Why are md2 models of vanilla assets unpopular when pwads with addon md2's are?

Discuss anything ZDoom-related that doesn't fall into one of the other categories.
invictius
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:44 am

Why are md2 models of vanilla assets unpopular when pwads with addon md2's are?

Post by invictius »

I'm surprised that md2's for iwad enemies and items etc basically aren't a thing, or at least not easily available. I basically had to port them over from risen3d or jdoom or something like that, and for me that's a fairly significant editing job. However they are a bit broken as I get a heap of errors loading them into modern gzdoom - it doesn't break them but I bet they will be broken eventually. For actual models it seems like you have to go with jdoom or risen and sacrifice being able to play any gzdoom maps or anything that isn't vanilla/boom. We have things like per-pixel lighting that's in games that are easily new enough to have native models, and all manner of weapons, skins, tc's, etc... are sprites liked so much that almost nobody would be interested in models?
User avatar
Chris
Posts: 2945
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 12:07 am
Graphics Processor: ATI/AMD with Vulkan/Metal Support

Re: Why are md2 models of vanilla assets unpopular when pwads with addon md2's are?

Post by Chris »

Because creating 3D models from 2D assets is hard work, bordering on impossible. Converting a 2D asset to a 3D one generally requires some amount of redesigning due to being able to see it from previously impossible angles, which inherently means it's not exactly the same as the sprites it's replacing. And especially for low fidelity (low poly count) models, you're going to lose a lot of the detail and nuances the sprite had, replacing nicely detailed sprites with blocky models. Sprites can also get away with low frame counts for animation, where models animated with the same frame count will look jerky and janky (and frame interpolation doesn't always fix, since it fills in movement the player could otherwise imagine for themselves). It wasn't until recently that GZDoom got the ability to use skeletal animation, which is a big step in being able to improve model animation. But even still, I have yet to see 3D models of existing sprites exhibit good frame timing and instead look slow and/or sluggish, often due to trying to match the original sprite frame timings or just because it has a low animation rate, which doesn't work well with otherwise smooth interpolated motion. You're better off using voxels to replicate the original sprites in 3D, though even they take a good amount of effort due to accounting for perspective, and mismatched sprite details you need to harmonize.

Models of completely new assets has less baggage associated with them, people don't have preexisting expectations for how they should look or move, so tend to get more leeway. Keeping it to static assets with no or limited animation can also help.
invictius
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Why are md2 models of vanilla assets unpopular when pwads with addon md2's are?

Post by invictius »

Chris wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 9:17 pm Because creating 3D models from 2D assets is hard work, bordering on impossible. Converting a 2D asset to a 3D one generally requires some amount of redesigning due to being able to see it from previously impossible angles, which inherently means it's not exactly the same as the sprites it's replacing. And especially for low fidelity (low poly count) models, you're going to lose a lot of the detail and nuances the sprite had, replacing nicely detailed sprites with blocky models. Sprites can also get away with low frame counts for animation, where models animated with the same frame count will look jerky and janky (and frame interpolation doesn't always fix, since it fills in movement the player could otherwise imagine for themselves). It wasn't until recently that GZDoom got the ability to use skeletal animation, which is a big step in being able to improve model animation. But even still, I have yet to see 3D models of existing sprites exhibit good frame timing and instead look slow and/or sluggish, often due to trying to match the original sprite frame timings or just because it has a low animation rate, which doesn't work well with otherwise smooth interpolated motion. You're better off using voxels to replicate the original sprites in 3D, though even they take a good amount of effort due to accounting for perspective, and mismatched sprite details you need to harmonize.

Models of completely new assets has less baggage associated with them, people don't have preexisting expectations for how they should look or move, so tend to get more leeway. Keeping it to static assets with no or limited animation can also help.
I'm just surprised that there are fully complete models for other ports out there, yet they haven't been converted to work to gzdoom. Poor models are better than none at all. I guess it's possible that the creator(s) have declined permission to port them over? It just seemed odd to me that there are so many things in levels etc that have made doom technically comparable to quake 3 (Maybe even 4?) yet models, no matter how poor, are untouched. I'm pretty satisfied with them, the only thing I thought was silly is what the chaingun muzzle flash looks (Risen3d)
Professor Hastig
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2023 2:02 am
Graphics Processor: nVidia (Modern GZDoom)

Re: Why are md2 models of vanilla assets unpopular when pwads with addon md2's are?

Post by Professor Hastig »

I think it is because the model junkies have chosen Doomsday as their port of choice. Among modders there is generally little to no interest for original asset replacements - they are far more interested in creating new assets.

Also:
Poor models are better than none at all.
I'd wager a guess that on this forum and possibly even more on Doomworld all you get for this statement is that you are wrong. A bad model replacement is better quickly forgotten - and sprites rule anyway! :P
invictius
Posts: 430
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Why are md2 models of vanilla assets unpopular when pwads with addon md2's are?

Post by invictius »

Professor Hastig wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:11 am I think it is because the model junkies have chosen Doomsday as their port of choice. Among modders there is generally little to no interest for original asset replacements - they are far more interested in creating new assets.
Can you think of any wads that do use md2's for new assets? I can't think of much other than shadow mavericks' multi-purpose mod, and that really isn't a traditional doom experience.
User avatar
Graf Zahl
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Lead GZDoom+Raze Developer
Posts: 49096
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 10:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Why are md2 models of vanilla assets unpopular when pwads with addon md2's are?

Post by Graf Zahl »

MD2's are shit, nobody uses that format anymore.
User avatar
leileilol
Posts: 4449
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:16 am
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Location: GNU/Hell

Re: Why are md2 models of vanilla assets unpopular when pwads with addon md2's are?

Post by leileilol »

It doesn't matter how good the model format is or how PBR wow! the renderer is, models don't look good on doom's actor code and animation system.

Return to “General”