ZDoom

Keeping compatibility with old PC's is all well and good, but new features are coming that won't work for them.

I mean - at the very least, I'd love to see an old business laptop from 2010 with an iGPU try to do ray-tracing.

There will definitely be an OpenGL-compatible port developed in tandem in the short-term, probably for several years. But its maintenance is by no means a sure thing and guaranteed forever, especially when laptops like your brother's eventually disappear and the gaming laptops today become the equivalent and take their place.

You proved my point Yum. Thank you.

Yes. I understand that my laptops are becoming a rare kind, as better ones replace them. I do not plan on using it forever (I'm trying to save, however naive that sounds), but I don't need ray-tracing (or want it) in Doom. I understand someone does, and I wish them success. However, there's no reason to prematurely remove (like that one guy who wanted Windows 7 gone, if you hate modern Windows, just use Linux already. Windows 7 holdouts are naive tbh).


When it's not possible (or just too much of a burden) to support such old hardware, then do it. I won't be mad. I know how computers and programming work. It's only natural. But there's no reason to delete a sub-optimal looking lightmode that some group of people probably need.

Rachael wrote: I mean - at the very least, I'd love to see an old business laptop from 2010 try to do ray-tracing.

OSes wrote: The library vulkan-1.dll could not be found. Reinstalling the program may resolve the issue. (Windows)

Shared library error: libvulkanswrast.so.1: No such file or directory (*NIX-like) (yes i know what vulkan swrast is, it's Vulkan on the cpu, which sucks. That business laptop probably doesn't support anything else)

An error has occured and the program could not continue. Press OK to terminate the program. (macOS, probably. [hackintoshes])

SanyaWaffles wrote: You proved my point Yum. Thank you.

I was merely presenting the facts of the matter, not attempting to antagonize you. If you don't like my sharp wit and objective style of debating because I hardly have anythkng better to do, then too bad. The truth can hurt, and I am not one to sugarcoat, which you just proved. Shall I return the thanks?

yum13241 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 3:58 pm There's no reason to remove hardware support when it's not a burden on the devs.

Try read my original post again. I never said this was about removing hardware support for the sake of the developers. My argument was that its dumb to confuse a ton of users, just so that one guy (this is you!) with a 15+ year old computer can save the 100 dollars it costs to replace it with something newer. YOU are not so important that everyone else should get a subpar experience. That's just selfish as fuck tbh.

My point of making that post was mostly just to say, devs aren't removing compatibility with older hardware "just because". If it's feasible to keep something around, usually that is done. If it's not, then chances are someone will make a fork to keep things running for older hardware folks at least for a little bit.

But there's a simple fact of numbers that you are also fighting against here: For every person who needs a fork like this, 10 more have newer hardware for one reason or another. There is also the fact that this is a passion project, it is not made out of obligation or commercial interest. Almost every currently active dev who has committed code in the past 2 years has raytracing-enabled hardware. Videos are posted on Discord demonstrating the effects of this raytracing, getting raves and oohs and aahs, as the engine continues to get improvements, albeit in a different form under a different name, but still a continuation in spirit even if entirely unintentional.

With the recent GZDoom 4.12 release you might have noticed that we went out of our way to readd Windows 7 support. If it would've been difficult to do that, it would never have been done, but as it turned out the missing functionality in this case was quite easy to emulate if it was missing. (It was DPI scaling which Windows 7 doesn't use anyway, at least not like 8+ does, so it was safe to just return 100% DPI and call it a day)

So ... yeah ... I think there's a lot of misunderstanding in this thread, nobody's doing things out of spite, but at the same time when you throw fire, people throw fire back.

dpJudas wrote: My argument was that its dumb to confuse a ton of users, just so that one guy (this is you!) with a 15+ year old computer can save the 100 dollars it costs to replace it with something newer

I'm not the only one. GZDoom could do some processor check to determine whether the computer is good enough for the REAL "Software" light mode. On GLES it's falling back to something but I know it's not Classic, so I'm not being selfish here. That's true for both laptops (lol). Now if I were trying to play on a 386 I'd get it.

dpJudas wrote: My argument was that its dumb to confuse a ton of users, just so that one guy (this is you!) with a 15+ year old computer can save the 100 dollars it costs to replace it with something newer

You're lucky if you get an Intel Atom with 100 dollars. And that's just the CPU, where's the rest of the system?

I never said I was the most important GZDoom user, nor implied that my old-ass laptop should be supported by GZDoom at all costs. Like I said earlier, I DON'T NEED CLASSIC. It looks like shit. The only modes I care about are "Software" and its GLES fallback.

dpJudas wrote: I believe the program should only offer one option to the user - the software mode...

Myself wrote: There's no reason to remove hardware support when it's not a burden on the devs.

Then why did you suggest removing it? Who's it gonna be offered to, the Sigil?

Rachael wrote: readd Windows 7 support. If it would've been difficult to do that, it would never have been done, but as it turned out the missing functionality in this case was quite easy to emulate if it was missing. (It was DPI scaling which Windows 7 doesn't use anyway, at least not like 8+ does, so it was safe to just return 100% DPI and call it a day)

Precisely why Classic doesn't need to be removed yet. It's not yet a pain to support hardware like mine (whether it's my daily driver or my crusty Windows 8 laptop [which DOES NOT run Windows 8]). When it stalls development, then remove it, I'll find another way to mod and play Doom.

For the vast majority of users, especially ones that hail from less rich countries (the entire Middle East, while not a country, comes to mind) do not have ray tracing hardware, or anything close. You'd be lucky to see a dGPU at all in a typical system. Now for people who can only run the engine with Classic, they're really on borrowed time. Me, (and others like me, with Vulkan only on Linux, but is irrelevant since the friggin' screen wipe chugs, and would rather use GLES for as long as possible), not so much.

SanyaWaffles wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 4:17 pm You proved my point Yum. Thank you.

You proved mine too. The truth can hurt, and I can be blunt. Shall I return the thanks?

yum13241 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 3:19 am You're lucky if you get an Intel Atom with 100 dollars. And that's just the CPU, where's the rest of the system?

There's this concept in the world called buying used hardware. To beat a 15 year old PC you don't even technically have to do that - you could go down to the local recycling station in my town and pick out any of the computers there and it would beat something this old.

Anyhow, debating with you about when you should be inconvenienced (spend the money on new hardware) in order to not inconvenience others (stop confusing people about light modes due to very old hardware) is a waste of time. It is clear by now that you think you should basically never be inconvenienced. This is my last post in this thread as there's nothing new to be learned about the sector lighting mode topic here.

How about:

The 'cheap' classic hardware lightmode looks a bit more natural than the nominally correct software mode.
Overall light levels are similar enough but people may prefer how this particular mode looks despite maybe only 80-90% correct.

For me it's a valid user-side option.
The 'vanilla' lightmode may easily be deleted, it looks just weird.

@yum12341:
None of the points you raise has any merit. THese systems are far too old to be considered valid targets, never mind that too much of the open source developers community has problems parting from it...

yum13241 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 3:58 pm dpJudas wants to remove support for all non-gaming PCs because he can't stand someone seeing Doom incorrectly.

<snip>

I'm blunt. I hate sugarcoating. The truth hurts sometimes. At the same time, if I'm wrong, point it out bluntly and constructively.

Hmm, let's see:

dpJudas wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 4:48 am Anyhow, my point of view on all of this is that I strongly believe that engine always should only offer one light mode to the user: software. Why? Because I've seen again and again and again users write to me asking about looks, only for me to discover they don't really understand at all what they are choosing between with regard to those light modes. Last time this happened to me was yesterday: here a user reported a "bug" that Software/Vanilla was using a bigger "player lamp radius" than Classic. Its classic that is wrong compared to all other source ports. Even just explaining this to the person gets frustratingly complex.

Seems to me that what dpJudas can't stand is people complaining about "bugs" that are actually normal game behavior.

Graf wrote: THese systems are far too old to be considered valid targets

A system from the past 5 years isn't that old.

Gez wrote: Seems to me that what dpJudas can't stand is people complaining about "bugs" that are actually normal game behavior.

Because they probably aren't named properly (the light modes). Someone might see "Classic" and think it means "Classic Doom". That's the real bug here, having support for hardware released in the past 10 years is not.

Graf wrote: The 'cheap' classic hardware lightmode looks a bit more natural than the nominally correct software mode

Really? Then why does it look so flat? It breaks the lighting of the original iD levels and almost every PWAD in existence. To remove the Software light mode would be akin to removing the software fuzz! I've never cared for it, but it'd be stupid to.

dpJudas wrote: It is clear by now that you think you should basically never be inconvenienced.

I've been very clear that the old laptop is not my daily driver. It's also not even 15, as the born on date in the UEFI setup is 10/02/2013, and it could've sat on the shelf of Walmart for a bit longer. It's 10 years old, and I DO NOT expect GZDoom to run on that forever.

The only time I run GZDoom on that thing is when my little bro wants to play Doom with me, or when he wants to turn on anubis mode and scare all the monsters away OR as a performance test for a mod I may be making. Nothing emulates old hardware slowdowns better than old hardware!

I don't expect GZDoom 5 to run on any of my machines, and I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass like dpJudas implies. I'm just trying to represent the "old hardware" camp, lol.

All I'm saying is that there is no need to accelerate the death of GZDoom on old hardware, unless it's blocking development (in which case, there's no accelerating to be done). Someone will become a new drfrag and adapt GZDoom 5 for older hardware. And if that doesn't happen, I'll just use a different source port lol. I don't really care for running Brutal Doom v45, nor Frozen Time XVI.

Graf wrote: The 'vanilla' lightmode may easily be deleted, it looks just weird.

Yes, it's been known for a while that it's a lightstep darker for no reason.

Graf wrote: never mind that too much of the open source developers community has problems parting from it...

Because these systems aren't complete e-waste like my grandpa's Windows XP tower? If I were trying to run GZDoom on that (assuming it had 3D acceleration at all!) then I'd deserve to be hung if I bothered you at all.

I know my hardware won't run GZDoom for long, and I don't think fixing A_PlaySound not working for DSDHACKED-defined sounds prevents development, so there's no reason to just add a check for if(GetCPUString() "Pentium" || "Athlon" { ABORTANDDIE() } * and say "This hardware cannot run GZDoom. Good bye."

*I totally know how C++ if's work.

I hope I don't get banned for not having a job and being under 18, and as a result being unable to buy a PC lol.

yum13241 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:19 pm

Graf wrote: THese systems are far too old to be considered valid targets

A system from the past 5 years isn't that old.

A system from the past 5 years isn't that bad. Of course you shouldn't complain if you expect an entry level laptop to have good game performance. Buy the right tool for the task!

yum13241 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:19 pm

Graf wrote: The 'cheap' classic hardware lightmode looks a bit more natural than the nominally correct software mode

Really? Then why does it look so flat? It breaks the lighting of the original iD levels and almost every PWAD in existence. To remove the Software light mode would be akin to removing the software fuzz! I've never cared for it, but it'd be stupid to.

It looks the closest to software lighting that was possible with the hardware of 1.5 decades ago when the code was written.

yum13241 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:19 pm

Graf wrote: never mind that too much of the open source developers community has problems parting from it...

Because these systems aren't complete e-waste like my grandpa's Windows XP tower? If I were trying to run GZDoom on that (assuming it had 3D acceleration at all!) then I'd deserve to be hung if I bothered you at all.

Yeah, I'm not surprised that you of all people say that. Forcing developers to jump through hoops and getting frustrated so they ultimately give up on their project never enters the picture, right?

yum13241 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 12:19 pm I know my hardware won't run GZDoom for long, and I don't think fixing A_PlaySound not working for DSDHACKED-defined sounds prevents development, so there's no reason to just add a check for if(GetCPUString() "Pentium" || "Athlon" { ABORTANDDIE() } * and say "This hardware cannot run GZDoom. Good bye."

*I totally know how C++ if's work.

This back and forth is getting a hair annoying. But I do have a serious question, yum.

Why are you bringing up processors for a clearly video card related problem? It's not your processor fault that your video card is Vulkan 1.0-only. My previous old computer's CPU was an Intel Core i5 3570k (10+ years old) and I could run GZDoom with the current video card that I have (AMD Radeon RX 6600) - as far as I know, GZDoom isn't using AVX2. So it is definitely not CPU bound. For $100 -- BRAND NEW, you could get an Arc A310 if you're on a Desktop PC. Supports DX12, Vulkan 1.3 and OpenGL 4.6. But, you're on a laptop. So...

And god knows, I worked fast food, my computer went through a fritz (ended up to be the HDMI cable, lolol). I had to deal with gas for the car, electric, rent, food, subscriptions - and yet I managed to get the current AMD Ryzen 5600, 32GB of RAM, the Radeon RX 6600 and a whole new motherboard for all under $550. Building a new computer is doable with limited income. Even if you have to spread your purchase out over a month. But, alas. Let's go back to the "bug"

At the time, Vanilla, Classic, Software - all the fun lightmodes we have - the names sounded like a good idea. Clearly, it's not a good idea. Ultimately, I believe that there should be a default lightmode for the end user and alternative light modes for modders and map makers that the end user can't see. Console commands withstanding, of course. GZDoom is a, well, Doom game. Make it look like Doom.

But, I believe everyone has made their point so far. I'll let this thread go for a little longer, but I'm keeping a close on eye on the results.

Hellser's got a point: I could afford a new rig by spacing stuff out over the course of a few months, and I'm still disabled and ill and can only work very, very part time (and this week was... not ideal for working due to my illnesses). It's not like I'm rolling in dough because I'm working on a game finally.

I know everyone's situation isn't ideal but I have a hard time believing hardware is that inaccessible in a lot of the world, save for the scalping issue that happened a while back (which seems to have slightly normalized).

Hellser wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 1:01 pm At the time, Vanilla, Classic, Software - all the fun lightmodes we have - the names sounded like a good idea. Clearly, it's not a good idea. Ultimately, I believe that there should be a default lightmode for the end user and alternative light modes for modders and map makers that the end user can't see.

I think that is the core of the problem for me: not only were the names of each light mode were misleading and you only could get a feel for them if you selected them and tried them out.

Certain projects/commercial games I'm involved in used some of the more... I dunno how to put it, exotic light modes. We can force it through MAPINFO all fine and good, but it took us a while to figure this out because we thought they were removed in total, not just delegated to a MAPINFO value. And it was removed with little warning.

Graf Zahl wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 11:00 am The 'cheap' classic hardware lightmode looks a bit more natural than the nominally correct software mode.
Overall light levels are similar enough but people may prefer how this particular mode looks despite maybe only 80-90% correct.

It's funny you bring it up, because that particular user did complain about Software not looking enough like Classic, believing it was a bug. In the end he did prefer classic and I think he stayed on it after I talked to him.

I don't mind people deviating from the official looks of the game (as official as rendering it in true color can get): as long as they know they're doing it. That's always been my only issue with light modes in GZD.

dpJudas wrote: I don't mind people deviating from the official looks of the game (as official as rendering it in true color can get): as long as they know they're doing it. That's always been my only issue with light modes in GZD.

Now that makes more sense.

Graf wrote: Yeah, I'm not surprised that you of all people say that. Forcing developers to jump through hoops and getting frustrated so they ultimately give up on their project never enters the picture, right?

That falls under "stalling developement of the port". I never knew I was THAT infamous, for having old hardware, rather than a stupid dehacked patch.

Hellser wrote: Why are you bringing up processors for a clearly video card related problem?

Cuz' it's the main potato factor. iGPU's like mine are ONLY found on crappy CPU's/SoC's like mine.

Banging your head at bricks won't solve the problem.

The Classic light mode should be called "Speed (for old systems)". "Software" should be the default if the system can handle it, and "Vanilla" is misleading and should be completely removed from the code IMO. Any references to it in mapinfo should be treated as "Software".