Back to saturn on doom95? Or any near-vanilla port?

[invictius]

Doom95 will not accept multiple wad files, even on a command line.  Chocolate doom won't run on any o.s other than xp, and running it on xp is beside the point because I want to see if it will run on a port with no bells and whistles, to test its' vanilla-ness - and obviously any machine that can run xp will have no issues with the wad.  Trying to avoid running a port under dos because I want to see the fps, not the kind of counter you get with devparm that only indicates 9, 18, or 36 fps.

[Doomkid]

Chocolate Doom runs on XP, Vista, 7, 8 and 10, far as Windows goes. I think older builds might've even run on Win98. It also runs on various versions of Linux. Not sure where you got the XP only thing from, it's very much cross-platform.

 

I assume if you compiled all the resources into one wad, it would work on Doom95, though for the music to play back it would have to be converted to MUS format. I'll check it out, kinda curious myself.

[BigDickBzzrak]

Maybe try a very very very early version of DOSDoom/ZDoom/Legacy/whatever.

[dl_simc]

If you had that p133 you could try some old ZDoom:

https://zdoom.org/files/zdoom/
Atleast 1.23.33/win32 had a "VID_FPS 1" console command to give the fps reading and it works even with w95. It however required directx. (dx6.1 and 7.0 shoud do)

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/zdoom/zdoom-1.23b33-win32.zip

Versions below 2.1 should/might run on w95 too. The DOS version 1.17c didn't have the fps counter.

Edited May 8, 2017 by dl_simc : direct link

[dew]

12 hours ago, invictius said:

Doom95 will not accept multiple wad files, even on a command line.

That's odd. This list specifically mentions -file works with one or more PWADs, do you see any errors when loading?

[invictius]

2 hours ago, dew said:

That's odd. This list specifically mentions -file works with one or more PWADs, do you see any errors when loading?

I run doom95 from a command line ms-dos prompt with -file and the 2 wads, but all it does is bring up the gui.

[fraggle]

I for one am confused about what you're trying to do. Is your goal to "run BTSX under Win9x"? Or is it that you want to run it on a vintage machine and see the frame rate? Statements like this:

15 hours ago, invictius said:

Trying to avoid running a port under dos because I want to see the fps, not the kind of counter you get with devparm that only indicates 9, 18, or 36 fps.

are confusing for example. What does using a DOS port have to do with seeing the frame rate?

 

If you look you'll probably find that there are a variety of source ports which you can use - whether it's Win9x or DOS. They just aren't developed any more. But look back to the ~1998-2003 era and you'll probably find something that fits the bill - whether it's very (very) old versions of PrBoom or ZDoom, Doom Legacy or similar. If DOS works then maybe try Boom or MBF. I'm not sure which had frame rate counters - would -timedemo be good enough if you just want to measure performance?

[invictius]

7 hours ago, dl_simc said:

If you had that p133 you could try some old ZDoom:

https://zdoom.org/files/zdoom/
Atleast 1.23.33/win32 had a "VID_FPS 1" console command to give the fps reading and it works even with w95. It however required directx. (dx6.1 and 7.0 shoud do)

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/zdoom/zdoom-1.23b33-win32.zip

Versions below 2.1 should/might run on w95 too. The DOS version 1.17c didn't have the fps counter.

Iwads work fine with 1.23.33 but loading btsx:

 

[invictius]

2 hours ago, fraggle said:

I for one am confused about what you're trying to do. Is your goal to "run BTSX under Win9x"? Or is it that you want to run it on a vintage machine and see the frame rate? Statements like this:

are confusing for example. What does using a DOS port have to do with seeing the frame rate?

 

If you look you'll probably find that there are a variety of source ports which you can use - whether it's Win9x or DOS. They just aren't developed any more. But look back to the ~1998-2003 era and you'll probably find something that fits the bill - whether it's very (very) old versions of PrBoom or ZDoom, Doom Legacy or similar. If DOS works then maybe try Boom or MBF. I'm not sure which had frame rate counters - would -timedemo be good enough if you just want to measure performance?

Fraps won't show its counter for prboom for some reason but I'll keep trying other ports.

[dl_simc]

6 hours ago, invictius said:

Iwads work fine with 1.23.33 but loading btsx:

 

(Darn.) OK, I suggest you do the following:

 

1) You must edit btsx_e1a.wad by yourself. It's simple, you can do it in two ways: 

 

1a) If you have a modern PC get Slade.
1b) If your PC running Win XP or older get XWE.

 

If you already have one of them, even better. Unzip the editor in some folder, run it (and give Doom2.wad location when they ask). Open btsx_e1a.wad in the editor and delete or rename both MAPINFO and LANGUAGE lumps (They're the lumps 5 and 6 in btsx_e1a.wad)

 

You already found the LANGUAGE lump error but old ZDooms also dislike that MAPINFO too. If you rename them give them some unique name such as "_APINFO" and "_ANGUAGE".  If you are using Slade save the wad after deleting or renaming the two lumps. If you are using XWE click File>Clean up after deleting or renaming the two lumps.

 

This sounds cruel, but those two lumps contain level names, episode texts, par times etc. you'll hardly notice when finding out fps counts.

 

2) I noticed that ZDoom 1.23beta33 apparently has a fps cap of 35! (Darn!) If you think that's crap, get ZDoom 2.0.96 instead.

If you can run 1.23.33 you should do 2.0.96 too.

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/zdoom/zdoom-2.0.96-win32.zip

If everything goes all right you should have:

328 fps? Is that good enough? (screenshots are from XP in VM)

[Graf Zahl]

8 hours ago, invictius said:

Iwads work fine with 1.23.33 but loading btsx:

 

 

That happens because BTSX contains a LANGUAGE lump. In older ZDooms this was a binary lump with a version dependent number of strings. Guess why it got replaced a few years later with something more flexible. The original feature was utterly useless and frequently broke the (few) mods that used it.

The oldest ZDoom this will work with unaltered is 2.0.97.

 

 

[elden4]

did you try doomretro? it works great for me!

[invictius]

7 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

 

That happens because BTSX contains a LANGUAGE lump. In older ZDooms this was a binary lump with a version dependent number of strings. Guess why it got replaced a few years later with something more flexible. The original feature was utterly useless and frequently broke the (few) mods that used it.

The oldest ZDoom this will work with unaltered is 2.0.97.

 

 

Won't zdoom v2 be slow as molasses on a p133?

[Graf Zahl]

Not really. The changes between 1.23 and 2.0.97 were in different departments. Most of the renderer wasn't changed until last year. The bigger problem is that more recent versions won't load on a Windows version capable of running on such hardware because of the compiler and FMod version being used.

If you want to run that mod on older ZDooms you have to remove the LANGUAGE lump, then it should work.

 

[dl_simc]

7 hours ago, invictius said:

Won't zdoom v2 be slow as molasses on a p133?

This gets ridiculous, but I got a genuine Pentium-133 with Winx95 up and running.

Spoiler

I got Doom95 to run btsx as a single wad only after I removed all the sprites, midis and gfx too. At MAP01 start point it runs at 19-20 fps!

 

With this setup the same wad sprints:
ZDoom 1.23 beta33: 15-16 fps
ZDoom 2.0.63a: 11-12 fps
ZDoom 2.0.94: 12-13 fps
ZDoom 2.0.96: 12-13 fps

 

These were the values on this system. This was meant just as a comparison between those ports.

 

[Albertoni]

At this point, I would honestly start looking into either making BTSX a valid IWAD by adding missing resources, or transplanting all BTSX stuff into the Doom IWAD. That should get it running on Doom95.

[riderr3]

Doom95 is the worst Doom source-port anyway.

[dl_simc]

2 hours ago, riderr3 said:

Doom95 is the worst Doom source-port anyway.

A matter of taste. Doom95 offered an easy way to play Doom over Windows, launch pwads, switch iwads and even a better reolution years before the true sourceports.

 

Back to Saturn is just a product of a completely different era.