At what resolution do you play/build Doom?

1920x1080.

I don't get the low-res love of some people. Even id left it behind when they released Final Doom with the Doom95 engine. The limited resolution was not an inherent property of the game but plain and simply the best the hardware could do at that time. If the engine had had some more extended commercial life it would certainly have been equipped with hi-res support, but thanks to Doom95 that never happened.

Max res on OpenGL, 640x480 (or a scaled version thereof ALA Crispy DOOM) on Software, 320x200 on Boom and MBF.

1366x768. I can understand the appeal for lower resolutions, but even then I don't/can't go lower than 640x480.

320x200

Graf Zahl said:

1920x1080.

I don't get the low-res love of some people. Even id left it behind when they released Final Doom with the Doom95 engine. The limited resolution was not an inherent property of the game but plain and simply the best the hardware could do at that time. If the engine had had some more extended commercial life it would certainly have been equipped with hi-res support, but thanks to Doom95 that never happened.

Pretty much. I go 1080p normally but 720p when I'm recording because OBS drops like frames like an SOB if I don't.

1600x900 + Trilinear Texture filter .

Graf Zahl said:

If the engine had had some more extended commercial life it would certainly have been equipped with hi-res support, but thanks to Doom95 that never happened.

Well, TBQH 640x400 and 640x480 were pretty hi-res for 1995-1996. Very few games went beyond that, especially in DOS. SVGA mode games were all the rage on DOS, and was what separated 486-class games from Pentium-class games.

I think even the Mac version didn't go beyond those resolutions, PowerPC be damned. If anything, the way those extended resolutions were achieved must have been kinda stiff from a programming point of view, requiring nowhere near the flexibility that e.g. prBoom+ or ZDoom have with fixed-resolution assets, arbitrary resolutions, non-4:3/8:5 aspect ratios etc.

So the next higher resolution they could conveivably support with the same minimal amount of effort that id put in Doom after Doom II, would be 960*600...quite a long shot for 1996.

For some history, don't forget the 2004 thread asking the same question which includes Graf complaining about people using low resolutions!

Maes said:

requiring nowhere near the flexibility that e.g. prBoom+ or ZDoom have with fixed-resolution assets, arbitrary resolutions, non-4:3/8:5 aspect ratios etc.

You are aware that that 'flexibility' amounts to setting a few scaling values to be used in the drawer functions, aren't you? After all the 3D-view already consists of textures being rendered at a different size than the actual pixels. It's not that this would have been a showstopper back in the day, just a tiny bit of math in the setup routine.

Linguica said:

For some history, don't forget the 2004 thread asking the same question which includes Graf complaining about people using low resolutions!

What can I say? My opinion about this form of 'purism' has not changed one bit in 12 years. Only my monitor got bigger with more pixels and the hardware got more powerful, allowing me to play more wads at full monitor's refresh rate in its native resolution. :D

I don't know about other people, but for me it's not a question of purism. At all. I simply think that 320x200 gives everything more depth due to the way faraway objects become blurred. To me the game feels more 3D, more immersive, in some way more dream-like when played like that and I really enjoy that feeling. I used to play with 640x400 for this same reason, but a while ago realized that 320x200 works even better for me while still providing enough visibility. What was intended by the authors of Doom or the maps that I play doesn't matter for me.

Note that I mostly play older maps I guess (especially from the 90's). For maps with thousands of sectors I agree that 320x200 and maybe even 640x400 is a bit extreme.

Depends on the source port.
I play OpenGL ports at my full resolution (1600x900)
But, I perfer to play with Cripsy Doom (640x480)
For some reason, I just like 4:3 better..

Memfis said:

I don't know about other people, but for me it's not a question of purism. At all. I simply think that 320x200 gives everything more depth due to the way faraway objects become blurred.

Same. Doom's graphics are inherently low-res, but on lower resolution everything's blurred into one wonderful pixel mess, so it's less noticable.
I don't really get the advantage of looking at low-res sprites in HD. IMHO it looks worse and out of place, almost like fighting some cardboard standees.

Also, high resolutions make Spectres VERY obvious.

Graf Zahl said:

You are aware that that 'flexibility' amounts to setting a few scaling values to be used in the drawer functions, aren't you?

Of course I am, Graf, but seeing this from a (G)ZDoom codebase perspective might have skewed your expectations a bit ;-)

Most vanilla- and boom- based source ports are nowhere near even the logical approach you suggested: the vanilla distinction between fixed-scale and variable-scale column rendering functions is still retained in many cases, and code to reposition fixed-scale elements like fonts, menus, status bar etc. is completely missing or quite limited, at most operating a 2x scaling and some offsetting.

In practice, this means many ports can/could only handle integer multiples of the base resolutions (and 640x480 is already "off"), with no provision for scaling/repositioning fixed-scale graphics in the case of arbitrary resolutions.

In some old ports you can see the effects of such partial support: e.g. the 3D view might scale up, but fonts and menus (and even the status bar, in some cases) remain the same resolution etc.

As I said, not a feature that id would implement given their story of putting in the minimal amount of effort to port classical Doom to a new platform, with the latest example of that being the Doom source port in Doom 3: BFG edition.

Maes said:

In practice, this means many ports can/could only handle integer multiples of the base resolutions (and 640x480 is already "off"), with no provision for scaling/repositioning fixed-scale graphics in the case of arbitrary resolutions.

In some old ports you can see the effects of such partial support: e.g. the 3D view might scale up, but fonts and menus (and even the status bar, in some cases) remain the same resolution etc.

... and even ZDoom chooses to use full integer multiples only for 2D drawing in most cases, because without texture filtering it looks better. Yes, I know it's a bit of work but not really that much - after all the 2D interface stuff in Doom.exe isn't that much - just the status bar, the menu and the intermission screens. it's not like this can't be adjusted in a week or so. Problems will arise if the 2D is cluttered with more stuff without addressing the underlying functionality firat. This was a big problem for Boom derivates if I am not mistaken thanks to the new menu system (No idea if this was introduced in Boom or MBF, though.)

In any case, support for flexible resolutions and aspect ratios is just one of the MANY things where hobbyist/third party source ports beat anything officially released under the Sun for the last 20 years or so.

If anything, if they were judged as source ports, most commercial Doom engines (including Doom'95, MacDoom etc.) would be considered broken and incomplete, even when they were first released (e.g. Doom '95 pretty much killed support for demos, DEH patches didn't work with it etc. and let's not even touch the topic of console ports...). Even the latest of them, the BFG edition one (or "Doom v1.11"), is quite limited and broken. I dunno, but it really seems like the official .exes for Doom, at least beyond the DOS era, are really thrown in as an afterthought.