segfault

nobody who actually made the game would see a cent of those five dollars though, it just goes to the current rights holders (i.e. Bethesda)

if the warcraft 3 remake is any indication I wouldn't be asking for any diablo 1 remakes anytime soon lol

how does this help the doom community? honest question

That's all well and good but it's very strange how all of these decisions are being made about improving performance on modern systems and the result is a source port that generally has the worst performance.

It depends on the title. I define ADS as a feature where movement speed is traded for weapon accuracy -- in a sense, the first game to feature ADS is Counter-Strike. While it doesn't have a dedicated ADS button, the fact that weapon accuracy tanks while moving encourages stop-and-pop gameplay and proper positioning in firefights in much the same way. I consider the feature to be the one defining trait that separates Classic FPS from Modern FPS as this change in how firefights work is so pervasive and all-encompassing that it influences literally every other aspect of the design. I'm cool with it personally, however due to the nature of firefights in games with ADS a lower time-to-kill for opponents is much more important to have. Games like Call of Duty or Rainbow Six: Siege with very low time-to-kill feel much better than games with higher time-to-kill like Planetside 2. Conversely, having a higher time-to-kill in games without ADS adds to a sense of dueling between two or more opponents, and the added mobility allows for more opportunities to counter or reposition. A low TTK in a game without ADS feels cheap; a high TTK in a game with ADS feels tedious.

Since you're asking: I prefer Doom Retro because it supports basically everything I'd like to play, adds a lot of really nice quality-of-life touches and improvements, and generally has an aesthetic that "improves" Doom's vanilla look without straying too far away from what would be plausible for a mid-90s FPS. When doing multiplayer I like Odamex for its robust handling of drop-in-drop-out matches, on-the-fly wad switching, and easy server management.

Honest question: Are there any actual GPUs or APUs today that support Vulkan but not OpenGL? It occurs to me that a tradeoff was made where actual, real living users under thrown under the bus in favor of a hypothetical user in the future that is "stuck" with high-end hardware and no compatibility layer. What graphical features is GZDoom gaining by adopting Vulkan and leaving OpenGL 2 behind? It's not like GZDoom is capable of doing any sort of graphics technique that's been invented in the past 10 years. (To be clear, this in and of itself is not a strike against GZDoom.) The most graphically demanding GZDoom mods and TCs don't look anything different from what was possible in the late 2000s.

I think this very thread has demonstrated pretty soundly that the kind of people who are playing Doom today might not necessarily have current hardware, even low-spec current hardware. I see "yeah I'm stuck on LZDoom/Zandronum because I can't run GZDoom" with enough regularity that IMO icing them out with this kind of attitude feels very odd and excluding. Doom is quite popular with people who, for whatever reason, simply don't have access to modern hardware. Not to put too fine a point on it but it's quite strange how the one big port that struggles with performance issues above all other ports has to keep making excuses about not supporting older hardware in order to play a 30 year old game.

Optimization-wise I can't really say definitively, but I do know that Doom Retro is based on Chocolate Doom and specifically uses software rendering. Some features like the blood splats can cause problems when playing slaughter maps but they can be turned off easily. From what I understand it handles the game pretty well all things considered. Might be worth giving it a shot and putting it through its paces to see how it performs for you.

DSDA-Doom and its predecessor PRBoom+ have been designed specifically for demo compatibility -- in short, this means that the game's underlying mechanics behave exactly as the original game did. As the name "DSDA-Doom" implies this is of primary benefit to speedrunners who need the demo feature, but its high accuracy makes it very well-liked among non-speedrunners looking for a "purist" experience with some more dipping mustards over Vanilla or Chocolate Doom. Demos are also very helpful for playtesters and mappers for easy recording and playback of test play sessions to tweak design, so DSDA-Doom gets a lot of use there too. As far as game accuracy goes GZDoom is actually on the lower end of the spectrum. Other ports like Crispy, Doom Retro (my personal favorite), Woof, Eternity, Odamex, etc. aren't as dialed in as DSDA but generally offer a closer experience than GZDoom does. GZDoom's strength comes in its wide range of modding features (DEHACKED, ACS, DECORATE, ZScript, UDMF, etc. etc.), which if you think about it doesn't exactly synergize with "Doom exactly how it was in 1993." This isn't to say that GZDoom is so wildly off-base as to be worthless for a "true Doom experience," indeed it's good enough for most people.

I don't use GZDoom. When I'm forced to use it I use a software renderer.

Fake flash drives in general are quite popular, particularly on online storefronts. They aren't always immediately obvious, either. Atomic Shrimp did a couple of great videos breaking these down:

If it's more than four hours, call your doctor.

Far be it from me to tell people what software to use but I'm gonna chime in with everyone else and say that SLADE3 is worth switching over to basically immediately. It's a far more modern utility that does everything you're already doing with XWE and has a whole lot more features, including a full-featured map editor. It's under active development (the latest version came out a little over a month ago) and the vast majority of people today use it for Doom modding.