Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
hardcore_gamer

Doom engine Vs Build engine

Recommended Posts

While Doom is probably more famous, the engine used to make Doom and Heretic still looks pretty bad compared to the engine used to make Duke Nukem 3D and Blood. Effects like explosions look much better, and the levels often appear to be more complicated.

Now, I haven't made any levels for build engine games (in fact, I don't even know if there is a level editor for Build engine games similar to how Doom engine games have Doom Builder) so perhaps making levels for Build engine games is much harder then making levels for Doom is. But at least on the surface, the build engine looks better.

So, which engine do you think is better overall? The Doom engine or the Build engine?

Share this post


Link to post

Why are you bringing up visuals when discussing engines? The two have nothing to do with each other in your examples.

Doom's engine ran faster back when it mattered, and it was released first.

Share this post


Link to post

I actually thought that the explosions and fires in Duke Nukem, while cool on their own, looked a little out of place with the rest of the art style in the game. However, when it's effects like that, I'm certain the same could've been achieved in Doom if anyone wanted to.

I like both engines though for the different things they provide and the games they released.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

While Doom is probably more famous, the engine used to make Doom and Heretic still looks pretty bad compared to the engine used to make Duke Nukem 3D and Blood. Effects like explosions look much better, and the levels often appear to be more complicated.


You are talking about different art styles, not engines.

And while the Build engine had a lot of additional features like the ability to interact with different parts of the environment, more sprite animation frames, and the ability to overlay sectors(all to be expected, since it's a few years younger, which meant a WORLD of difference in the mid 90's), this does not take away from the fact that's it's still prone to probably 10x as many glitches as id Tech 1. That's not an exaggeration either, that's an honest assessment after spending hundreds and hundreds of hours playing games with both engines. I probably could not count how many fucking times in a given half-hour session of DN3D I would experience the 'popping rapidly between two sectors glitch' (as happens when trying to submerge beneath water for instance), or some other variant of it, simply because it happens so much that I forget about it after a while. There's also the fact that you can't get crushed by something without the screen having some crazy artifacts when it asks you to load the last save game, or the fact that pipe bombs do some wonky shit whenever you toss them inside a narrow space, or seem to disappear entirely.

Sure, the Build engine has it's advantages, but stability sure as hell isn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post

Just using the noclip code in Duke3D crashes the game with almost 100% certainty. It's really terribly unstable. After reading the online code review for it, I'm not a bit surprised either. The game code is complete shit, and the rendering engine is a bit undisciplined to put it nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

Just using the noclip code in Duke3D crashes the game with almost 100% certainty.


Heh, I remember that from ages ago: turn off noclip when not in the map and things go boom. And not with your pretty explosions. :P

Share this post


Link to post

The Build engine may be more dynamic but of course it comes at a price.
The maximum complexity of maps is considerably lower than what Doom allows, especially when it comes to wide open areas.

I once tried to add a Build-inspired renderer to GZDoom but it utterly failed on some maps with lots of stuff in view. Since it has to sort geometry on the fly a lot of time will be spent on this. Doom's BSP has all this sorting already baked into the map format.

Back in the day it didn't matter because the original Doom's low limits would prohibit such large maps but in terms of performance Doom scales a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post

Modern engines like id Tech 4 use a sort of hybrid between portal logic and BSPs for purely static geometry. I think combining approaches this way is probably the means to keep what you describe from being such a big problem, by removing dynamic sorting overhead wherever possible.

Then again my cursory understanding of id Tech 4 is pretty bad so feel free to ignore everything I just said ^_^

Share this post


Link to post

I've never played a Build Engine game that came close to Doom, so what does that tell you? Even for Duke 3D, I always felt that I was playing Doom if Doom were slowed down and had worse level design- and this was in 1998.

Share this post


Link to post

Duke3D is a cool game, but I didn't play it much in the 90's because for several years, I had a 486 with 4 MB RAM (enough for DOOM and Heretic, but not Duke3D). Later on I upgraded it to 8 MB, but that only lasted for a short while until Quake came out, and then forgot all about Duke3D. ;-)

Apparently the game came bundled with its own map editor, and many were created by fans. There is also a repository similar to /idgames:
ftp://ftp.gamers.org/pub/games/duke3d/
I don't know how good that editor is compared to the old DOOM editors like DEU, DCK, etc. Maybe someone who actually made maps can comment... And if you're looking for a good map to play, I can recommended "Invaded" by Matthew & Jessica Parrish. BTW, to run a user map, you can either use the setup.exe, or run it like "duke3d.exe -map maps\invaded.map" (with setup.exe though all the files have to be in your main duke3d directory, rather than a subdir). I'm not sure if the -map switch is even documented anywhere other than some FAQ...

I would probably play the game more if there was an equivalent to Chocolate Doom. I know about eduke32, but didn't like it much (it changes too much).

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

Modern engines like id Tech 4 use a sort of hybrid between portal logic and BSPs for purely static geometry. I think combining approaches this way is probably the means to keep what you describe from being such a big problem, by removing dynamic sorting overhead wherever possible.

The main point of idTech4 portals is to remove the need to generate a PVS for a map, which was needed by earlier engines (Quake 1, 2, 3) and was always a very time-consuming task when compiling a map. With idTech4, the renderer decides whether to visit an area adjacent to the current area by checking if any portals are on-screen and potentially visible.

The downside is that mappers are now burdened with the task of deciding how to divide the map into areas and placing the portals between those areas -- though I guess it isn't a massive burden.

Share this post


Link to post
hex11 said:

I would probably play the game more if there was an equivalent to Chocolate Doom. I know about eduke32, but didn't like it much (it changes too much).


Have you checked out the recently released MEGATON edition for Duke 3D that was released on STEAM? Its basically a modern port that updates a few things but as far as I know still doesn't change too much. It also has all of the expansions as well.

The only reason I haven't finished most of it yet is that I keep getting stuck in the levels which makes me ragequit.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I suppose that one is answered. The Doom engine is unbelievably easy to manipulate with all of the tools we have now (Doom Builder, SlumpEd, etc etc) but was even considered 'easy' back in the DEU days, for the time of course. I'm sure this has literally nothing to do with the way the actual engine is designed, but the fact that it's still being used today to make some of the most fun things I've ever played has me cheering 'Doom'.

As a funny side note, back when I was a little kid I thought ID may one day sue 3D Realms for modding Doom and releasing it as a new game. I couldn't even tell it was an updated engine, of course I didn;t know what a 'game engine' even was back then though I was probably about 10 or younger. As stated, it just seemed like a slow paced Doom expansion.

Share this post


Link to post

I would really like to hear someone speak up about mapping for Build, and whether there's a DoomBuilder equivalent.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

Have you checked out the recently released MEGATON edition for Duke 3D that was released on STEAM?


Won't work for me, I use one of those communist OS that don't have steam and needs everything in source code format. :-)

And actually someone did start a project similar to Chocolate Doom:
https://github.com/fabiensanglard/chocolate_duke3D
But it seems he only tested on Windows and OS/X, and there's no Makefile or autoconf scripts, or any other kind of portable build system like that.

So for now I stick with DOSBox, which isn't too bad. In fact , it runs Duke3D smoother than DOOM, for some strange reasons...

Share this post


Link to post

Eduke3d comes with a modern version of BUILD called Mapster. It works but save often.

Share this post


Link to post

The only real trouble that I had with Build was assigning the right soundeffects to the right places...
For instance, if I created a door aboard a spacestation then it wouldn't be opening with the fitting techno-whooshing sound unless I tag the correct sound-effect number to it.
The documentation file which was supplied by the developers did not contain the list of soundeffect tag numbers. It only described the varieties of taggable sprites and where to put them to achieve a desired effect.
So basically, I ended up being an architect of a spacestation with doors which sounded like smashing glass bottles whenever they were opened...
It was never released for obvious reasons. And now it never will be released because it is on a floppy disk which either got lost or got thrown away into a trash can a whole decade ago.
Besides, I felt that the pinky demons and the plasma gun were much more satisfying for populating maps than the protonized slimers and the freezethrower.
Although I do adore the pipebombs and the shrinkray much more than the rocket launcher. *sigh*
And I do love the ease with which the Build engine handles paralaxing floor textures. It allows for a perfect simulation of a spacestation floating in the void.

Share this post


Link to post
Marcaek said:

Eduke3d comes with a modern version of BUILD called Mapster. It works but save often.


I can't help but wonder why nobody has created something similar to Doom Builder but for Build engine games. I mean Duke Nukem 3D has been re-released A LOT so it's not like there isn't any interest in these games. Plus I hear that Shadow Warrior may soon get a re-release similar to Duke's MEGATON edition. It makes me wonder if there are plans to re-release Blood also. That would be awesome, since that XL project doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

I can't help but wonder why nobody has created something similar to Doom Builder but for Build engine games. I mean Duke Nukem 3D has been re-released A LOT so it's not like there isn't any interest in these games. Plus I hear that Shadow Warrior may soon get a re-release similar to Duke's MEGATON edition. It makes me wonder if there are plans to re-release Blood also. That would be awesome, since that XL project doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

Duke 3D and Shadow Warrior have been released officially, both using the JF engines respectively.

We won't see a Blood port anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post

Shadow Warrior is good with the second last version of the SWP port, it can also be set to 8bit mode for the original experience and certain software graphics elements that don't work the same way in the higher bit modes, not to mention can play the redbook audio music from the CD version of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

I can't help but wonder why nobody has created something similar to Doom Builder but for Build engine games.

Agreed. I've attempted to map for duke3d and blood but never had the strength of learning the inputs and the editors' own systems. I'd like a ''Doom BUILDer'', an editor that uses the DB2 mechanics but has the Build game features (slopes, texture resizing, room over rooms, special tags) added.

Share this post


Link to post
ASD said:

Agreed. I've attempted to map for duke3d and blood but never had the strength of learning the inputs and the editors' own systems. I'd like a ''Doom BUILDer'', an editor that uses the DB2 mechanics but has the Build game features (slopes, texture resizing, room over rooms, special tags) added.


Sounds like a challenge for CodeImp.

I wonder if he will accept it...!

Share this post


Link to post

As far as sloping sectors are concerned, it's not much of a challenge. All you need is the numeric keypad at the right side of your keyboard and you're all set to go.
The real challenge is in making a functional subway train system. I wasn't able to get that one to work.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

Sounds like a challenge for CodeImp.

I wonder if he will accept it...!


Hahaha.. He should call it BUILD Builder!

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't CodeImp name it Doom Builder because he wanted a Doom editor with the same kind of work flow as the Build editor had? I think I read that somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×