[VOTE]What is important for us - the users of the engine.

Bono_PL

This poll is created for users Doomsday.

Engine makers will know what is important to us! Vote!

Sorry for my English.

Vermil

1. doesn't really go with the others; 1. is, hopefully, a given with any of the others.

Dday 2, though still a way off (1.9.7 lays the foundations), aims to be all the options on that list and more; nuff said.

Bono_PL

Yes, but to attract people to use DDay, development must have any priorities.

mystique

couldnt decide, so i went for second option, support for all modern features.
but i am also real much for 1, i really want an engine without bugs.

its annoying how many bugs D-day has, especially compared to other sourceports,
and not just doom sourceports but sourceports in general

especially the ever-existing segmentation violation which has been around for years is real annoying



and it would also be great if we got proper multiplayer support for doomsday, so we can play doom online with the awesome graphics doomsday engine supports
id love to be able to play a game of heretic or hexen in coop with friends using doomsday instead of having to use skulltag for that which misses all the amazing models and effects doomsday has


but to me most important is no bugs and amazing graphics, and we're well on our way with second one already


oh, and also another thing which is real important to me, if everything of hexen would work perfectly.
i totally love hexen too, but all the bugs present still in doomsday when using hexen make the game pretty much unplayable with doomsday. it would be awesome if hexen would work perfectly too )

DaniJ

Many of the bugs present in Hexen are not fixable and some are bugs in the original game scripts. There is a point after which we are no longer fixing bugs but rewriting the game itself.

Lightning Hunter

I don't think I can answer this poll, because it's not really worded the way I would like it to be. Some of these questions go hand-in-hand. For example, I think it's important that all these recent bugs are fixed, because some of them break compatibility with the graphics. If Doomsday has bugs that break the graphics and game play, then what use is it adding support for better graphics? Obviously, the latest bugs should be top priority. After that, I say move to graphics.

That being said, I'm not looking for the type of graphics mentioned in the poll. I definitely don't care about real time lighting or per-pixel dynamic lighting. Really, it would just be nice if the old days came back when people actually made models for this engine. If adding support for more modern model formats will draw more crowds, then that's what I think should be a top priority, after bug fixes. My deep wish is that Dani would go back to creating models after a stable build is released for Doomsday, but I have a feeling this won't happen...

Multiplayer and coop support seems to be pretty decent right now. As long as the minor bugs are continually fixed as they are reported, and multiplayer support stays as strong as it is now, then I say leave it alone. The only thing I would like to see is the ability to host games within the game menu.

Support for more Megawads out there would be nice, but I don't put this as high up in the list as bug fixes and graphics. I do believe Doomsday could use Boom support.

Bono_PL

Lightning Hunter wrote:

That being said, I'm not looking for the type of graphics mentioned in the poll. I definitely don't care about real time lighting or per-pixel dynamic lighting. Really, it would just be nice if the old days came back when people actually made models for this engine. If adding support for more modern model formats will draw more crowds, then that's what I think should be a top priority, after bug fixes. My deep wish is that Dani would go back to creating models after a stable build is released for Doomsday, but I have a feeling this won't happen...

Hm.. At this moment DDay have graphics like eduke32 POLYMOST Engine. Look on new, with all these modren features POLYMER engine:
http://hrp.duke4.net/screens/ep1/e1l3_03.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v7RyxbDdi0
http://hrp.duke4.net/media.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9nVuf6OM2g

Its totally AMAZING. If DooM 2 can have graphics like this... Ummm, I dreaming about this.

Lightning Hunter

Yes, those screenshots look great and all - but I'll bet it would run like a slide show. You'd have to have a pretty good computer to handle those graphics at full speed. If such graphics ever do come to Doomsday, I would like it to be 100% optional. I also don't want such a feature to ruin support for mods. I've seen a few engines for various games that abandon mod support in order to add such features. In my opinion, there is no point of such graphics if all you can do is play the default game. I know Eduke32 does not do this, but there are a few Quake2 engines that do.

Gordon

nope i have a quad core 2.6gig cpu and 4 gigs of ram and i can run all that just fine all be it if to many monsters are on screen it will lag even in doomsday

Bono_PL

Hehe yes - I have lags in doomsday at this moment on biger maps with actually "max graphics".
No, I don't have ANY lags in eduke32 at this moment on all maps with actually AMAZING graphics.

Windows 7 x64, 4GB DDR2 800MHz, C2Q Q9400, GTX 460 1GB.

JCA

Well, I'd like to see a better model format support and some of those other modern features, but I guess it's better to make all current features stable before adding new stuff.

skyjake

I'll just shortly chime in and say that presently we've got no choice but to focus on the stabilization and bug fixing instead of improved graphics -- what use is a game that looks brilliant but crashes every 5 minutes?

I can state for the record that great graphics (including per-pixel lighting effects such as those linked to by Bono_PL) are one of the key motivators why I'm still working on this project -- I'm driven by the visuals. However, before we get to rewriting the now-ancient rendering code that Doomsday uses (it still has a fixed-function rendering pipeline!) we need to sort out the mess that's accumulated over the years.

The roadmap serves as the official (rough) prioritization of upcoming features/changes. It isn't set in stone: your feedback will influence the order of the items in it.

Milten

I agree with skyjake.

Also some newer games come with great graphic, though may also have some quite annoying bugs.

So I'd also agree that bug-fixing and a polished engine comes first, then multiplayer support and then usage for modern graphics and mods.

But that is always just personal preference. I don't give that much bout graphics if the gameplay is fun.

Tea Monster

Much as I done lurves me some per-pixel lighting and normal maps, I have to say that 1st off the bat has to be stability.

After that, I'm kinda torn on Multiplayer or Next-Gen rendering. I'm kinda thinking that since you've started the multiplayer, you gotta finish it up to a workable standard.

NiuHaka

1 doesn't really fit in with this poll. Having a lack of bugs is not a feature. In other words, 1 should be assumed as part of the overall project no matter what features are included in the final release.

2 had my vote but I shouldn't have even voted because adding new features is not a good idea at this point. Scope creep is something you never want to see in something that you are interesting in being completed. Besides, some of the listed features would only serve as a time sink for people who are developing mods for Doomsday and half of the listed features would probably never be fully utilized. The chances of getting someone to fully flesh out normal maps would be highly unlikely.

my project, http://www.doomascension.com/ is using md2 and i really wish i was able to work with something less limiting. Working with md3 would have really helped with those wobbling verts BUT to be honest it wouldn't really improve the project much if Doomsday supported more modern formats. At least not unless I was willing to change Dooms vanilla behavior, which I am not.

Gordon wrote:

nope i have a quad core 2.6gig cpu and 4 gigs of ram and i can run all that just fine all be it if to many monsters are on screen it will lag even in doomsday

I can fit about 100+ of my animated models on screen, each of them at 2k faces, before i start to notice the frame rates starting to dip... and there really is no good reason to have that many monsters on screen at once.

gary

Lightning Hunter wrote:

Yes, those screenshots look great and all - but I'll bet it would run like a slide show. You'd have to have a pretty good computer to handle those graphics at full speed.

I think Doom 3 might look better than those pics and videos of Duke Nukem 3D in most ways, especially model-wise. Also, Duke Nukem 3D doesn't look nearly as good as the new Batman games or even Crysis (never owned them but I have seen pictures and videos). I sometimes like to google about what is considered the most detailed game currently out there and filter the results by year or month.

Bono_PL

gary wrote:

I think Doom 3 might look better than those pics and videos of Duke Nukem 3D in most ways, especially model-wise. Also, Duke Nukem 3D doesn't look nearly as good as the new Batman games or even Crysis (never owned them but I have seen pictures and videos). I sometimes like to google about what is considered the most detailed game currently out there and filter the results by year or month.

Gary.. What wrong with you!? :P
DooM3 - 2004
Batman games - 2010/11
Crysis - 2007/2011
Duke Nukem 3D - 1996

Duke Nukem 3D has great graphics with POLYMER engine (from eDuke32 port). For now game from 1996 have HQ 3d models, parallax mapping, amazing shaders etc. It's really amazing stuff :P

We want these stuff in Doomsday! <:-P

gary

Ahh, I understand now. It looks good because it is a source port for Duken Nukem. At first I thought it was the new Duke Nukem. Yes, looks good for a source port. This source port does too, if anyone here knows what Freespace is: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index. ... msg1589639 I am curious if people here know about Freespace and its source port. It has normal maps and all.

It just proves that PC games and PCs themselves are superior to consoles and have almost no limitations. Can't do anything with consoles but play what is there (I grew up with consoles). After playing Doomsday and downloading wads, it makes me wonder why I liked the PSX Doom and Doom 64 so much. Back then, I knew nothing of mods and addons and source ports of PC games (probably didn't exist in the 90's anyways). It really increases replay-value and can play all new stuff with the same game.

Tea Monster

Having said all that, imagine if Doom could look like this:

http://hrp.duke4.net/media.php

I too have asked for MD3 support, at least (there are a lot of better formats out there). Apart from the dreaded 'Jelly Effect', MD2 suffers from lack of exporters. You have to use a version of Blender that is at least 11 down from the most modern release, which is just a pain in the arse for modellers. MD3 shouldn't be considered the 'Holy Grail' of model formats though.

With the Doom 3 source port kicking into gear, people are talking about using formats like Collada and FBX for modelling, which is really cool.

gary

The terrain is too jagged and boxy. Also, I'm not seeing normal maps in most places. A few screens have an amazing wall texture though. Also, most models (especially the enemy monster models like the pig cop) look not too good. The Freespace upgraded models are far superior.

However, I will say it does look far superior to current Doomsday in most, if not all ways with the exception of some enemy models. Of course maybe all the models in that source port are better than the current archvile model.

Tea Monster

No matter what you have in normal maps, unless you re-create all the levels from scratch (which has been suggested), you are stuck with sector-based geometry. A lot of the models in the HRP have NOT been properly constructed for Polymer, and are left-overs from the old renderer, so they will look kinda blah. Most of the wall textures have been updated though.

This is my Pinky model, with normal maps. It's slightly higher res than the one in the pack currently, but only by a K or so.
http://www.egans08.webspace.virginmedia ... nky_03.jpg

NiuHaka

That is a fantastic Demon model Tea Monster! Please tell me you've got a 3d mod project going for Doomsday.

gary

Yes, I recall that model was for Doom 3, but it would be wonderful if it was capable of being in Doomsday.

Tea Monster

Thanks!

The model is pretty much the same as the one in the pack at the moment. There is nothing stopping anyone from using it. The only difference from the one in the pack is the addition of spec and normal maps. That is really the only difference. The only structural difference is that I added a few more polys to the legs to define the shape of some of the muscles.

Source is here if any of the devs want to use it to test engine features...
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dmp/files/

download the 'mapped' version.

My caco was originally developed as a 'next gen' model. It would take a bit of effort to upgrade it but not too much.

gary

Tea Monster wrote:

The only difference from the one in the pack is the addition of spec and normal maps. ... The only structural difference is that I added a few more polys to the legs to define the shape of some of the muscles.

Those are big visual differences, especially the normal maps, but sadly Doomsday can't handle normals yet. I use your Pinky model always and there is a big difference between the one for Doomsday and the one you showed in that pic with normals and other enhancements. Looks like far more detail in the one in that pic.

Tea Monster

The normal maps add the extra detail. That is why they use them on modern games, you can have subtle muscle detail, dings, scrapes, panel details, etc, and not have to pay for them with polys

NiuHaka

Well, you could always bake that lighting into the texture. The lighting wouldn't be dynamic but it would still look great.

Tea Monster

The effect varies, sometimes it looks great and sometimes a bit blah. Very much depends on how you set your lighting up and your renderer. If only Yafaray could bake to texture... sigh.

Either way, if I compare a next-gen doom critter to one with baked lighting, usually the difference is very noticeable. Yeah, it does look a lot better than nothing, but with the normal maps, it just 'pops' (

gary

1) What release is the team planning to implement support for normal maps?

2) Since 1.9.7 is done, does that mean that everything is in place for the dev team to implement better graphics, or at least support for such graphics, and not just optimization?

3) Is 1.9.8 intended to be a very minor release as far as ingame performance and graphical improvements go? I think some optimization is one of the goals of 1.9.8, unlike 1.9.7. So far, loading time has improved, but I'm not sure if dynamic lights and other ingame bottlenecks will be rectified.

Vermil

According to the roadmap, the new renderer is, currently, scheduled for 2.1.0. I imagine we won't see any major new visual features until then, if nothing else because the current renderer may not be able to support them.

http://dengine.net/dew/index.php?title=Roadmap

Obviously, the roadmap isn't set in stone though.

JCA

Would there also be support for greyscale bump maps?