Good question! I am still planning to make Android/iOS ports. That was one of the major motivations behind basing Doomsday on Qt, as it allows relatively easily building mobile apps, too.
The major obstacle for doing this at the moment is that the rendering code is not OpenGL ES compatible. After the stable 2.0 release is out, I intend to look into splitting the renderer so that we can have both the classic desktop renderer and a new, OpenGL 3+/ES compatible renderer. Initially I expect the new rendering code will be very bare-bones and non-customizable (in terms of rendering appearance options), just to get something up and running.
In the longer term, there is also potential to look into Vulkan/Metal rendering, however with the kind of graphics Doomsday is dealing with (i.e., not that complex), I don't expect much benefit to be gained by going with these lower-level APIs.
Thanks for the quick response. I look forward to its release in the future. seeing as I use this Doomsday Engine for all my id games of old. I'll be making a Donation on your sourceforge page. =D>
but skyjake you are forgetting something. yes doom is not that complex but with better rendering we can get doomsday looking as good as the new doom but for doom, heretic, and hexen and that is worth doing to get the best the doom engine can get.
Thanks for the quick response. I look forward to its release in the future. seeing as I use this Doomsday Engine for all my id games of old. I'll be making a Donation on your sourceforge page. =D>
but skyjake you are forgetting something. yes doom is not that complex but with better rendering we can get doomsday looking as good as the new doom but for doom, heretic, and hexen and that is worth doing to get the best the doom engine can get.
Certainly. The general idea for the new renderer is naturally to utilize normal maps, improved lighting, etc., similar to the new 3D model renderer that is already implemented for version 2.0. However, even with additional geometric detail added to the maps, they are still simple when compared to modern 3D games. In any case, the renderer needs to be revised in smaller increments, so if at some point the graphics API looks like a bottleneck on one platform, alternatives can be explored.
well i can dream of the day when we get doom looking like doom 2016 as much as possible with textures. think of the skin walls looking like actual skin? now that would be something.
Comments
The major obstacle for doing this at the moment is that the rendering code is not OpenGL ES compatible. After the stable 2.0 release is out, I intend to look into splitting the renderer so that we can have both the classic desktop renderer and a new, OpenGL 3+/ES compatible renderer. Initially I expect the new rendering code will be very bare-bones and non-customizable (in terms of rendering appearance options), just to get something up and running.
In the longer term, there is also potential to look into Vulkan/Metal rendering, however with the kind of graphics Doomsday is dealing with (i.e., not that complex), I don't expect much benefit to be gained by going with these lower-level APIs.
Certainly. The general idea for the new renderer is naturally to utilize normal maps, improved lighting, etc., similar to the new 3D model renderer that is already implemented for version 2.0. However, even with additional geometric detail added to the maps, they are still simple when compared to modern 3D games. In any case, the renderer needs to be revised in smaller increments, so if at some point the graphics API looks like a bottleneck on one platform, alternatives can be explored.