Software vs GL (hardware) mode

[Memfis]

It's kinda funny to think how many of us completely ignore the author's intentions when playing wads. If you use software mode to play a map that was tested in OpenGL, you get a totally different experience. Gamma correction, monitor brightness settings, game resolution, and other stuff can change a lot too. Mappers spend so much time trying to make their rooms look just right, but most players won't ever appreciate them the right way.

[Remilia Scarlet]

6 minutes ago, Memfis said:

Gamma correction, monitor brightness settings, game resolution, and other stuff can change a lot too. Mappers spend so much time trying to make their rooms look just right, but most players won't ever appreciate them the right way.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and have considered getting one of those monitor calibration thingies for whenever I do level work.  But that only solves half the problem, and I would think that sending a image asking the player to calibrate their monitor (like a lot of modern games seem to do) would feel very out of place and chore-like for a Doom wad.

[scifista42]

There are 2 main differences between classic software renderer and OpenGL:

 

1) 256 color palette vs. true color. Limited number of usable colors is a clear disadvantage. Crispy light diminishing can look bad in some scenarios and great in others. Therefore, I mostly (while not completely) prefer true color.

 

2) Two point perspective with y-shearing vs. three point perspective. Not being able to look straight up or down is a clear disadvantage. However, in a game that uses sprites for game objects, three point perspective necessarily makes some of them look terrible under some view angles. Let me add that being an apparently 3D game using sprites for game objects is an important aspect of Doom's appeal to me. Therefore, I prefer two point perspective with y-shearing in this game.

 

Overally, I prefer software renderer.

[rehelekretep]

i used to hate software, but after playing around with the filtering settings on glboom i have worked out how to minimise the horrible lighting 'banding' that is present 'out-of-the-box'

i actually use the GL surface for software mode in glboom - not sure what difference there is to a 'true' software renderer but i like it.

i switch between SW/GL depending on my mood.

[Graf Zahl]

1 hour ago, StalkerZHS said:

I wish GZDoom was able to HANDLE ITS OWN SHT

 

Recode the engine to not have ANY FPS limits.

 

PR/GLboom can play a giant map with no lag, but GZdoom will lag? wtf

GZDOOM should be able to play a giant map just as smoothly as PR/GLboom

GZDoom can play large parts just well.

But since you did not even bother to post your system specs, there's no way to help, never mind that your post is quite off-topic.

 

[Graf Zahl]

1 hour ago, Memfis said:

It's kinda funny to think how many of us completely ignore the author's intentions when playing wads.

 

Well, that's life. Each computer is different. Many monitors are calibrated differently so no serious mapper can expect that things will look identical everywhere.

Ultimately it's supposed to be fun. Too bad that for some people even other people's fun is being considered serious business... :(

 

[Zulk RS]

I used to prefer software (Probably still do) but I can't record any gameplay footage with it. Now I've gotten used to playing without it.

[Edward850]

39 minutes ago, rehelekretep said:

I actually use the GL surface for software mode in glboom - not sure what difference there is to a 'true' software renderer but i like it.

It still is the software renderer, but instead of rendering the buffer to a GDI/X Server/whatever surface the OS provides for screen drawing, it uses a hardware GL texture as a buffer (depending on implementation, some implementations will make it 2-stage to handle the palette conversion) and lets your GPU handle it directly. Gets around modern software blitting overheads and limitations, especially with multithreaded GPU driver pipelines allowing page flipping to be non-blocking.

 

There's also some edge cases where it's even mandatory. SVE has no GDI surface as Steam needs a hardware API to hook into for its overlay, and if you are porting Doom to modern consoles hardware textures are your only option. Although the trick there is the VRAM is shared so you could make the software buffer the exact same memory block as the hardware texture to draw.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Edward850

[scifista42]

^ That's nice, but rehelekretep would presumably (and I would definitely) be more interested to know the differences in noticeable appearance (however subtle) rather than the differences in internal function, if the former exist and can be described precisely.

Edited August 21, 2017 by scifista42

[Pirx]

Mostly OpenGL. Dark mode IIRC (I'm away from my pc and can't check). 

[Tindrone]

I prefer Opengl over Software, but in ZDoom based ports the way voxels are rendered is kinda shitty in hardware. In Software voxel objects are rendered using pixels positioned to form a 3d object. In Opengl voxel objects are rendered using 3d cubes instead of pixels, dropping performance by a lot.

[Graf Zahl]

7 minutes ago, Tindrone said:

I prefer Opengl over Software, but in ZDoom based ports the way voxels are rendered is kinda shitty in hardware. In Software voxel objects are rendered using pixels positioned to form a 3d object. In Opengl voxel objects are rendered using 3d cubes instead of pixels, dropping performance by a lot.

 

Hardware rendering performance for voxels strongly depends on graphics hardware. On more performant cards they actually never drop performance one bit. But yes,on older cards with weak vertex throughput they can cause quite a drag.

 

 

[Cruduxy Pegg]

OpenGL unless I am playing an iwad or replaying a mapset. Oh and of course software if it is heretic\hexen, they look really weird without the gradient darkness. 

[Mikami41]

It depends of what am i playing.

 

If im playing wads or mods that looks great on opengl and map has dynamic lightings and stuff: OpenGl

If im playing classic wads or Iwads: Software

 

Even tho i still use software render for some doom mods but i mainly prefer opengl in those cases :P

[Lila Feuer]

Guess I should put my vote in: GL, I love my dynamic lights, brightmaps and now bloom too much. Palette mode is also a great alternative to true color mode when you just want that fuzzy 8-bit color software aesthetic, it makes the dynamic lights look like they come outta Quake (defined layers of radiance).

[Edward850]

8 hours ago, scifista42 said:

^ That's nice, but rehelekretep would presumably (and I would definitely) be more interested to know the differences in noticeable appearance (however subtle) rather than the differences in internal function, if the former exist and can be described precisely.

... Then actually read my post? I explained that the only difference is the buffer blitting, not the actual rendering. In the first line, even.

[Cipher]

16 hours ago, axdoomer said:

My choice: 320x200 software rendered, 8-bit colors at 35 FPS.

 

I mostly play in DOSBox or in Chocolate-Doom.

Another DosBoxer here; GOG put together a very usable package for all the iwads that way.

 

I'd love to use Chocolate Doom for wads, but unfortunately the sound effect issue in the Windows build is a deal-breaker.

 

So instead I find myself using PrBoom+ in its lowest software mode wishing it had a 320x200 option.

 

I always prefer older games look the way they would have looked at release. I also find Doom's aesthetics are a lot more coherent the lower fidelity you go.

[axdoomer]

31 minutes ago, Cipher said:

I'd love to use Chocolate Doom for wads, but unfortunately the sound effect issue in the Windows build is a deal-breaker.

If you have sound effect issues with Chocolate-Doom, you should fill a bug report if it's not already done or if someone else hasn't done it. You may also try older versions that may not be affected by the bug.

[Cipher]

26 minutes ago, axdoomer said:

If you have sound effect issues with Chocolate-Doom, you should fill a bug report if it's not already done or if someone else hasn't done it. You may also try older versions that may not be affected by the bug.

There's been a known issue/but report with sampling in the default Windows build since 2015, unless it's been fixed since the last time I checked.

[Spectre01]

12 hours ago, rehelekretep said:

i actually use the GL surface for software mode in glboom - not sure what difference there is to a 'true' software renderer but i like it.

That's actually really cool. I tried the GL Surface option after setting GLBoom+ to software and find the image/colour quality to look nicer compared to regular PRBoom+ 8bit mode. Particularly noticeable with the blues, which for some reason had a really messy black-out effect in the latter. i.e. Start of AV map31. The only problem now is having to change a bunch of settings back when I'm feeling the polished GL look again. :P

[Erick]

I don't mind either really, I am playing on Software Rendering and OpenGL despite the differences. Though if I have to choose, I'll go with OpenGL as I find it hard for me to go back playing on Software Rendering primarily, but I can still go with Software since I do kind of find the brown diminished lighting on the original Doom IWADs to be nice and atmospheric in a way.

[fraggle]

5 hours ago, Cipher said:

There's been a known issue/but report with sampling in the default Windows build since 2015, unless it's been fixed since the last time I checked.

Not sure what you're referring to. Have you tried the 3.0 beta builds? Maybe those will work better for you.

[Cipher]

On 8/22/2017 at 1:00 PM, fraggle said:

Not sure what you're referring to. Have you tried the 3.0 beta builds? Maybe those will work better for you.

It worked! I'm honestly ecstatic about that! Thank you!

 

The previous releases gave me noticeably tinny, high-pitched sound-effects compared to DosBox or other source ports. This is (I think?) the issue I was talking about: https://github.com/chocolate-doom/chocolate-doom/issues/75.

 

Regardless, the 3.0 beta is working perfectly for me! Thanks again!

[Spectre01]

On 8/21/2017 at 9:51 PM, Memfis said:

It's kinda funny to think how many of us completely ignore the author's intentions when playing wads. If you use software mode to play a map that was tested in OpenGL, you get a totally different experience.

It's hard to follow the author's intentions when they aren't stated in the text file or anywhere else. Ideally, the author would recommend which renderer they think plays best. I've seen this a few times, like with Eternal adding HD skies etc. to GL mode in Epic 2.

[Killer5]

prboom+, software, 8-bit, 35 fps.

 

Crispy Doom is my vanilla port of choice for the sharper rez even though I still dig playing chocolate doom for the lower rez from time to time.

 

Personally I haven't ran into a wad I thought looked worse in software. I always dig the way things get darker the farther they are away from the player. opengl brightens up everything exposing textures off in the distance where most times the player would never even see in software. Lots of times in Doom less is more and I really like seeing less in maps which causes my imagination to fill in the blanks.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Killer5

[rehelekretep]

doesnt the fps cap make you feel sick?

[Killer5]

@rehelekretep

Na. Don't feel nausea or anything.

[tourniquet]

32 minutes ago, Killer5 said:

Personally I haven't ran into a wad I thought looked worse in software. I always dig the way things get darker the farther they are away from the player.

I can only second this.