in this case pirated build). Let alone what this ZDoom Legacy/Ancient version seems to do.

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 4:20 pm
by drfrag
It's a maintenance release of the 2.1.x line so it's 2.1.7 (i mentioned it). It's 2.1.7 with a few later fixes and the "new" video code.
Well don't try DB. See if it crashes when changing video mode i guess, the emulator crashed while switching fullscreen but this should work well. 1366x768 does here.
I was thinking about a new name. But pirated build doesn't seem appropiate so i'll stick to Classic i suppose. 8-)

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2020 4:25 pm
by Redneckerz
drfrag wrote:It's a maintenance release of the 2.1.x line so it's 2.1.7 (i mentioned it). It's 2.1.7 with a few later fixes and the "new" video code.

Your OP says 2.1.8, so i guess it was 2.1.7 prior. Ill test the video mode then.

drfrag wrote:I was thinking about a new name. But pirated build doesn't seem appropiate so i'll stick to Classic i suppose. 8-)

Oh hell no. Please call it something distinctly different because i do not wish for another drfrag layer of convolution :lol: It already took me some time to make good ''tier'' distinctions between all your legacy versions in the first place (And its a very rudimentary distinction at best, because each of your ports has different improvements. So i had to find one common denominator, which is renderer support.)

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:55 pm
by drfrag
Hey i was playing Nova 3 and the text file said "for any boom compatible sourceport" and "Tested With PrBoom+ 2.5.1.5".
Upon starting MAP03 i get:
Code: Select allExpand view
MAP03 - Dante Allegory

Line 2611 has no front sector
This map has an incomplete BSP tree.
Linedef 2611 does not have a front side.
BSP generation took 0.101 sec (6343 segs)
The following lines do not have a front sidedef:
 2611

You need to fix these lines to play this map.

Trying with Woof 1.1.0 i got a crash on MAP01. Wasn't this supposed to be the ultimate retro source port?
Well back to BD i guess. :P
Edit: i've backported the fix, i know that makes the thing less authentic but...

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions [2.1.8 CL release]

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 6:57 am
by drfrag
I've done a release (my 2.1.8 branch), i'm still playing NOVA III with it (without BD :P ). I've named it 2.1.8 Classic.
One more thing, besides the resurrect fixes i've ported the r_spritedistancecull CVAR by dpJudas as QOL enhancement and it brings massive performance improvements on some maps (up to 5x on planisphere 2, recommended value is 4000).
https://github.com/drfrag666/zdoom-old/releases

Re: New repo for old ZDoom versions [2.1.8 CL release]

PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:25 am
by Redneckerz
drfrag wrote:I've done a release (my 2.1.8 branch), i'm still playing NOVA III with it (without BD :P ). I've named it 2.1.8 Classic.
One more thing, besides the resurrect fixes i've ported the r_spritedistancecull CVAR by dpJudas as QOL enhancement and it brings massive performance improvements on some maps (up to 5x on planisphere 2, recommended value is 4000).
https://github.com/drfrag666/zdoom-old/releases

I prefer it was named differently to distinguish from ZDoom CL. ZDoom CL2, ZDoom CLS, or whatever. Any distinguishment would do. Naming it exactly the same as ZDoom Classic with the only change the version number is difficult to explain to the general audience.

If a user comes along and asks which ZDoom versions exist that are still supported, i would now have to distinguish between ZDoom LE, ZDoom32, ZDoom CL and this version that carries the same name.

Similar to the LZDoom talk at Doomworld, it is better to retain a family name and use variations of that. ZDoomLE/32/CL are doing this quite right in my opinion. But this new version does not. :|