[Survey] How many of you CANNOT run GZDoom's OpenGL renderer

[Project Shadowcat]

According to Snooper statistics from Minecraft users, about 5% are still on GL 1.x.

I would pull up the post, but I am having trouble with Twitter.

Granted, this is a Minecraft statistic, and 5% out of some 15 mil or so is a HUGE number (750k). I don't think nearly as many people use GZDoom as Minecraft users do.
EDIT: I think that number is a lot larger than 15 million PC users alone, but even so the poin still stands. And as far as GZDoom is concerned, there may be some variance in that percentage value. But it is a rough guess to go by.

[LostSkull]

Got no problems whatsoever.

[Graf Zahl]

Well, at some point I have to say 'screw 'em'. It's impossible to work with an 1.x compatible code base. These old versions impose so many restrictions of what can be done that it's either leaving everything as it is or dump 'em. I even think that 2.x is a waste of effort. If it wasn't for Intel graphics I could switch to 3.3 right away.

(Not that there are any immediate plans for a renderer rewrite but when I find the time I'd like to upgrade the code base so that it becomes forward compatible again. What's there right now is hopelessly stuck and especially on MacOS can't go any further than GL 2.1 because Apple only supports the core profile for higher GL versions.)

[Shadelight]

On my old PC I could run it fine until I got a different card. On my laptop I could run it alright but with issues(but everything has issues on that thing!). On this PC I can run it pretty well.

[Mikk-]

Pretty sure I can run GzDOOM on 2 GTX 780's in SLI.

[SyntherAugustus]

I have 1 gtx 780 and map01 in doom2 runs at 1750fps. Nuts.wad however is a different story (cpu stuff I'm guessing).

[Graf Zahl]

On my old PC I could run it fine until I got a different card. On my laptop I could run it alright but with issues(but everything has issues on that thing!). On this PC I can run it pretty well.

'Pretty well' is highly subjective (and meaningless in the context of my question.)
What GL versions do those machines have?

[GooberMan]

I even think that 2.x is a waste of effort.

Disagree. 2.x is the closest in compatibility with GLES 2.x, which most of the mobile market will be on for quite some time.

Not that mobile is officially supported or anything. But keeping to 2.x makes it easier to port it across.

[Graf Zahl]

Which begs the question, what' s more important - Mac or mobile? Apple has been so smart not to implement 3.x core profile so with 2.x I'd be stuck to older features on them.

And I'd still be in the same situation where I am right now - stuck with an old version and no forward compatibility. I still wonder what the ARB was thinking when they decided to make GL 3.3 core completely incompatible with anything that came before.

So, if I make the jump forward, it's 3.3 or nothing.

[Enjay]

This seems relevant so I'll cross post it from the 3DGE thread in "Off Topic".

Original here:
http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=45661

Here's something that you may, or may not, be interested in. Using the map Frozen Time and standing in the location in the screenshots, In GZDoom I get 30fps (27 with dynamic lights) and the map looks fine. In 3DGE 1.36, I get 2fps and there are gaps/visible glitches in the bridge [edit]that was with dynamic lights - switching them off gave me 3fps[/edit].



(South end of bridge, approx coords 4670, 6040)

In both cases I used -nomonsters and FRAPS to do the benchmark.

[edit]
aaand, purely out of interest...

ZDoom gave me 10fps

Zandronum, gave me 15 fps (13 with dynamic lights) although, interestingly, skulltag gave me 21fps. I thought that both of those used the same (older) GZDoom renderer so I'm not sure why there is such a difference.

EDGE 1.35 gave me much the same result as 3DGE.

I couldn’t get an FPS display in Eternity but it was running quite well and I estimate about 25-30 fps and no obvious visual glitches.

Risen3D gave me 24 fps [edit] I now have a newer beta with some optimisations and I get 42fps with Risen3D now[/edit]

Doomsday took over 1 minute to load the map. When I got to the test area, I was getting less than 1 fps (I estimate 1 frame every 20 seconds). I couldn’t really see how well the bridge was being rendered due to the awful performance making it very difficult to stand in the right place and when I tried to quit, I thought the game had hung but, in fact, it was just taking a very long time to exit (over 2 minutes).

Vavoom was also in the <1 fps category. Actually, it was so bad that I didn't even try to get to the test viewpoint. It was unplayable.

All tests were carried out with, as best I could - but without a hugely thorough check, the same main options. This was at least -nomonsters and a resolution of 1920x1200 where possible (Vavoom was, I think, the only one that I couldn't get in that resolution (1600x1200 instead)) and dynamic lights off.

[Graf Zahl]

Performance has never been an issue with GZDoom, that's not my problem here. I'd like to migrate to later GL versions in order to make better use of certain features, the current code is so overloaded with version distinctions, two entirely different means of doing stuff, etc. that it has become quite hard to do anything with it.

And concerning the other ports, I have a good idea where their problems come from: These crossbeam bridges create an insane amount of segs per linedef. Any port which renders per seg is doomed with such a setup. Another problem I noticed with several ports is that those creating their independent render data often fare quite a bit worse than those sticking to Doom's traditional BSP algorithm and basing their work on the actual game data. No idea why.

I'm getting 45 fps at the screenshot's position in GZDoom, btw.

[edward850]

My aging 3 year old laptop with a Nvidia 330M also has GL 3.3 support, so it's not as if compatible chip-sets are uncommon.
For reference to Enjay's impromptu bench test, said laptop runs that seen at an acceptable 21FPS. 28FPS if I switch off gl_render_precise, although visually I don't even notice a difference in vertex precision.
An additional layer of reference: The on-board Intel HD display (GL 2.1) does it at 8-11FPS. gl_render_precise makes no difference in performance, although there is a noticeable difference in vertex precision. Funny that.

[Enjay]

Performance has never been an issue with GZDoom, that's not my problem here. I'd like to migrate to later GL versions in order to make better use of certain features, the current code is so overloaded with version distinctions, two entirely different means of doing stuff, etc. that it has become quite hard to do anything with it.

I was doing the speed comparisons for 3DGE and Risen3D anyway and thought they were at least of some relevance to the ongoing discussion here - if nothing more than to underline that GZDoom does indeed have comparatively good performance.

To me, migrating to later GL versions makes a lot of sense. I've seen you mention before how things are bogged down by keeping the old GL compatibility. Even with the suggested 5% of users unable to use 2.0+, it should probably be recognised that those machines are likely to have difficulties running complex mods that are more likely to be the ones taking advantage of GL 2+ critical features anyway. So, people with old machines can run old mods but not new ones? That's not an unusual principle in computing. Provided they still have access to an old exe and mods suitable for their system, I don't see a huge problem.

[Graf Zahl]

I'm more worried about the 2.x users that cannot upgrade to 3.3. From my perspective, going to 2.0 is close to pointless.
Most old 2.x hardware still cannot use any shaders efficiently so I'd have to keep everything in as it is now, except for a smaller number of annoyances.
The first GPU generation with decent shader support is the one that also supports OpenGL 3.3, except for Intel which only went to 3.1.

To really get out of this trap I'd have to migrate to 3.3 Core profile (i.e. the non-deprecated stuff), which is completely incompatible with anything older - different use of features, different shader syntax and some other hiccups. Anyone with a semi-decent system won't be affected by such a change - but it sometimes baffles me how many Doomers 'cannot afford' to even upgrade to a modern entry level graphics card, not to mention all those users of older laptops.

[Enjay]

Ah, OK understood. I guess the basic principle of what I said is still my opinion - older hardware may have to necessitate using an older exe and mods but I guess it's a harsher viewpoint if the hardware I am talking about as "older" isn't quite as old or hasn't been considered as behind the curve for as long. It's also easy for me to say when I already have the required hardware for OpenGL 3.3 and, even if I didn't, I'd be prepared and able to get it if I needed to. On the flip side of that, it's worth pointing out that my "new" OpenGL 3.3 hardware is actually 5 years old and not really that new at all.

Speaking more personally, having you taking a more active interest in GZDoom development and maintenance again would be most welcome and if a move to OpenGL 3.3 was the thing that allowed it to happen, I'd say it was worth it. I know that sounds horribly sycophantic but it really would be good to see.