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

At what resolution do you play/build Doom?

Recommended Posts

1152x648 here.

I'm thinking it affects how I build spaces these days, compared to how I used to map. In the DEU times, resolutions were lower, so I think I tended to make smaller spaces...

Share this post


Link to post

800x600 on a laptop widescreen so i can look at a notepad or irc while i'm getting destroyed

the idea of preferred resolution messing with your sense of scale is an interesting one!

Share this post


Link to post

My native resolution, 2560x1440. I would actually prefer to play at 320x200 (or even more ideal, 428x200 for widescreen), but only Chocolate Doom has the means to do it reasonably on modern displays. I really wish ports like (G)ZDoom and Eternity had scaling code like Chocolate has.

As for sense of scale, I don't think resolution should matter: to me it's about pixel density, not the size of the screen. That being said, I prefer fullscreen over windowed.

Share this post


Link to post

zdoom actually does have some limited scaling code which can be activated through the -2 and -4 command line parameters. Though perhaps something a bit more flexible would be cool.

Share this post


Link to post

I go about it at 1920x1080 basically for everything now, playing, editing and testing, and recording for YouTube. Also I go with uncapped frame rate with VSync to eliminate the crazy coil whine my GPU gets when its spitting 3000+ frames.

Hopefully when it becomes a thing, GLBoom+ will support 21:9 resolutions like 3440x1440... That would be great :P

Share this post


Link to post

I play at 800x600 capped at 35 fps generally. Resolution has never had much impact on how I design maps, though - I try to make everything play/look decent to matter what res or render the player uses.

Edit: Always fullscreen, never got why anyone would play windowed by choice aside from streaming or hardware limits or some such.

Share this post


Link to post

Always in glorious 1366x768 720p. I can't imagine how people play 320x200 resolution these days. I tried Chocolate Doom and I couldn't make out shit. Capped FPS also doesn't feel smooth.

Share this post


Link to post

in general I just do uncapped fps at native resolution (1920x1080), but I can play just as well at 320x200 at 35hz. I build my maps at 1920x1080 and do main testing at the same resolution (and like the silly person I am, usually through ZDoom since I'm just too used to its controls), but every time I make a vanilla compat map, I do pop it into Chocolate and do a full playthrough (and usually a bunch of sub-tests during development to check for VPO and seg overflows, among other things) to ensure I didn't miss anything that would make vanilla cry.

Share this post


Link to post

1920x1080 if the engine supports it. 35 FPS (feels smooth thanks to getting actual 35 hz refresh rate)

Vanilla and Boom of course at 320x200.

Share this post


Link to post

2560x1440 all day everyday.

It surprises me though how low of a resolution some people play at, is that a choice or is it limited to hardware?

Share this post


Link to post
Blastfrog said:

I would actually prefer to play at 320x200 (or even more ideal, 428x200 for widescreen), but only Chocolate Doom has the means to do it reasonably on modern displays.

You may find this thread interesting. Nowadays I always use the method described to play prboom-plus in software 320x200 and I really like it.

I agree that the resolution affects the way you build maps. Now that I'm playing with a low resolution, even very simple rooms can look interesting with the right texture selection. So I don't need to put many details in my levels at all. Also if you're playing with a wrong aspect ratio, that will strongly influence you too (happaned to me in the past).

But for mapping I'm using full 1920x1080 and I think GZDoom Builder renders everything in OpenGL, so it's a bit tricky how what I see in 3D mode is very different from what I get in the game, especially when it comes to lighting. But I think that's actually a good thing because when I load the map it feels all fresh and new and makes it more exciting to play.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it affects my architecture a lot, but it sure does impact texture design. The added resolution of modern systems (I'm in team 2560x1440 like many others here) allow you to make out a lot more detail at a distance, which favors textures with more detail whereas a 320x200 display means textures need to have clear overall features more than micro detail.

But at least I play with software rendering and avoid dithering like the plague that it is. There are projects with impressively designed textures that to me lose most of their appeal since they were converted to the 8 bit palette with dithering; It looks OK in GL modes but in software, i.e. how Doom is supposed to look, dithering is simply not nice IMO. I was a dithering doofus back in the Darkening E2 days though so I'm just as guilty.

And yes, I prefer the look of Quake 2 in software mode for this very reason: Anti aliased rendering smears out the most well crafted 8-bit texture set in the history of gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
jdagenet said:

It surprises me though how low of a resolution some people play at, is that a choice or is it limited to hardware?

For me, it's a choice.

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
×