For people who don't use source ports, why don't you use them?

[Archy]

It's always been interesting to me seeing the reason behind that individual using the port they use. Normally people talk about how that port works on their OS, how the new features are great, how it plays LMPs back so well, but what about those who don't use a port? What are your reasons?

As you can tell, I only use Vanilla Doom, but I'd like to explain why after I hear your explanations, as I don't want to influence your answer.

[Maes]

I realize I'm not speaking for everyone here, but the #1 factor is convenience, mainly OS-wise: it is not practical or possible for everyone to set a pure DOS machine, and not even 3-4 years ago, DOSBox + the available CPUs were so-so in emulating vanilla Doom at 100% speed and with sufficient accuracy.

The other convenience aspect is being able to play "super vanilla" limit-removing maps, not to mention Boom extensions. After that come all the other gimmicks like higher resolution, better sound, easier multiplayer, scripting etc.

[Porsche Monty]

I've never heard of someone who refuses to use source ports. Even hardcore vanilla users like myself find virtue in something other than the original dos executable. I've gone from vanilla to Boom, from Boom to Legacy, from Legacy to ZDoom/GZDoom and from there back to the roots with Chocolate Doom, and now I'm starting to pay more attention to advanced ports again, even though my main source of entertainment remains vanilla maps through Chocolate Doom. DosBox, I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole, at least not now, it's a disaster.

I'd really like to hear about your argument.

[Archy]

Porsche Monty, I wasn't rely talking about people who absolutely refuse to use source ports, but more people who use Vanilla Doom as their main executable.

Even I occasionally start up a mod in GZDoom.

[Darkman 4]

My reasons for using source ports are as follows:

1. Convenience factor. Getting prBoom+ set up is significantly easier than trying to rig it so that I can easily play Doom with DOSBox. Even better is that prBoom+ has a menu that lets me do things like easily change my controls, while with the orignial. exes, I'd have to mess around with either Setup.exe or do edit a file with Notepad.

2. Save game limits. I know this sounds silly, but one of the things I really like about source ports is that they remove the save game buffer so that there's no chance of it overflowing and rendering my savegame worthless. I'd hate to be playing something like HR1 and find that I can no longer load my savegame because I saved in MAP25.

3. More map variety. Even with just limit-removing ports, I have access to a lot more levels than I would with just doom2.exe. Since most level sets are made with at least limit-removing ports in mind, this is a very good thing.

[Gez]

It's funny that when you ask the question "why don't you use ports", people answer "here's why I use ports".


Anyway, since I'm posting in this thread, here's why I use the vanilla exes (when I use them, which is rarely): to investigate/verify/check out some tidbit of game logic; or to get a vanilla screenshot. Not to actually play, though.

[Darkman 4]

Gez said:

It's funny that when you ask the question "why don't you use ports", people answer "here's why I use ports".

That's because very few people actually use the vanilla .exes to play anymore. :P

[Archy]

I'm not angry at anyone but the title says:
For people who don't use source ports, why don't you use them?

Edit: Gez beat me to it :(

[[PROTOTYPE]]

In conclusion, the original executables are just obsolete. There's no reason for anyone to refuse using source ports, unless they have a really shitty PC with a 486, or some other equivalent.

[Darkman 4]

[PROTOTYPE] said:
In conclusion, the original executables are just obsolete. There's no reason for anyone to refuse using source ports, unless they have a really shitty PC with a 486, or some other equivalent.

What if they want to record demos, want to test their levels in 1.9 to make sure there's nothing like visplane overflows or just like the gameplay feel that vanilla Doom2.exe has? Not everyone will embrace something because it's technically better.

[[PROTOTYPE]]

Darkman 4 said:

What if they want to record demos, want to test their levels in 1.9 to make sure there's nothing like visplane overflows or just like the gameplay feel that vanilla Doom2.exe has? Not everyone will embrace something because it's technically better.

-I agree with the part about the demos.

-If they want the ol'skool gameplay feel, they can always go with Chocolate Doom.

-Yes they will, because if we would go by your logic, everyone would still play Doom 1.0

(ghostly voice) [PROTOTYPE] go to bed you worthless fag, or I'll stick a crowbar up your fat lazy ass.

EDIT: Oh man, gotta go, this asshole won't leave me alone! Mommy!

[Darkman 4]

[PROTOTYPE] said:

-I agree with the part about the demos.

-If they want the ol'skool gameplay feel, they can always go with Chocolate Doom.

-Yes they will, because if we would go by your logic, everyone would still play Doom 1.0

If they want the true classic Doom feel, they'll go with doom2.exe. Chocolate Doom is based on the Linux version of Doom, which has a few things changed and the sound system has been completely removed. Chocolate Doom may be close, but I don't think it'll ever be 100% like doom2.exe.

People would rather go with 1.9 because it's fixed several big bugs (like projectiles starting triggers if they pass through them) and done things like increase the visplane limit. Why would you use an obsolete version of the original engine when the final version of it is included with every Doom distribution made in the past 14 or so years and is the standard for everything that still uses doom2.exe, like Compete-N demos?

[Porsche Monty]

[PROTOTYPE] said:
In conclusion, the original executables are just obsolete. There's no reason for anyone to refuse using source ports, unless they have a really shitty PC with a 486, or some other equivalent.

So much of a misconception.

I have a 3.0ghz and I get to dual-boot with DOS, where vanilla runs just perfectly with both sound and OPL, no compromises. I even have working network drivers, but I don't use them.

Why settle for a source port like CD instead? mere convenience, and the fact that at some point I'll have to let go of this machine as it won't be able to keep up with the more demanding applications that I'll probably need to run. Might not happen today or even in a few years, but I can see it coming, and I'd be lost without something vanilla-enough to fall back to when Windows 10 is out...

[printz]

I use vanilla Doom to play wads that work with it because IT'S THE REAL DOOM. The fact that there's no exact source code for it (what we have available is only linux-doom) makes it even more awesome.

[Xaser]

I've got a netbook that dual-boots DOS so I have the original executables there. Otherwise, Chocolate Doom fills the required niche just well for me.

The title got me thinking: How many people around actually don't use source ports at all? I'm sure the number is quite small in this day and age.

[shadow1013]

I don't use DOOM sourceports mainly because I have OCD for originality. And unless I can get the original sourcecode, I still hesitate to clean up the released sources for my (linux) os

[TimeOfDeath]

Gez said:

or to get a vanilla screenshot.

You, sir, are gross.

[Technician]

It was the source port that cemented Doom into my life. It's one of the reasons I don't play Blood very often. The source port allows me to customize the game preferences just enough to suite my computer and still feel legit(no bullshit).

[Donce]

I only feel comfortable when playing with DOS executables (movement controls just feel different in Win-based ports, and Zdoom is just horrible). So that leaves mainly vanilla (and plus) and Boom 2.02. For casual play, I use the latter (removed limits, better sound), and for recording I use vanilla or plus when possible, otherwise Boom.

OS is not a problem, as my main OS is still Win98SE (dual boot with XP, which I use occasionally when really needed). I assembled as good a computer as was possible, with all components fully and officially supporting Win98, in 2008. And I refuse to use an LCD monitor just because vanilla looks shitty on it.

[Pirx]

Maes said:

I realize I'm not speaking for everyone here, but the #1 factor is convenience, mainly OS-wise: it is not practical or possible for everyone to set a pure DOS machine, and not even 3-4 years ago, DOSBox + the available CPUs were so-so in emulating vanilla Doom at 100% speed and with sufficient accuracy.

The other convenience aspect is being able to play "super vanilla" limit-removing maps, not to mention Boom extensions. After that come all the other gimmicks like higher resolution, better sound, easier multiplayer, scripting etc.

i use win7 64bit, so i guess the original exe doesn't run on my gaming pc, never tried it anyway. besides, using 320x200 on a 27" screen or larger can only result in a pixel mess.

scripting is another important thing, many maps today are rather boom-compatible than vanilla, so why shouldn't i be able to play them?

Darkman 4 said:

1. Convenience factor. Getting prBoom+ set up is significantly easier than trying to rig it so that I can easily play Doom with DOSBox. Even better is that prBoom+ has a menu that lets me do things like easily change my controls, while with the orignial. exes, I'd have to mess around with either Setup.exe or do edit a file with Notepad.

i guess i'd have a hard time with vanilla doom even on a DOS machine because of this, i'm just too used with having my weapons bound to the keys around WASD for switching to the number keys, so i'd probably would quit vanilla out of frustration.

[CODOR]

I suppose a lot of people who bought Doom on Steam are using vanilla under DOSBox.

Most DOS ports use Allegro for sound which doesn't load the GENMIDI lump, making the music sound odd on an OPL synth.

[Krispy]

Why is everyone discussing DOSbox? My computer doesn't need it. Is that weird?
P.S. It's an '08 machine

[Archy]

Krispy said:

Why is everyone discussing DOSbox? My computer doesn't need it. Is that weird?
P.S. It's an '08 machine

I can almost guarantee that it's running a 32 bit (or lower) OS.

[phi108]

The vanilla .exe ran on my 32 bit WinXP, but no longer on 64bit Win 7.

Regarding Dosbox, it performs flawlessly in windowed mode for me, but going fullscreen screws up Vsync and introduces tearing in every output mode I try. This is the only flaw I've seen though.

(After getting Vanilla running again, I actually did a playthrough of Nuts.wad in Vanilla, albeit using noclip and staying out of sight of all enemies until the exit. It only rendered a fraction of the enemies at a time, but I was amazed it didn't crash instantly.)

[Archy]

Doom has a good chance of running on 32 bit OSs, it's the 64 bit that kills compatibility.

phi108, check this out:
http://ykhwong.x-y.net/

Hopefully that will stop your Vsync issues.

[Porsche Monty]

I get no tearing with the official DosBox release on WinXP Pro SP3 as long as I'm using ddraw. Other outputs are useless on this computer.

Still, vsync is about the last of my concerns. Even if you get it working, the emulated video card in DosBox has a predefined refresh rate for the mode 13h that's not exactly 70.xxxxxxxxxxxxxhz, so even though Doom may be able to generate and sustain 35fps, you'll get some nasty stuttering as DosBox (even the supposedly advanced ykhwong build) is unable to compensate for the discrepancy between the emulated refresh rate and your host's refresh rate.

[MasterofJKD]

I love ZDoom, heavily modifiable, great for mapping, and admittedly I play zdaemon multiplayer to really get the full original "Doom" multiplayer experience back in the day.

[ASD]

I use vanilla because of memories. DOS is the 100% original Doom to me.

[[PROTOTYPE]]

Darkman 4 said:

People would rather go with 1.9 because it's fixed several big bugs (like projectiles starting triggers if they pass through them) and done things like increase the visplane limit. Why would you use an obsolete version of the original engine when the final version of it is included with every Doom distribution made in the past 14 or so years and is the standard for everything that still uses doom2.exe, like Compete-N demos?

X(( That was not my point...

Never mind... :|

[Maes]

Oh no no no, the original Doom is Doom: Evil Unleashed. The ONLY original gameplay consisted of...well, staring at a Baron. Everything else is just for wannabes.