zDoom vs. jDoom?

Are there any SKILLED modelers out here in the Doom community?

There are only 3 active modelers in the community who have contributed to the jDRP : Abbs, Chilvence and myself.

I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised when jDRP 1.1 is released.

That was taken about a month ago and the skins are now finished.

Hehe, the poor bugger seems to have misplaced his teeth. Someone at the old hellspawns home must have pinched them out of the glass in the middle of the night :D

DaniJ said:

There are only 3 active modelers in the community who have contributed to the jDRP : Abbs, Chilvence and myself.

I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised when jDRP 1.1 is released.

Excellent. Looking forward to it!

This is just being very picky, but if the rest of the Imps skin was as rugged as his face, that'd make me very happy (and all other monsters kept same standard...:D).

Espi said
Well WHERE THE FUCK ARE THESE INCREDIBLE MODELS THEN HM?!?!

I'll tell you where they aren't. In this community. Never have been. DaniJ's sample isn't that bad, actually the more I think about it, it's decent. Go read the 3D forums, like Polycount and CGTalk. You'll find plenty of awesome 3D artwork.

http://www.planetquake.com/polycount/
http://www.cgtalk.com

You fools assume that because you don't see good 3D in this community it doesn't exist? This is partly because you're so used to sprites, and partly because the previous modeller did such a perfectly horrid job to leave a bad taste in everyones mouth. If we had some really good modellers in to help, you'd wonder why the fuck you wanted to ever stick to sprites.

Espi said
FUCK MODELS. The sprites are one of the major aspects that make Doom Doom

Sure? Really? Then why is Carmack making Doom3? Why has he said he wants to make the game he couldn't do last time? This "Oh this feature makes doom into doom" bullshit has to stop. Such moronic opinions help nobody and only serve to kill any chance of adapting. There is no "Pure" doom. It's just a highly elevated personal opinion. When that opinion gets in the way of logic, is when a problem starts to occur. New ideas to present game visuals come along, and if a community such as this is gonna keep working on advanced ports, why ignore one of the most advanced jumps you can make. From 2D to True 3D. It's not that bad a jump people.

Personally one reason I don't like models simply, and I mean no disrespect to any modellers working on doom, but i don't think they are up to scratch. Perhaps it is because they are trying to make straight ports of a (nowadays cartoonish looking) sprite to an identical-as-possible 3d model. And it just doesn't work for me. I'm sure there are plenty of competent modellers in other communites, but are they really interested in a 10 year old game? I doubt it. They have their own next-gen games to think about.

Another reason is I don't think models really fit into the doom texture theme. Ok, so you could then just do hi-res textures and flats with bumb-mapping and what not. Add in dynamic lighting too while you're at it. And then you can add 3d effects and various other polygons to create a true 3d game. Great. An up-to-date Doom. But then that game doesn't resemble classic Doom at all. If you want to make a next-gen game out of the original doom engine you might as well just play a next-gen game. If I wanted to make levels where I could create true 3d environments I simply wouldn't be mapping for this old game.

The problem I have with the jDRP is that I'm trying to keep as close to the original sprites as possible. The thing is the original sprites are so low res that details arn't made obvious so everyone interprets them in there own way, so what may look like an Imp to me may not to you. The majority of people don't want the models to look too different from the sprites.

DaniJ's sample isn't that bad, actually the more I think about it, it's decent.

I can't improve them if people don't give me any feedback on what I'm doing wrong. Also remember the limitations of Doomsday, I don't have the luxury of normal/diffuse/spec etc and the md3 support isn't available yet. The current setup is much akin to Quake2.

Hehe, the poor bugger seems to have misplaced his teeth.

Heh. Don't worry, he's found them now.

This is just being very picky, but if the rest of the Imps skin was as rugged as his face, that'd make me very happy (and all other monsters kept same standard...:D).

Yeah I've already done that. In the pic above that was the base skin layer (mainly just muscle groups, definition and basic lighting) since then I've added a lot more detail, stuff like the pores of the skin, hair, scars etc and the horns now blend seamlessly.

LorD BaZTArD said:

I'll tell you where they aren't. In this community. Never have been. DaniJ's sample isn't that bad, actually the more I think about it, it's decent. Go read the 3D forums, like Polycount and CGTalk. You'll find plenty of awesome 3D artwork.

http://www.planetquake.com/polycount/
http://www.cgtalk.com

You fools assume that because you don't see good 3D in this community it doesn't exist? This is partly because you're so used to sprites, and partly because the previous modeller did such a perfectly horrid job to leave a bad taste in everyones mouth. If we had some really good modellers in to help, you'd wonder why the fuck you wanted to ever stick to sprites.

No, no, no!

You really don't get it, do you?

When I want to play something with better graphics I play Half-Life, Quake2 or even more modern games. When I play Doom I want to play DOOM. By definition this means low-res textures and SPRITES! Not Hi-res textures, not models and no dynamic lights where they don't belong. You can't make a model that fits into Doom and doesn't look wrong. It's not about quality, it's about style! The look of the sprites (and textures) is what makes Doom the game it is.

Hair?
Come to think of it, some slight chest hair for the Imp would be a cool twist :-) I think he's kind of guy with some chest hair.

When will these be released, and you got more screenshots of any other monster?

LorD BaZTArD said:

Sure? Really? Then why is Carmack making Doom3? Why has he said he wants to make the game he couldn't do last time? This "Oh this feature makes doom into doom" bullshit has to stop. Such moronic opinions help nobody and only serve to kill any chance of adapting. There is no "Pure" doom.

You are confusing doom as an idea with doom as the game that exists now.

Graf Zahl said:

The look of the sprites (and textures) is what makes Doom the game it is.

That's your opinion. To me what makes DOOM DOOM is not the sprites, but the lack of ultra-stupid and ultra-lame Quake ripoff messages like "Player sleeps with the fishes" and useless consoles. And the fact that it's a DOS game.

This is just getting bizzare. You guys must have realised that the whole point of getting the source code released was to expand on the original game. No one has any kind of liscense to moan about which is the best thing to do, its purely up to the guys who sit there with Visual Studio or whatever, and write exactly what they want to see

In summary, if you dont like the models, shut up. If you dont like people who dont like the models, shut up.

Short version: Shut up.

But do yourself a favour and just learn to like what all the ports and their respective followers are working on.

I don't really see much point in arguing over what's DooM and what's not (ports, features etc.) - play the game using any of these ports and it'll still feel like DooM, regardless of what you're playing.

Whether it be a classic vanilla wad like Requiem/HR/AV, or an up-to-date port wad using a ton of features like Nimrod/LTSD/Underworld Ep 1 (Legacy/ZDoom/JDoom) it still feels like DooM. Even the really far-out-from-DooM wads like Massmouth/Daedalus still feel like DooM because of the way the player moves, fires and acts, together with the monsters, weapons etc. and I'm sure that when playing a wad with all the bells and whistles of the modern world (GL rendering, MD2/3 models, dynamic lights, mp3's etc.) it will still be DooM at the core, and so the way you approach it and play it will be the same.

Really, we should all just stop arguing about this and remember that we're all DooMers, we all love the same game and should have an open mind towards all developments in making it better (and in fact encourage these to happen). If you don't like something that's fine, but don't go flaming them for being un-doomish or whatever. (I'm not that keen on all the OpenGL stuff but I don't hate it and feel the need to flame it constantly)

Anyway, my 2p has been spent.

Heh, thats what I said, only you said it much less irritably

Graf Zahl said:

Actually it's ridiculously easy to get rid of the translucent outline of sprites and textures. Inexplicably every single OpenGL source port makes the same mistake when rendering these.

Here's how to do it right: (it's a little technical but it may be of use to any OpenGL programmer who is interested):

The standard OpenGL rendering mode is

glBlendFunc(GL_SRC_ALPHA,GL_ONE_MINUS_SRC_ALPHA);

which means to draw the current texture/sprite using each pixel's translucency. On the edges the translucency is interpolated between opaque (visible pixel) and invisible (for the pixels that are not drawn) resulting in this ugly translucent border around sprites.

Now, if you use the following settings for objects with transparent parts:

glEnable(GL_ALPHA_TEST);
glAlphaFunc(GL_GEQUAL, 0.5f);
glBlendFunc(GL_ONE, GL_ZERO);

the translucent border around these objects completely vanishes! It has the added advantage that any object drawn this way does not have to be sorted for drawing which can result in a significant performance boost.

Actually, ZDoomGL already does this (and adjusts the limit depending on how translucent the object is). The gl_sprite_sharp_edges cvar controls it. But the border doesn't completely vanish... You'd have to limit the alpha to 1.0 for the border to be removed, but then the sprites look really bad, so the sprites still have to be sorted anyway since there's still a (albeit small) border around them.

alpha = MAX((thing->alpha / 65535.f) - 0.5f, 0.f);
if (alpha != lastAlpha && gl_sprite_sharp_edges)
{
   glAlphaFunc(GL_GREATER, alpha);
   lastAlpha = alpha;
}

It also attempts to draw the sprite at the software level and then adjusts it up until the bottom doesn't go into the floor (you can see the sprites being adjusted when you look up and down).

timmie said:

Actually, ZDoomGL already does this (and adjusts the limit depending on how translucent the object is). The gl_sprite_sharp_edges cvar controls it. But the border doesn't completely vanish... You'd have to limit the alpha to 1.0 for the border to be removed, but then the sprites look really bad, so the sprites still have to be sorted anyway since there's still a (albeit small) border around them.

With glBlendMode(GL_ONE, GL_ZERO) the border around the edges will be completely opaque. I know because I tried this successfully with PrBoom's GL renderer. ;-) The problem comes from the blending mode. If you use a blending mode which uses the alpha channel the problem won't go away completely.

Hmm, I guess I could try that out for completely opaque things/masked walls. Can't hurt, anyway :)

chilvence said:

This is just getting bizzare. You guys must have realised that the whole point of getting the source code released was to expand on the original game. No one has any kind of liscense to moan about which is the best thing to do, its purely up to the guys who sit there with Visual Studio or whatever, and write exactly what they want to see

In summary, if you dont like the models, shut up. If you dont like people who dont like the models, shut up.

Short version: Shut up.

But do yourself a favour and just learn to like what all the ports and their respective followers are working on.

Wait a minute here. You are going to tell people whether they have the right to dislike something or to moan about it?

If you don't like people moaning: shut up.

Short version: shut up.

The Ultimate DooMer said:
play the game using any of these ports and it'll still feel like DooM, regardless of what you're playing.

Each feels different. People can argue if they really want, but they certainly shouldn't speak nonsense. The more you modify the source in relation to the game, the less it's like DOOM.

Like DooM isn't DOOM.

it will still be DooM at the core, and so the way you approach it and play it will be the same.

You said it; the core... and to a degree only.

Really, we should all just stop arguing about this and remember that we're all DooMers,

I'd rather encourage discussion, even at the cost of steep rivalry, that blandly admonish the differences.

we all love the same game

Not exactly the same game. We all like different things about it... if we were just manikin-like copies of each other, we'd get along really fine... and the forums would be pretty quiet too.

and should have an open mind towards all developments in making it better (and in fact encourage these to happen).

Better's in the eye of the beholder (or Cacodemon.)

If you don't like something that's fine, but don't go flaming them for being un-doomish or whatever.

I disagree there again... Like there's a problem in judging the "DOOMishness" of something... on the contrary; that's what keeps the game together as such: to define that core you are talking about.

myk said:
Each feels different. People can argue if they really want, but they certainly shouldn't speak nonsense. The more you modify the source in relation to the game, the less it's like DOOM.

Right. But the question is whether the change is perceived as positive or negative. One thing in particular I never liked about Doom was the way the mouse was handled. As a result I don't see mouselook as something negative. The same with some bugfixes that remove certain annoying bugs (like not being able to chainsaw large enemies or projectiles going through an enemy directly in front of you.) Yes, these things can in some place have secondary effects but you have to decide for yourself what is more important: consistent gameplay or original behavior.

I was just reminded of this while playing Strife recently. After getting used to all the bug fixes ZDoom provides it was really annoying to play this with all the hitscan bugs in the engine - particularly because Strife depends much more on close-combat than Doom did.

Like DooM isn't DOOM.You said it; the core... and to a degree only.I'd rather encourage discussion, even at the cost of steep rivalry, that blandly admonish the differences.Not exactly the same game. We all like different things about it... if we were just manikin-like copies of each other, we'd get along really fine... and the forums would be pretty quiet too. Better's in the eye of the beholder (or Cacodemon.)I disagree there again... Like there's a problem in judging the "DOOMishness" of something... on the contrary; that's what keeps the game together as such: to define that core you are talking about. [/B]

So what is proper Doom?

1.1, 1.2, 1.666, 1.9 or Doom95? All those are official releases and I found some of the differences larger than those between 1.9 and some source ports. Let's face it: There is no single 100% correct way to define what Doom is. Even more so for many of the newer maps which require a source port.

What CAN be defined 100% correctly is how the graphics have to look (this does not include resolution! I see Doom95 as an official release and it supports hi-res.) If you use hi-res textures and custom models for your own work this is ok because obviously it's the way a map is supposed to look but retroactively altering the graphics used by the original maps is just the same as altering a painting because you don't like some aspect about it.

What is "proper Doom"? There is no way to explain it, you have to see it for yourself.

There is no perfect port.

Proper Doom is the last version, einsteins.
And you should not count Doom95. That was messed up when porting to Windows.

dr_st said:

Wait a minute here. You are going to tell people whether they have the right to dislike something or to moan about it?

Well... yes. Whethere anyone actually listens or not is a different matter.

gemini09 said:

Proper Doom is the last version, einsteins.
And you should not count Doom95. That was messed up when porting to Windows.

What's up with all the whining about doom95 these days? I can change my resolution, set my strafe keys, all that great stuff, so why all the whining about it?

I agree. Actually it's pretty decent. I don't use it to play myself, but often watch demos on it if I'm on Windows XP.

Windows XP mouse and keyboard users might be complaining basically because of the mouse support, others simply because it's the engine distributed with the game now (i.e., some trace of envy.) This may be conscious, unconscious, or simply following mass habit, depending on the circumstances. Also, due to the mouse in XP issue and the establishment of the DOS version as the hardcore oldschool engine, and that not many people regularly visiting the Forums use it now, trolling it and its users gets easier.

Graf Zahl said:
So what is proper Doom?

1.1, 1.2, 1.666, 1.9 or Doom95? All those are official releases and I found some of the differences larger than those between 1.9 and some source ports.

Concerning v0.99 to v1.9, it's like asking what version of ZDoom is the real ZDoom... all are, but in a sense the last one applies most. Of course, Doom has three v1.9 engine versions with very slight differences. I'd go for The Ultimate DOOM's engine; though that's arguable, yet the answer lies around there. Or you could go with Doom95, although it wasn't even ported by id Software; an albeit the question of authorship is kind of external, it's indeed relevant and often gives a keen pointer outlining the development trees of the engine.

As an aside, and more on topic with the initial topic of the thread, source hacks like ZDoom and JDoom become more valuable in themselves if they can do things their own way, not so much if they can do everything or if they can do things easily. If an engine has its own style and personality, it tends to be good.

myk said:

source hacks

He can't stop it...

I use Doom95 to test my levels, play demos, record demos and quickly go through levels. I use it a lot! There's nothing wrong with it!

When I actually play through a map I use jDoom more often than Zdoom because I have a pretty decent computer and it doesn't get slowed down or anything.
PRBoom is really good too.