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

Marscaleb

Members
  • Content count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Marscaleb

  • Rank
    Mini-Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Marscaleb

    What ports support Doom64 lighting?

    Sorry, I said that wrong, but also found that what I was upset about was also wrong. I revoke my qualms against GZDoom.
  2. Marscaleb

    What ports support Doom64 lighting?

    Huh? Even if I assume you meant "additive" then I'm still confused, because I don't recall that being a property within Doom 64. Thankfully it was easy to find in my history. https://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?f=232&t=66745 Hmm, GZDoom and all of its forks have really grown overly-complex, but I guess it is the most popular one for that reason.
  3. What ports support the lighting style from Doom64? Where it isn't just a sector color but you have them divided between various elements. ..Actually come to think of it I really just care about the gradient effect Doom 64 has between the top wall and bottom wall coloring. So obviously Doom64 EX supports this. And there is whatever fork that Doom 64 Absolution was made in, but that whole mod is basically irrelevant because of Doom 64 EX. But... Is that it? I recently saw some post somewhere where someone was making a new version of Doom Builder, and one of its many features was that it supported the Doom64 lighting. I can't fathom why someone would put that in their editor unless some other ports are starting to use it.
  4. Marscaleb

    Is there a port with static lighting?

    That sounds like something that could be relatively-easily fixed. Once the lightmaps are calculated, save them in an external file. Include some simple checksum info so it can make sure the lighting is accurate to the map file. Since the lights aren't part of the original maps anyway, it would just be something to distribute with map. Even if there are compatibility issues, I should only need to calculate that lighting once on my end. Granted, this is something that I know almost nothing about, but it still *seems* like that would be easier to program than everything else involved in having static lighting. At any rate, those Vavoom screenshots look fantastic! The GZ fork looks great too, but those Vavoom ones actually match the visual quality I had in mind. That being said, Vavoom is irking me right out of the box for its lack of proper widescreen support. And I can't find where to download a compiled binary of K8Vavoom. Also, where could I download those sample maps that use the static lighting?
  5. There are some crazy-awesome features that people have added to doom source ports, especially within GZDoom. I'm wondering if baked static lighting has ever been one. Like how lighting works within Quake 2 and UT99, individually-set lights that are calculated in 3D space and stored into light maps. I know there are several ports that support dynamic lighting, and you could use that to create something that looks pretty good. But static lighting is easier on the system, and I like to keep things so they can run on weaker systems. Plus, I haven't seen dynamic light support sunlight/directional light.
  6. I was wondering what options there were for converting Doom maps to Quake maps. Looking around, I do see at least two tools to try to convert the geometry, but the threads I found are going on a decade old, so I'm wondering if options have improved since then. Honestly, I'm not really interested in a full-blown map conversion per-se, but a reasonable solid tool to convert the geometry. Making quake maps is a bit of a time-consuming process, compared to Doom. I was thinking it might be worth it to create sections of a map in Doom (especially for rapid prototyping, to an extent,) and then import them into a quake map and finish out the details there. There would be limitations, to be sure, but if there was a solid-enough conversion tool it would still be faster to craft shapes in Doom Builder than to erect and adjust six or more brushes per simple box. I really kinda wish there was a more intuitive way to craft 3D shapes for quake maps. I've seen some modern tools that work very well, and even Unreal Ed was less involved with the use of subtractive brushes. But all the editors for Quake maps (especially that actually work with Quake 2) are just rooted in time-consuming non-intuitive designs.
  7. Marscaleb

    Transparencies in Doom

    Hello, I was wondering is something could be verified for me. I had heard somebody once state that the textures in Doom don't actually use index 255 as a transparency color, but that they actually store the transparency data separate from the bitmap data; as I recall they said the textures just give a count of how many texels to "skip" when rendering it to create a transparency. Is this true or not? Can Doom actually render color index 255, or was this perhaps an issue with source port and not the original? Or are there other limitations behind transparencies in Doom? Is this just textures or does this apply to sprites as well?
  8. Marscaleb

    [GZDoom] Diabolus Ex v1.1

    I just saw this on Mr. Icarus's YouTube channel. I'm so glad you included a stand-alone download of the texture pack; I wanna try my hand at building with it. It would work great with a project I've been thinking of doing.
  9. Marscaleb

    What Quake port is best for me?

    It had all the geometry on the screen just wobble in a weird way. It was like every vertex in the level was just being pulled in random directions; one wall is moving in one direction while another wall is pinched in another. I've never seen another game come close to that effect. GL Quake actually does this, but it doesn't manage to render the effect in quite as stable a manner as the original software renderer; you can see some geomerty being pulled apart, especial near the edges of the water. I'm like 90% sure that never happened in vanilla quake. Still, I prefer this effect to quakespasm and fitzquake's method of adjusting the vertical FOV and horizontal FOV separately to make it look like the whole screen is uniformly wobbling.
  10. Marscaleb

    What Quake port is best for me?

    Hm, fitzquake has every minor complaint I have about quakespasm, but without HUD scaling.
  11. Marscaleb

    What Quake port is best for me?

    I'm liking about 90% of what Quakespasm is doing so far. But is there a way to disable the animation interpolation, and set the texture filtering to nearest? I also notice it doesn't do the proper underwater distortion effect. That's why I was hoping someone was doing a "Chocolate Quake" port. I thought there would be a bit more demand for a port like that. Well, it still gives me marginally-close classic Quake without resizing everything on all my monitors, and that's really what I wanted.
  12. Marscaleb

    What Quake port is best for me?

    Well that's pretty definitive. Can't argue with the Romero.
  13. Marscaleb

    What Quake port is best for me?

    You touched up on the real point though, and that is that it is hard to set up a proper FOV when you switch to widescreen. If you just properly match the width of your view, then you've cut off the top and bottom of the screen. Ideally you want the view to show you exactly what you'd see on a 4:3 screen, plus some extra to the side. And you can't just assume that the FOV should be a specific angle, because the renderer might have been changed to subtly fit player preferences. I'd prefer a port that has already set that stuff up.
  14. Marscaleb

    What Quake port is best for me?

    I should say, I don't mind if it has the flashy extras, so long as I can easily disable all of them to play the classic experience. I saw a video showing quakespasm and the FOV looked off. Don't know if it was a setting or not.
  15. (That psuedorandom article was really interesting to read. I wonder how long games continued to use a table like that.) Oohhhh, you mean that it is actually impossible for each of those random values to all be 3, that is, for each pellet to deliver the full 15 points of damage possible. I was thinking you were talking about just getting hit by each pellet, as if to say that if a thing got hit by all seven pellets they would only incur damage from a few of those pellets. So to sum up, the shotgun does indeed fire seven shots of a relatively small amount of damage, and an enemy gets damage for each shot that connects with them. A full shell could theoretically deliver anywhere from 35 to 105, but realistically the fringes of that are not going to happen. And the super shotgun's full load delivers 100 to 300. Holy cow, that's crazy!
×