Linux!

SargeBaldy · Post by **SargeBaldy** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 3:33 am

HotWax wrote:It doesn't yet have support for OpenGL features such as models and dynamic lighting, but it does have what's important

Except for speed... why is it so much slower than ZDoom?

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 4:07 am

SargeBaldy wrote:
HotWax wrote:It doesn't yet have support for OpenGL features such as models and dynamic lighting, but it does have what's important
Except for speed... why is it so much slower than ZDoom?

I have no idea. I once upgraded PrBoom's GL renderer to support all Boom features (like colormaps etc.) and it perfectly renders P:AR E1M6 (the beginning of this level is among the most complex scenes in a level I have ever seen) with 35 fps on my Athlon XP 2000 with GF 3Ti at a resolution of 1280x960. Neither ZDoomGL (old and new), Risen3D (with all dynamic light stuff turned off) or LegacyGL come even close to that value. ZDoom software is slowest, however with 17 fps.

So technically it's definitely possible to do it faster.

Cyb · Post by **Cyb** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:21 am

uh, I always get like 6x the fps in zdoomgl than in software zdoom when it comes to standard rendering stuff (like the original iwads or a regular map), more complex stuff lags a bit, but nothing horrible

Post by **Enjay** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:03 pm

HotWax wrote:On the other hand, you could just go with ZDoomGL, which has the option of switching back to the software renderer...

I don't know if you have tried the software renderer with ZdoomGL. It is not the same as the Zdoom one, and at present has quite a few problems that can lead to graphical glitches and (apparently) crashes too. That's not to say it won't be fixed - I'm sure it will - but ATM it isn't really usable.

SargeBaldy · Post by **SargeBaldy** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 3:58 pm

Cyb wrote:more complex stuff lags a bit, but nothing horrible

speak for yourself. either timmie's improved it significantly since 0.74, my radeon 7500 isn't good enough for it, or it's really bad at handling detailed spots.

http://oregonstate.edu/~lloydo/pms-zdoom.png
http://oregonstate.edu/~lloydo/pms-zdoomgl.png

that room is still far from finished. considering i can get more than 11fps in hl2, i think it needs a bit more optimization

Cyb · Post by **Cyb** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 4:08 pm

http://cyb.vect.org:8080/pics/fps_zdoom.png
http://cyb.vect.org:8080/pics/fps_zdoomgl.png

those are both run in a window on a 32-bit desktop. zdoom goes up to 130 fps if I fullscreen it

I have v0.75 which is based off 2.0.47j (I believe), I'm not sure if that's a public beta tho, I know there is a 'public' beta version avaliable on the dw forums somewhere

Post by **Chris** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 4:26 pm

SargeBaldy, what's your CPU? I have a Radeon 7000 and get really crap rates, and regular ZDoom beats it out hands down. Although a thing to note is that my card is PCI, and I only have a 233MHz..

SargeBaldy · Post by **SargeBaldy** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 4:51 pm

I have an athxp 1700+ (overclocked to 1.5ghz) with 512M PC2100 (well 256M is 2700 but it runs at 2100).

sirjuddington · Post by **sirjuddington** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 7:52 pm

On my machine ZDoomGL beats ZDoom for speed 90% of the time (the 10% being really complex maps). Of course thats probably because I have an Athlon 2500+ OC'ed to 3200+, and a GeForce 4 Ti4200.

I've found ZDoomGL runs slow on PCI cards, because I've heard complaints like it before from people with them, and it ran really bad on my brother's PCI Radeon 7000.

But yeah, if you haven't already, grab the very latest public beta of ZDoomGL here:

http://www.timmie.squabble.org/snapshots/

sirjuddington · Post by **sirjuddington** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 7:59 pm

Enjay wrote:
HotWax wrote:On the other hand, you could just go with ZDoomGL, which has the option of switching back to the software renderer...
I don't know if you have tried the software renderer with ZdoomGL. It is not the same as the Zdoom one, and at present has quite a few problems that can lead to graphical glitches and (apparently) crashes too. That's not to say it won't be fixed - I'm sure it will - but ATM it isn't really usable.

If you're talking about 0.745, yeah, the software renderer on that is based on 47j, which was the first version to support interchangable patches/flats, and the feature wasn't finished (or something to that effect), thus it likes to crash.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 3:26 am

HotWax wrote: Randy has already said no to the idea of doing an OpenGL renderer himself, so there's pretty much no chance you're going to get a single code base to work with. On the other hand, you could just go with ZDoomGL, which has the option of switching back to the software renderer...

I didn't mean that Randy should do one himself. But why all these code forks? Why can't people work on the same version if the sources. If someone wants to add OpenGL or net play to zdoom, why can't they work with Randy to do that? Or at least, he could merge the things he likes into the standard zdoom. Usually people collaborate on free software projects and forking is considered a bad thing. I for one would like to see zdoom have the features that are now in it's derivatives so there would be no need to have three different versions.

HotWax · Post by **HotWax** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:21 am

I would assume that Randy doesn't want to have to be constantly uploading his internal changes to some server, or checking that server daily for changes he now has to integrate into the main source. It's his port, let him do what he wants with it.

Post by **Enjay** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 5:32 am

SlayeR wrote:If you're talking about 0.745...

I guess I must have been. I don't normally check the software renderer with ZdoomGL. The last time I checked it, it was very screwy. I just checked with the most recent beta and after a few minutes play had not spotted anything wrong.

Post by **Xaser** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 7:47 am

I personally don't give a crud about 3d acceleration. I don't care very much about ZdoomGL (Maybe I will when it gets fully up to date, though), and I only downloaded JDoom dor the Doom64 TC. Regular Zdoom and its high framerates are perfect for me.

Post by **Graf Zahl** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 10:25 am

Xaser wrote:and I only downloaded JDoom dor the Doom64 TC.

Honestly, is there anything else JDoom is good for (unless you are a loser who cannot play Doom without dynamic lights, hi-res textures and 3D-models?

)

Hardware acceleration is nice, especially for true color display but Doom is a game that really doesn't need this high-tech-nonsense.