GL Rendering in DSDA-Doom vs PrBoom+ UMAPINFO

Hi, I so have been trying out different source ports lately, after having played on ZDoom-based ports for the last 7-8 years. So far, I've had the best experience in the latest version of PrBoom+ 2.6.2, which I believe is the UMAPINFO fork from February 2022. I recently tried out DSDA-Doom since it is supposedly an actively developed fork of PrBoom+, and I like it a lot except one visual issue that I have. I've set my renderer to OpenGL for both the source ports, since on my laptop display, it happens to be the clearest, but there is still a significant difference between the rendering in DSDA-Doom and PrBoom+. To give you some specific examples:

Here is what the first room in Entryway looks like on DSDA-Doom:

and how it looks like on PrBoom+:

I don't have an issue at all with how it looks like on DSDA-Doom, but the problem arises when it's a map that uses a lot of dark sectors. Here is an example from The Magenta Spire's Map13:

DSDA-Doom:

PrBoom+:

Keep in mind that I have the Gamma level as 3 in both source ports, and I'm using the OpenGL renderer in both. DSDA-Doom also seems to have fewer OpenGL options in comparison. I even tried to see if copying the OpenGL settings from the cfg from one to another would make any difference, and it (obviously) didn't. Does anyone have a way to make DSDA-Doom's rendering look more like PrBoom+/GLBoom+? There are other DSDA-Doom features that I like better than PrBoom+ so it's a trade-off I'm not exactly happy with.

Edit: I should also add that while the lighting might look as intended in DSDA-Doom, my laptop screen is a combination of dim and washed out, making areas with darker sectors almost unplayable.

Looks like that the original view distance and/or lighting from the vanilla game is also present in the GL renderer. Looks authentic and original. I guess when you want to ensure, that dark rooms appear as they were planned, this is the way to go?

Oh yes, I understand that. If my monitor didn't suck, it would have been less of an issue. My screen isn't the best and I have to make a lot of visual adjustments in almost every game to ensure it doesn't look too dark, or too washed out if not dark.

Looks like your PrBoom+ screenshots are using the glboom lighting method, which is removed from DSDA-Doom as of v0.26. You can use an older version of DSDA-Doom that has still has it (v0.25 and earlier), but it likely won't be coming back to DSDA-Doom at any point in the future.

1 minute ago, Maribo said:

Looks like your PrBoom+ screenshots are using the glboom lighting method, which is removed from DSDA-Doom as of v0.26. You can use an older version of DSDA-Doom that has still has it (v0.25 and earlier), but it likely won't be coming back to DSDA-Doom at any point in the future.

I see, thanks for letting me know. I guess I will have to get used to the rendering until I get a new laptop with a better display.

Yes, DSDA-Doom uses a new indexed lighting mode for OpenGL, which means it is limited to the doom PLAYPAL. That's why the magenta fades to gray, it's how it would look in the software renderer.

The DSDA devs are quite keen to have OpenGL and Software mode as close to each other as possible, for a consistent experience. Part of that goal involves removing options for changing how the game looks.

To be honest if you need the flexibility of changing the lighting model due to your monitor (or any other reason), a source port designed for flexibility like GZDoom is probably a better bet.

If there are specific QoL features from dsda-doom that are important to you, I do have a personal fork of PrBoom+ here which may have similar features. I haven't added much (only stuff I personally use), but the code base is closer to PrBoom+.

Personally, I would recommend to use an older version of DSDA Doom (0.24.3 to be precise) over PrBoom+ umapinfo. PrBoom+ lacks quite a few features that DSDA has.

Frankly, DSDA looks much more faithful and better, even PRBoom's software renderer would look wrong. But why would DSDA devs want to remove support of GLBoom lighting method?

Thanks for all the responses! I'll either suck it up and try getting used to DSDA's lighting method or use an older version that still has GLBoom lighting. I'll also give @JadingTsunami's personal fork a try. Thanks a ton, Jading!

12 hours ago, Darkcrafter07 said:

Frankly, DSDA looks much more faithful and better, even PRBoom's software renderer would look wrong. But why would DSDA devs want to remove support of GLBoom lighting method?

Speedrunning focused source port so standardized lighting method is better for both speedrunning and the actual development. One less thing to worry about.

On 6/7/2023 at 5:35 PM, JadingTsunami said:

If there are specific QoL features from dsda-doom that are important to you, I do have a personal fork of PrBoom+ here which may have similar features. I haven't added much (only stuff I personally use), but the code base is closer to PrBoom+.

That looks similar in philosophy to From Doom With Love or Nugget Doom, being that they are mostly personal additions.
Could you make a compiled binary available for this PrBoomX?

4 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

That looks similar in philosophy to From Doom With Love or Nugget Doom, being that they are mostly personal additions.
Could you make a compiled binary available for this PrBoomX?

Sure, I have it linked in the releases on the GitHub page.

Direct link:

https://github.com/JadingTsunami/prboomX/releases/tag/prboomX-1.0.0

43 minutes ago, JadingTsunami said:

 

Sure, I have it linked in the releases on the GitHub page.

 

Direct link:

 

https://github.com/JadingTsunami/prboomX/releases/tag/prboomX-1.0.0

Very lovely Jading, ill make sure this gets a nice home too :)

@JadingTsunamiI tried out the release executable and put it inside a fresh PrBoom+ folder. It still wants a lot of dll's:

• PCresposix.dll
• Dumb.dll
• libfluidsynth.dll

I do like the logo though! :)

3 hours ago, Redneckerz said:

@JadingTsunamiI tried out the release executable and put it inside a fresh PrBoom+ folder. It still wants a lot of dll's:

• PCresposix.dll
• Dumb.dll
• libfluidsynth.dll

I do like the logo though! :)

Thanks, it should have the same requirements as the latest PrBoom+, but I will start a separate thread for the fork since it seems there is interest. I hadn't posted it before since I was not sure there would be any use for it. But since it seems like it may help the poster here perhaps it could be useful to others too.

1 hour ago, JadingTsunami said:

 

Thanks, it should have the same requirements as the latest PrBoom+, but I will start a separate thread for the fork since it seems there is interest. I hadn't posted it before since I was not sure there would be any use for it. But since it seems like it may help the poster here perhaps it could be useful to others too.

I wasn't going to suggest, but yes, i would appreciate that very much here. I see your fork in the same vein as From Doom With Love and Nugget Doom - Little offsprings of an established codebase focused on improving playability. So yeah, please do!

On 6/8/2023 at 11:21 AM, Darkcrafter07 said:

Frankly, DSDA looks much more faithful and better, even PRBoom's software renderer would look wrong. But why would DSDA devs want to remove support of GLBoom lighting method?

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2650773

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2651789

32 minutes ago, Classic SSG Enjoyer said:

 

 

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2650773

 

https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2651789

 

thanks.

1 hour ago, Darkcrafter07 said:

 

thanks.

mention not dude 😉