---

Graf Zahl said:


The original, definitely. However, I have almost completely rewritten that part so the version in GZDoom doesn't have any memory management issues anymore.

---

---

To me the biggest issue with the existing code base is that expression evaluation does not know real operator precedence but I fear if I fixed that some Legacy WADs wouldn't run anymore.

---

---

Graf Zahl said:
Does the wraparound sky not work in Legacy? What happens if you set that in the FS header?

---

---

kristus said:

It works in Hardware render mode. But not in Software. Gives tutti frutti effects.

---

---

Graf Zahl said:
However, since I don't want GZDoom to be compromised I added a new key 'ignore' to the FS level info parser. Put 'ignore = 1' in the first line of your level info and all upcoming GZDoom versions won't read its contents.

---

---

Juiche said:
I hate GZDooM graphics. Best is skulltag

---

---

Juiche said:
I hate GZDooM graphics. Best is skulltag

---

---

Breadrobber said:
I just use zDoom because it doesn't have all those annoying lighting effects =6.

---

---

Breadrobber said:
What does the "G" in "GZDoom" stand for anyways?

---

---

Csonicgo said:
And there soon won't be any shaders, unless you buy the latest and greatest Grafixxx cards! :(

---

---

Graf Zahl said:



If you insist on staying behind by 3 or more generations you really don't deserve better. Shall I limit the feature set just for the few stubborn individuals who refuse to upgrade?

Or said differently, the current code base has become close to unmaintainable due to the vastly different hardware it has to support. The result is various bugs in the shader code that are hard to find and even harder to fix. Sorry, pal, but starting with a clean slate is the only option I see to move on. 'Clean slate' meaning in this case to concentrate on the hardware which can do what I need to develop the rendering code without fallback cases for older cards that only have limited shader support. I don't want to mess up the code again.

---

---

That's where the old renderer comes in. It will continue to work on older cards.

But I absolutely see no point in investing time in something that has to compromise all the way just to work on old hardware. The new renderer is meant to better exploit the capabilities of modern hardware. It uses shaders for everything and completely circumvents the old fixed function pipeline which is the root of all the problems that have crept into the rendering code. The new renderer uses a much leaner system interface because it doesn't have to bother with all the cruft that is needed to render both with shaders and with the hard coded functionality of old cards. This alone should make it faster.

On the other hand, if I had to code everything with compatibility fallbacks in mind it'd go nowhere. I rather keep the old code around, stripped off all shader support so that the end result will essentially 2 rendering paths - the current one for old hardware and the new one for new hardware.

So the system requirements are:

- OpenGL 2.1
- full GLSL support
- full vertex buffer and texture buffer object support.

If I wouldn't set these minimum requirements the entire rewrite would be an exercise in pointlessness.

That means Geforce 8xxx series or better and modern ATI cards only.
Everything else will fall back to the existing rendering code - but will also obviously miss out on future enhancements.

---

---

Mike.Reiner said:

By the way, Graf Zahl, for this major overhaul you are planning, what kind of requirements are needed? Shader model 2.0 or greater or something along those lines?

---

---

The amount of money to upgrade a video card to something with decent shader support is trivial. Any video card that you would want to be using to play current gen games is more than enough I would imagine. If somebody's hardware is too much older than that, then I don't imagine they really care about newer games or fancy hardware accelerated effects in doom anyway.

---

---

Phml said:

Again, the plan is fine, but it's just stupid to wrap it up with bullshit excuses. It's not like there's a need to justify these choices.

---

---

esselfortium said:
Well, I for one can't wait to not be able to play any new GZDoom mods on my 2007 laptop that runs Doom 3, Half-Life 2, and Portal flawlessly. Bring it on.

---

---

Graf Zahl said:
For ATI I can't say for sure what the low end will be. I'm certain that the Radeon 2000 series will work fine though. But it will require recent drivers for some features on ATI because they only implemented one extension I plan to use (texture buffer objects) in one of the most recent Catalyst versions.

---

---

esselfortium said:
I'm aware you're planning to keep the old renderer, but when its capabilities are adopted by new mods I won't be able to play them, hence my post. I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense at all that I won't be able to play new GZDoom mods on a computer that can run more powerful 3D engines with no problems whatsoever.

---

---

Whoo said:


Oh man. That is absolutely pathetic requirements you're setting there. I'm already barely able to play Gzdoom on my Radeon x1300, and I can't imagine what it'll be like when you remake the render.

---

---

You need to optimize the engine, seriously.

---

---

I'm able to play both Doom 3 and Far Cry at 1024x768, with everything on high and get between 20 and 40 frames per second. I'm not buying another video card just so that I'd be able to play one program.

---

---

Graf Zahl said:
Doom will never *ever* be able to get the same performance out of modern hardware as newer games.

---