3d floor emulation using Bridge Things

[Hirogen2]

Some released maps are marked as "GZDoom-only", as the author has decided to make use of GL-specific features. If it is only about GL visuals, such maps can generally be run with the software renderer too—not a big deal if a torch is unlit or something—but unfortunately, 3d floors is something that do impact the gameplay. Not only are they not made visible, but they are not even there. This puts a bit of a dent when you try to run through, for example, T667's "Sapphire".

We all know that the sw render probably won't change anytime soon, but would it be feasible to have the sw engine put Bridge Things over the particular area? In conjunction with bridge sprites (such as the ones Hexen uses), players would be able to at least see, be able to walk on the designated areas, and perhaps complete the map.

[Cutmanmike]

Bridge things work a bit different to 3d floors as you're standing on actors. This could cause things to mess up, I.e monsters not walking over them. However, I believe that even though the renderer can't show them they should at least have the effects of the floor still there (solid, water, whatever).

[Project Shadowcat]

Some released maps are marked as "GZDoom-only", as the author has decided to make use of GL-specific features. If it is only about GL visuals, such maps can generally be run with the software renderer too—not a big deal if a torch is unlit or something—but unfortunately, 3d floors is something that do impact the gameplay. Not only are they not made visible, but they are not even there. This puts a bit of a dent when you try to run through, for example, T667's "Sapphire".

We all know that the sw render probably won't change anytime soon, but would it be feasible to have the sw engine put Bridge Things over the particular area? In conjunction with bridge sprites (such as the ones Hexen uses), players would be able to at least see, be able to walk on the designated areas, and perhaps complete the map.

Impossible to pick up and detect in THIS fashion.

If you want GZDoom maps to run, you should play GZDoom.

There is code somewhere where they're working on getting 3D floors at least usable (invisible but walkable); you should also look into 3D Midtextures so that you don't even have to use Bridge things.

[Graf Zahl]

This is a really bad idea. The 3D physics code could be activated without problems in ZDoom - but the problem is that I don't want to do it until one particular lighting issue is resolved.

That said, don't you want to use GL or is your computer too bad?

[Rachael]

That said, don't you want to use GL or is your computer too bad?

Graf - I'm sorry to say it, but you're really stepping the line here.

Most people can run GL perfectly fine on their computers - they just can't run yours because even though Doom is an ancient port from way back in 1993, you keep upping the anti as far as graphics are concerned, to the point where it is unplayable on what used to be rather decent hardware for GZDoom.

I'm glad you didn't ditch the old rendering code, but your attitude about the whole situation still stinks - but what can we expect from you, anyway?

[Ryan Cordell]

That, or the port itself just ends up sucking. That's why I stick to ZDoom nowadays.

[Project Shadowcat]

It doesn't matter what you argue, he's still going to say his case. There is no trying to reason with him.

That said, I too am keeping my exclusivity to ZDoom.

[bagheadspidey]

Graf

Oh snap, did Graf just get told?

I honestly haven't bothered to try compiling gzdoom lately, been too busy with other stuff to spend much time with it. Maybe the shaders could be turned off by default, or an "auto" GL setting could detect GL features available and use whichever version of the rendering code will look best on that machine?

For example, I've got a brand new laptop for work... lots of ram, fast processor, etc.. but it has a crappy intel graphics card, because it's a laptop and because it's for work. So I wouldn't say it's a "bad" computer, but I assume (and I'll check in a little while) from this thread that if I load up a recent revision of gzdoom on this computer, it will look wrong.. if that's the case, it might be something to think about before a release. /2¢

[Captain Ventris]

upping the ante

Although attitude wise, Anti would probably work just as well.

[bagheadspidey]

But not auntie.

[Kinsie]

Most people can run GL perfectly fine on their computers - they just can't run yours because even though Doom is an ancient port from way back in 1993, you keep upping the anti as far as graphics are concerned, to the point where it is unplayable on what used to be rather decent hardware for GZDoom.

My computer sucks and it runs GZDoom fine. Stop trying to run GZDoom on a underclocked netbook prototype from 2001.

[Project Shadowcat]

My computer sucks and it runs GZDoom fine. Stop trying to run GZDoom on a underclocked netbook prototype from 2001.

Assuming makes an ass out of you... ./~

[Snarboo]

While I don't feel that a GL Doom port should require the latest hardware, especially when the effects in question aren't really that intensive, Graf has shown time and time again that he is going to take GZDoom in whatever direction he feels like.

[Graf Zahl]

That said, don't you want to use GL or is your computer too bad?

Graf - I'm sorry to say it, but you're really stepping the line here.

Most people can run GL perfectly fine on their computers - they just can't run yours because even though Doom is an ancient port from way back in 1993, you keep upping the anti as far as graphics are concerned, to the point where it is unplayable on what used to be rather decent hardware for GZDoom.

I'm glad you didn't ditch the old rendering code, but your attitude about the whole situation still stinks - but what can we expect from you, anyway?

It still runs at the same speed on my old GF6800 as it did 4 years ago when I bought that card - and that's the oldest system I can test on. The only reason why they apparently have problems only with GZDoom is simple: No other GL port can run really large levels decently on such old hardware. They'd break down as much performance wise because the hardware just can't handle it. GZDoom is still one of the fastest GL renderers. PrBoom(+) is faster but since it doesn't have to support as many effects it is much more lightweight so this is hardly surprising.

A Geforce 3 or 4 may run the IWAD levels or something comparable at decent speeds - but even when I had one it hit the limit on maps like P:AR E1M6 and got down to approx. 20-25 fps. My old system (P4 3.2 GHz with GF 6800) runs the opening cave on this map at 38 fps (same as it did 2 years ago when I stopped updating the drivers.) And that's without any expensive processing. Just the naked polygons with as many effects disabled as possible. Both CPU and GPU just hit the limit and couldn't do any faster.

So yeah, why should I bother with such cards anymore? They can't do much to begin with - as soon as you start adding visual eye candy or make large levels their performance breaks down. The current code works fine on them but any future improvements just will be too much for them. And the maybe 10 people who insist on still using such old hardware can't be helped - I really don't care. These are the ones that take out all the fun of developing GZDoom - because they essentially block it because for them I need to keep stuff in I would have liked to take out years ago.

I consider a cheap system of today the level it should run on decently - not a cheap system from 5 years ago.

[wildweasel]

I honestly think P:AR represents the absolute high end in terms of levels these days, and any WAD that equals or betters its level of detail should be considered the exception, performance-wise, rather than the rule. Same goes for most of Tormentor667's output - it looks great, sure, but it shouldn't define the system requirements of the port that runs them.