GLESZDoom - GZDoom for potatoes

This thread makes GZDoom look like it's total garbage, lol! Just kidding... but I think I'm gonna use GLESZDoom instead now... is it also faster if I play it on Vulkan? My PC has some AMD-stuff going on and I heard that Vulkan runs faster on AMD systems...

GLESZDOOM makes GZDOOM look like bloatware in development hell, in comparison.

Damn... I thought the exact same but I didn't say it like that since I didn't want to sound aggressive or anything but I just have to agree, no matter how much I try to be nice to GZDoom...

Just now, Wadmodder Shalton said:

GLESZDOOM makes GZDOOM look like bloatware in development hell, in comparison.

i think the best outcome of this is if the gleszdoom render gets inplemented on gzdoom as a optional render so it can be compatible with most machines (that is if this can be done without compromising gzdoom itself)

i dont get why gzdoom doesnt already use its software render as default seeing how it is compatible with a bunch of machines even though i know the project is largely focused on the gl render

i think a way to chose the render before starting the game like lzdoom would be the best option otherwise people dont have to use workarounds to get it to work so they could change the render to software to play

while of course we know about alternatives and stuff the majority of players are still casuals that dont even know how to turn the trillinear filter off so i doubt they would try another source port after gzdoom didnt work on their machine

1 hour ago, 0o0[ULTIM4TE]L1FE[F0RM]0o0 said:

This thread makes GZDoom look like it's total garbage, lol!

Yep:

On mercredi 10 mars 2021 at 10:46 PM, beloko said:

The GZDoom devs have done an incredible job splitting the rendering code and the hardware implementation therefore there is minimal change to the core files.

On jeudi 11 mars 2021 at 8:11 PM, beloko said:

Really what the GZDoom team have done with the engine is pretty awesome and is similar, Vulkan, OpenGL AND Software all from the same data, very nice. 

Definitely sounds like saying it's garbage!

10 minutes ago, Wadmodder Shalton said:

GLESZDOOM makes GZDOOM look like bloatware in development hell, in comparison.

Yep again:

On mercredi 10 mars 2021 at 10:46 PM, beloko said:

Removed features (In the GLES2 render code only)

It's astounding how right people are in this thread!

Yeah, but that's why we, the REAL doom fans should keep GLESZDoom big so the rest of the world will see it!

1 minute ago, 0o0[ULTIM4TE]L1FE[F0RM]0o0 said:

Yeah, but that's why we, the REAL doom fans should keep GLESZDoom big so the rest of the world will see it!

i hope so many people dont even know there are other source ports so i would be happy if this got main stream

Oh, really? I thought GZDoom is like the biggest thing ever... so people still play the DOS version all the time?

Just now, 0o0[ULTIM4TE]L1FE[F0RM]0o0 said:

Oh, really? I thought GZDoom is like the biggest thing ever... so people still play the DOS version all the time?

oh i think my comment got lost in translation so my bad

what i was saying is that gzdoom is the most popular port with casuals and many people dont know that there are other source ports out there so when they try to play on gzdoom but it doesnt work they just give up so i would be happy if gleszdoom got more popular with the main stream so people wouldint just though "well i guess doom doesnt work on my machine" and just walk away from it

Oh, I think I get it now... yeah, that makes sense. I hope that too. So they will know that there a lot of different flavors that is made specially for their own taste in a way if that made sense.

6 hours ago, CBM said:

isnt zdoom and lzdoom meant for potato rigs that can't handle the advanced stuff in gzdoom like 3d models etc?

while gzdoom is meant to run doom on modern hardware with all the trimmings and as many upgrades as possible?

 

but I guess many of my old retro xp rigs could also run most gzdoom stuff if I really wanted 

LZDoom just seems so pointless to me in the way it was executed... I've given it many chances but I've never noticed it running any better than GZDoom, it's always been just as stuttery for me

8 hours ago, Gez said:

Yep:

 

Definitely sounds like saying it's garbage!

 

 

Yep again:

 

It's astounding how right people are in this thread!

Yes, thanks @Gez. To be clear about this code and thread, all I have done is copy the original backend GL code and hacked out some of it and done some very specific optimisations for mobile, which also happen to give some performance benefit for really old PC hardware, it is 99.9999% original GZDoom code and this can't be classified as another 'source port'.

Having hacked around with the GZDoom code for a while I've always been impressed with it is exceptional high quality and the amount of work those guys put in insane, I would NEVER criticise what they do.

6 hours ago, MattFright said:

 

LZDoom just seems so pointless to me in the way it was executed... I've given it many chances but I've never noticed it running any better than GZDoom, it's always been just as stuttery for me

it runs way better and i would say still better then this project here though this come at a cost

im using it to mostly play pirate doom but damn there are some very annoying rendering errors in it on some latter stages

what does make it kinda pointles is the fact that no one tests wads for it so its always a 50/50 if the thing will behave though its still a really good port

6 hours ago, MattFright said:

 

LZDoom just seems so pointless to me in the way it was executed... I've given it many chances but I've never noticed it running any better than GZDoom, it's always been just as stuttery for me

I never tried lzdoom but I love gzdoom on modern gaming rigs (ie my i7-6700k+gtx1080 and r5-2600+rx5700xt rigs ... however my old slow gaming laptop from 2016 and even my even slower netbook from 2016 also runs gzdoom just fine... even though my netbook ib particular is an old potato)...

it is unreasonable to expect 10+ year old potato rigs to run gzdoom...

why is it people think a toaster from 1995 can run gzdoom? the gzdoom port is not meant for that.. it looks to the future for gods sake...

for potato rigs (can also be low specced win 10 computers all the way down to retro xp rigs) that needs a windows version I use zdoom (my ancient 2006 imac also runs zdoom just fine)

for win 98se and dos machines I often just use the original dos executeable or chokolate or similar retro ports 

(basically for anything that is from the previous millennia)

my understanding though is that lzdoom should be the port that can be somewhat compatible with gzdoom and zdoom and provide some kind of middle ground for semi potato rigs?

9 hours ago, 0o0[ULTIM4TE]L1FE[F0RM]0o0 said:

This thread makes GZDoom look like it's total garbage, lol!

8 hours ago, Wadmodder Shalton said:

GLESZDOOM makes GZDOOM look like bloatware in development hell, in comparison.

Yup. GZDoom doesn't run on potatoes so it is definitely garbage. You guys are correct.

1 minute ago, ReaperAA said:

 

 

Yup. GZDoom doesn't run on potatoes so it is definitely garbage. You guys are correct.

I dont understand why people cant accept that we also need a non-potato port that can look to the future... its not like they dont have tons of other ports to use

...but I guess it explains why people only like prboom mods ... since they can run on potatos while still having slight engine upgrades

really doesnt motivates modders to do heavy gzdoom mods for those 5 people that runs gzdoom on semi modern hardware

I just wish that there could be room for all ports and that each port could be allowed to harness what they are all about... gzdoom was never about sucking up to potato rig owners

Fundamentally, the problem with that is that GZDoom is now, effectively, ZDoom. Adding loads of graphical features for those who need them is fine. Taking away the ability to use a pure software renderer is not. Maybe it's just me, but I want to make classic style mods (PrBoom level visuals) with an enhanced logic engine (ZScript), as I feel this is what should have existed years ago before graphical systems got so powerful; Vavoom C was the nearest there was. To me, modern mods aren't really Doom at all; indeed making a Doom mod with advanced graphics without making it look like something else seems to be quite hard (shoutout to the author of deadsignal for actually pulling this off :))

I would be happy as a hog in shit for ZScript without lens flares, glowing corpses, etc.

2 hours ago, omalefico32x said:

it runs way better and i would say still better then this project here though this come at a cost

im using it to mostly play pirate doom but damn there are some very annoying rendering errors in it on some latter stages

what does make it kinda pointles is the fact that no one tests wads for it so its always a 50/50 if the thing will behave though its still a really good port

Remember that until now GLESZDoom didn't exist. I've tried pirate doom and for me it works well (i think since i don't know very well what's all about). But are you using the GL renderer? The default is software like in ZDoom.

2 hours ago, drfrag said:

Remember that until now GLESZDoom didn't exist. I've tried pirate doom and for me it works well (i think since i don't know very well what's all about). But are you using the GL renderer? The default is software like in ZDoom.

yeah im aware of that

i usually use the software true color render to play on lzdoom but the problem is that pirate doom is made with the glrender in mind and some things will not render in software mode

no problem i can play it without a care in the world but some levels for some reason the rendering gets all messed up only thing i think causes this is the fog in the levels

they do run on software with no issues but because pirate doom doest render some elements on software (like some tress and other details)i though it was worth pointing it out

though i dont want to make a big deal out of this i only seen this issue on 2 maps and i was able to play them even with those problems and like last time this can all be on my end so heres some screenshots:

also my "pointles" comment was just a rant about no one testing maps on lzdoom i didnt mean that lzdoom itself was pointless

I've tried that map and "for me it works (tm)" so it's a problem with your graphics driver. You're lucky that GLESZDoom works and you see the fog.

16 hours ago, 0o0[ULTIM4TE]L1FE[F0RM]0o0 said:

so people still play the DOS version all the time?

There are plenty of people that play only Vanilla, Chocolate, Crispy, Woof!, Doom Retro or PrBoom+, exclusivelly.

So yes, GZDoom is not the only source port and its really cool that its doesn't.

6 hours ago, Martin Howe said:

Fundamentally, the problem with that is that GZDoom is now, effectively, ZDoom. Adding loads of graphical features for those who need them is fine. Taking away the ability to use a pure software renderer is not. Maybe it's just me, but I want to make classic style mods (PrBoom level visuals) with an enhanced logic engine (ZScript), as I feel this is what should have existed years ago before graphical systems got so powerful; Vavoom C was the nearest there was. To me, modern mods aren't really Doom at all; indeed making a Doom mod with advanced graphics without making it look like something else seems to be quite hard (shoutout to the author of deadsignal for actually pulling this off :))

 

I would be happy as a hog in shit for ZScript without lens flares, glowing corpses, etc.

i think thats the place Eternity Engine has actually.

Not with ZScript of course, but EDF is also quite versatile and not that hard to understand or extremelly different than ZScript.

Eternity Engine possibilitates extremelly code scripting and amazing effects, but without goind full force high graphic output only.

Fixed texture filtering modes for anyone interested: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qVciQf9FGIAQVdMmHPPsgIp-u2v50t6d/view?usp=sharing

2 minutes ago, beloko said:

Fixed texture filtering modes for anyone interested: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qVciQf9FGIAQVdMmHPPsgIp-u2v50t6d/view?usp=sharing

hell yeah

I made another test! This time in Dobu Gabu Maru's ginormous The Given, a complete opposite from my last test. While Lunatic has a lot of its rendering focused on sprites, projectiles and such (as well as affecting FPS through more than rendering alone), The Given is a puzzle map without any monsters so it's a better test of performance purely of the renderer (though, let's be real, you can count maps of this size and scale on your fingers because they are made knowing that most people won't be able to run them regardless of sourceport.

Anyways, i tested this one in several other sourceports this time, AND across this version and the last version of GLESZDoom (i didn't expect differences but i was really wrong), here's the ranking of performance w/ a few notes. Top = best performance, Bottom = worst performance

LZDoom (Software renderer)*

LZDoom (Hardware renderer)*

GLBoom+

GZDoom (Software renderer)

PRBoom+

GZDoom (Hardware renderer)

Eternity Engine

GLESZDoom (Hardware renderer)

GLESZDoom (Software renderer)**

* LZDoom does indeed run the best regardless of renderer and makes a map that would otherwise run at 1-15 FPS in any other sourceport for me run at a weird 30-60 FPS, but it come at a cost. I've never used it in a map this massive (and probably never will again, since again, barely any maps whatsoever try to be this big), so i didn't know this, but apparently LZDoom has a render distance limit in both renderer modes, so some further geometry either doesn't render at all, or becomes a flat color:

But if i take just a few steps forward near the end of that pool of nukage...

So yeah, it's not exactly a fair comparison and this is still LZDoom only winning in performance when it comes to... gigantic monster-less maps?

** GLESZdoom's software renderer is ranking so low because it just crashes after i choose a difficulty and it attempts to load the map.

...But weirdly enough i was randomly able to get it to work two times out of about 10 attempts. I don't quite remember what the performance was like, but if i recall correctly it was about as good as GZDoom's hardware renderer (for my specific hardware, anyways).

Make of this test what you will, but i'd still say GLESZDoom beats GZDoom and LZDoom in much less detailed maps (might test it around some more to see how much exactly is required to make it run worse than them, unless you think that'd be irrelevant information), because the performance is so much better at consistency. Obviously though PR/GLBoom+ and Eternity still run better.

1 minute ago, MattFright said:

I made another test! This time in Dobu Gabu Maru's ginormous The Given, a complete opposite from my last test. While Lunatic has a lot of its rendering focused on sprites, projectiles and such (as well as affecting FPS through more than rendering alone), The Given is a puzzle map without any monsters so it's a better test of performance purely of the renderer (though, let's be real, you can count maps of this size and scale on your fingers because they are made knowing that most people won't be able to run them regardless of sourceport.

 

Anyways, i tested this one in several other sourceports this time, AND across this version and the last version of GLESZDoom (i didn't expect differences but i was really wrong), here's the ranking of performance w/ a few notes. Top = best performance, Bottom = worst performance

 

LZDoom (Software renderer)*

LZDoom (Hardware renderer)*

GLBoom+

GZDoom (Software renderer)

PRBoom+

GZDoom (Hardware renderer)

Eternity Engine

GLESZDoom (Hardware renderer)

GLESZDoom (Software renderer)**

 

* LZDoom does indeed run the best regardless of renderer and makes a map that would otherwise run at 1-15 FPS in any other sourceport for me run at a weird 30-60 FPS, but it come at a cost. I've never used it in a map this massive (and probably never will again, since again, barely any maps whatsoever try to be this big), so i didn't know this, but apparently LZDoom has a render distance limit in both renderer modes, so some further geometry either doesn't render at all, or becomes a flat color:

 

 

But if i take just a few steps forward near the end of that pool of nukage...

 

 

So yeah, it's not exactly a fair comparison and this is still LZDoom only winning in performance when it comes to... gigantic monster-less maps?

 

** GLESZdoom's software renderer is ranking so low because it just crashes after i choose a difficulty and it attempts to load the map.

 

...But weirdly enough i was randomly able to get it to work two times out of about 10 attempts. I don't quite remember what the performance was like, but if i recall correctly it was about as good as GZDoom's hardware renderer (for my specific hardware, anyways).

 

 

 

Make of this test what you will, but i'd still say GLESZDoom beats GZDoom and LZDoom in much less detailed maps (might test it around some more to see how much exactly is required to make it run worse than them, unless you think that'd be irrelevant information), because the performance is so much better at consistency. Obviously though PR/GLBoom+ and Eternity still run better.

hey i think you can disable this by messing around with the render culling distance on lzdoom

6 minutes ago, omalefico32x said:

hey i think you can disable this by messing around with the render culling distance on lzdoom

Well either way i believe this brings the most useful results, since LZDoom seems to be all about "performance at a cost", and since that's probably the way you can get the most performance out of it anyways (otherwise performance would be pretty similar to GZDoom i'd think)

EDIT: I also forgot to clarify, it was an actual slideshow on the previous version for some reason even on the software renderer (whenever i got that to not crash), so whatever you did between that version and this one had a good performance impact.

12 minutes ago, omalefico32x said:

hey i think you can disable this by messing around with the render culling distance on lzdoom

Very interesting, thanks! The GLES codes uses a really old method to upload the vertex data to the GPU, possibly because of the huge level this now becomes the bottleneck for this case. Thanks for the tip about this map also, I'm trying to download it for my testing but download seems broken, anyway I'll find a copy.

Yes not tried SW mode, surprised it ran AT ALL on one of your attempts.

22 minutes ago, MattFright said:

 

Well either way i believe this brings the most useful results, since LZDoom seems to be all about "performance at a cost", and since that's probably the way you can get the most performance out of it anyways (otherwise performance would be pretty similar to GZDoom i'd think)

 

EDIT: I also forgot to clarify, it was an actual slideshow on the previous version for some reason even on the software renderer (whenever i got that to not crash), so whatever you did between that version and this one had a good performance impact.

To be clear, are you saying the 0.2 version of GLES is faster than the first 0.1 version when using the HW renderer?

https://www.doomworld.com/idgames/levels/doom2/Ports/s-u/thegiven