Texture filtering default discussion

[Zhs2]

People said it already in many different words but I want to say it this way: when it comes to default settings, you can't win. Biggest argument against texture filtering is "it wasn't the default in 1993!" You can sure argue that but the fact remains that one person's preference was all it took to keep it the default in a port for many years. Nothing against preference, mind, considering you can find and turn it off yourself. But what if you don't? You get points on your stigma card if you're high profile enough for people to care, like they did for John Romero when he played myhouse.wad. (He probably just thought it was neat considering his praise for ZDoom.) I find it all quite silly that this is a debate, to be honest, but purists are a large part of the Doom community and they often decry anything different.

[Kzer-Za]

I wholeheartedly agree with that about relation between vanilla experience and *ZDoom:

If I want vanilla, I play vanilla, or a port that aims to be vanilla like. A big part of why I play (G)ZDoom is that it's not vanilla. I can get vanilla elsewhere.

The first thing I would do after I install UZDoom is turn the texture filtering back on. That said, as long as I can turn it on, I don't care much what's its default state, since I'm gonna be changing a lot of defaults in any case. That's also why I don't understand why its default state is a big issue for anyone.

[PlayerLin]

I personally don't have issues about the texture filtering is on or off by default - even I don't like texture filtering on sprites. As far as it's not "FORCED FULLTIME enable or disable without options to change" I wouldn't care at all, everyone has their own choice to use any of options, whatever the default is.

Honestly, when I GET why people pissed off about texture filtering is on by default, but I see so many people just use this reason to shit at Graf because they didn't agreed his idea about that...which was always annoyed me.

At least now it's history now, at least for UZDooM and here.

[Bauul]

Just the way it's phrased says to me it's precisely that thing that so many people apparently find so important; that it is the "poster child" of the move to UZDoom, and I just don't really get why it's become such a big deal. It can't just be the preference itself. There's more going on.

I think it's just as straightforward as it being an easy-to-grasp example of how GZDoom is ultimately Graf's project, and that his preference takes precedent, even if it's at odds with most people (at least those who are invested enough to share their opinion). FWIW I completely agree that its reputation outweighs the actual difficulty in changing it: I also have an INI file I just carry between installations and haven't been affected by the defaults in years.

But I think the fact that it is so simple to change is possibly why it gained as much attention as it did. If it was a complex topic or was more subtle, it wouldn't have gained as much traction. "Poster child"s are usually exactly this kind of situation: a simple, easy-to-understand concept that may or may not actually be a major issue unto themselves, but are representative of a wider issue.

There are plenty of other defaults that arguably also deviate from the original experience, but I think this one particularly gained momentum because it's easy to spot immediately and most people (seem) to not like it. The fact that Graf refused to change it since forever despite public encouragement to do so can be easily construed to show how he viewed GZDoom as being for him, rather than for everyone else.

So UZDoom announcing it's changing the defaults ties into the overriding theme that 'this is a port for everyone, not just for one person'. It dovetails nicely with the narrative of the port's creation, even if the actual feature itself is not particularly an issue.

[Enjay]

A very well put analysis that makes a lot of sense.

[Yhe100]

Oh a related note, what are people's opinion on texture filtering on Higher res stuff like Ion Fury? I think it looks better

[bimshwel]

the higher the resolution is, the better i must assume it looks while blended, but also, i suspect, the harder it is to notice.

[PlayerLin]

For Ion Fury...

Since you can't enable filtering in IF's options menu(I don't see them, and found out it was disabled as never intended to use that thing since begining/also it was bugged), the only way is do that in console command ( Shift-` to bring out the console).

Code: Select all

r_texfilter X
X = 0~5, default is 0 (GL_NEAREST)

I can say it still looks blurred in 1(GL_LINEAR), 3(GL_LINEAR_MIPMAP_NEAREST) and 5(GL_LINEAR_MIPMAP_LINEAR) which I'm not really like any of them, even if "it looks better"...and option 3/4/5 sometimes made glitched sprites, it could just some EDuke32's glitches that why it never provided/just for the intended visuals - keep in mind about the artworks and ingame visuals were never designed with enabling Texture Filtering in mind at first place, something definitely looks wrong/glitched...

r_texfilter 4(GL_NEAREST_MIPMAP_LINEAR) would be good enough if one really want some of filtering, at least the far away scene will be filtered.
(At least for IF v3.0.0.9, if one using latest EDuke32 to play IF, it has menu option but I feel something weird about that currently)

I personally still prefer option 0.
(In the end, it's still "personal preference" no matter what.)

[edward850]

People said it already in many different words but I want to say it this way: when it comes to default settings, you can't win. Biggest argument against texture filtering is "it wasn't the default in 1993!" You can sure argue that but the fact remains that one person's preference was all it took to keep it the default in a port for many years. Nothing against preference, mind, considering you can find and turn it off yourself.

That is in fact not the argument at all that people make, or a very bad corruption of it. The issue people have with the texture filtering is quite explicitly that it's not how the art was designed, and so it's complete nonsense as a default presentation for the game.
In fact it's even been suggested that it makes no sense as a user option and should actually be a texture definition option to give the artists proper control over how their art actually looks; Action Doom 2 is a pretty major case-in-point and has been something Scuba Steve has repeatedly complained about.

[Enjay]

As an exercise in self-torture, yesterday I spent a bit of time catching up on various threads around teh intarwebs that have touched on the whole GZDoom/UZDoom situation. I wasn't specifically looking for more information relating to texture filtering (I just wanted to know what people have been saying) but, not surprisingly, I found it.

I would say that in just about every thread or discussion that I found, within the first 10 replies (often within the first 5) someone said something like "at least texture filtering will be off by default now". Again, I understand the points that people have put forward, but I still find it utterly bizarre that it is something that crops up time and time again, and that it is so close to being so many peoples' first reaction; such a high priority - for something that is ultimately optional.

I mean, I installed my first copy of UZDoom yesterday and I decided to not copy across my settings from GZDoom, but to start with a clean ini instead. When I fired UZDoom up texture filtering was off (as expected). To me, it looked awful - the visual equivalent of nails on a chalkboard as the sharp edge of every pixel cut into my eyeballs. (OK, OK, hyperbole - but I do think that the options menu font (which I've never been a fan of (and I said so when it first appeared) looks especially bad without filtering).) But, less than 30 seconds later, texture filtering was on and I got on with setting the rest of my preferences. It was no big deal.

The new default doesn't suit me, that's obvious, but it's matter of minimal significance to me because changing it takes seconds and that's it set until I reinstall or delete my ini. No big deal. Some people are very passionate about it though. Like, really passionate. Bauul gave a very good explanation as to why it might be, and I do understand that, but I still don't get the level of passion about it. I guess I never will. It's just not something that bothers me one way or the other. However, there seems to be a lot of these passionate people. I guess that means that overall happiness has improved, and that's a good thing.


I do understand the argument that some people put forward - the one Zhs2 mentioned "it wasn't the default in 1993!" (people have certainly made that precise argument - I've seen it many times) and I also get the more nuanced "it's not how the art was designed" that edward850 mentioned. However, one thing that is often missing from both of those arguments is that something else wasn't available in 1993 - huge, high definition, flat, brightly backlit, widescreen monitors with densely packed sub-pixels of the kind that (probably) everyone making those arguments is using. In 1993, no one saw Doom like modern users do, and no one making the graphics for it saw them like modern users do either (though they probably had better monitors than the average consumer).

In 1993, doom was on screen at 320 pixels x 200 on a CRT monitor where you really didn't have to look hard to see the individual coloured dots on the screen making up the pixels of the image - and the gaps between them. As a result, the image was generally dimmer and less well defined by default. That's what the art was made to be shown on. What you certainly didn't see was bright, crisp, sharp pixel edges in all their high definition glory like you do on a modern monitor. What we see these days, is far sharper, far more stark than was possible for the average user in 1993. So, while texture filtering wasn't around in 1993, and the art wasn't designed with it in mind, modern monitors weren't around either, and the art wasn't designed for them either. So, unless you are really committed, you aren't seeing doom like it was in 1993 anyway. Texture filtering isn't "right", but (in combination with modern monitors and resolutions) either is texture filtering being off. And that's not really even getting into extra details like the limitations of how many colours could be displayed in VGA Mode 13h. So, IMO, what is more "right" is simply a matter of taste and what suits the individual is the best for that individual.

Though, it's also worth remembering that when Doom came out, despite all those limitations, the world was wowed by its "realistic graphics" with demons coming out of the shadows at you and that realism, and the way it overwhelmed and drew its audience into the vivid "demon worshipping murder simulator", certainly got a lot of upright pillars of society throwing hissy fits.

[Nash]

I think a big part of the complaints come from the fact that a majority of the user base, especially younger ones, either

1) Don't bother changing the options
2) Don't even know it can be changed in the options
3) Cannot find it in the options

There have been several real-life situations where an influencer... erm... Youtuber... live-streamed (or made a pre-recorded video) GZDoom with the texture filtering enabled, while showcasing some high-profile mods and understandably authors of said mods got upset seeing their art not represented in the way they envisioned them. In one case, a live streamer was literally struggling in the options menu, live, as their audience was also struggling to guide them to change it - said streamer actually agreed it was bad looking and they wanted to change it but they took several minutes to actually change it while on air.

[Enjay]

That must have been painful to watch. They need a better audience:
open the console
type gl_texture_filter 6 [enter]
done. (Joking, of course, but that would actually do it.)

I guess I'm allowed to get upset if a streamer reviews one of my projects without filtering on now though.

Actually, when I released my Burghead mod - which was the most model-heavy mod I had released to date at that time, had a map that relied completely on 3D floors (and the rest needed them to a lesser extent), used OpenGL skyboxes, and possibly didn't have any Doom-palette textures (etc etc), the Doomworld reviewer played it in software mode (like, actual ZDoom software IIRC) and posted screenshots of all the underlying sprites where the models should have been, crippled textures and uncompletable maps.

[bimshwel]

arrrfg that makes me angry. i don't even look for that sort of thing and remember years ago coming across some "reviewer" who mentioned deliberately not loading dehacked patches, under the apparent assumption that all they did was tweak the regular game's difficulty one way or another. i have yet to "release" anything (apart from "nessound" which is irrelevant) but one person i sent some in-progress material to directly told me that he jumped to map 30 so he could assault the romero head and look at the new monsters in the rollcall screen, where I know none of them are going to be working properly, if they even show up. having stuff to be broken and stupid even with all files included and the game played properly but just ONE thing turned off must be a tier of infuriating above that.

[SanyaWaffles]

Personally, the problem is a chicken/egg type thing. Where does the buck stop for 'intended experience'.

For me, the main part is if you don't know the console exists and the exact value to change, that shortcut is useless. Not everyone even knows the console exists 90% of the time.

Plus the menus aren't the best. I know standalone games can modify these things by defcvars, but not every project is going to use a standalone executable and guess what, Graf veto'd DEFCVARS for traditional mods as well. Why you ask? Hell if I know.

Let's hope the menus are sorted soon, maybe that'll help.

[edward850]

In 1993, doom was on screen at 320 pixels x 200 on a CRT monitor where you really didn't have to look hard to see the individual coloured dots on the screen making up the pixels of the image - and the gaps between them. As a result, the image was generally dimmer and less well defined by default. That's what the art was made to be shown on. What you certainly didn't see was bright, crisp, sharp pixel edges in all their high definition glory like you do on a modern monitor. What we see these days, is far sharper, far more stark than was possible for the average user in 1993. So, while texture filtering wasn't around in 1993, and the art wasn't designed with it in mind, modern monitors weren't around either, and the art wasn't designed for them either. So, unless you are really committed, you aren't seeing doom like it was in 1993 anyway. Texture filtering isn't "right", but (in combination with modern monitors and resolutions) either is texture filtering being off. And that's not really even getting into extra details like the limitations of how many colours could be displayed in VGA Mode 13h. So, IMO, what is more "right" is simply a matter of taste and what suits the individual is the best for that individual.

What you had was a broken monitor. VGA monitors were designed for readable text in an office building, they weren't TVs, and as such 320x200 was double scanned to a higher resolution. There's minimal colour bleeding on a properly calibrated CRT at that resolution as a result.