Do you think GZDoom should have texture filtering on by default?

[Edward850]

4 hours ago, Darkcrafter07 said:

8 - DirectX9 would be the best tradeoff for a huge majority of video cards, if the whole material system could also be rewritten with this API in mind and bundled with basic shaders for all needs, this could be the best.

Most of your post is just straight up nonsense, so know that this was the only thing that was worth responding to and even then it's still not in your favor:

Using DirectX9 in port development today is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Modern graphics hardware is not optimized around immediate mode rendering anymore. Heck, Intel ARC which is a very performant and affordable mid range card doesn't even have DirectX9, it runs it through DXVK as a compatibility layer.

 

You need to be using Vulkan or DX12 to be getting the most out of todays hardware, and building your rendering pipeline around those targets using shared buffers and shader pipeline state objects, getting as much work onto the GPU as possible while minimizing the amount of time spent waiting for the CPU to change render command states.

[indigotyrian]

25 minutes ago, JadingTsunami said:

Instead of arguing about defaults, it would be more productive to create a minimal "mod" for this.

 

Anyone can put their preferred settings into an config file and distribute it along with a batch file to launch with those settings (e.g., gzdoom -config doomier_defaults.ini).

 

If one were so inclined, a small script could modify or append the user's INI/autoexec settings to accomplish this as well.

 

Users figure out how to install mods and other content on their own when they see them in use all the time; this would be the same.

 

Trying to coordinate a widespread effort to get new players to actually configure their shit correctly would be orders of magnitude more effort than it would be if the settings were just properly configured in the first place.

[HavoX]

...Explain to me again why GZDoom has trilinear filtering on by default again?

 

Yeah, no. That should be DISABLED by default.

[Shepardus]

46 minutes ago, JadingTsunami said:

Instead of arguing about defaults, it would be more productive to create a minimal "mod" for this.

 

Anyone can put their preferred settings into an config file and distribute it along with a batch file to launch with those settings (e.g., gzdoom -config doomier_defaults.ini).

 

If one were so inclined, a small script could modify or append the user's INI/autoexec settings to accomplish this as well.

 

Users figure out how to install mods and other content on their own when they see them in use all the time; this would be the same.

The Vanilla Essence mod does a solid job of configuring "vanilla-like" settings in a quick and easy way. There are some defaults in it that I would change, but that's mostly personal preference. Many people don't even get as far as opening the options menu, though.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Shepardus

[Darkcrafter07]

32 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

Most of your post is just straight up nonsense, so know that this was the only thing that was worth responding to and even then it's still not in your favor:

Using DirectX9 in port development today is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Modern graphics hardware is not optimized around immediate mode rendering anymore. Heck, Intel ARC which is a very performant and affordable mid range card doesn't even have DirectX9, it runs it through DXVK as a compatibility layer.

 

You need to be using Vulkan or DX12 to be getting the most out of todays hardware, and building your rendering pipeline around those targets using shared buffers and shader pipeline state objects, getting as much work onto the GPU as possible while minimizing the amount of time spent waiting for the CPU to change render command states.

GZDoom utilizes Vulkan but it's not of a much help really, instead, it's a really cool way to prolong the game availability on the newer systems, I think that was one of the main goals to go that route. And why would you think that I was talking strictly about keeping directx api available for gzdoom? It's for much older systems.

 

I have an evidence that gzdoom works much faster when all static geometries are exported to 3d models and it's actually faster on any type of system (Hell Renaissance Map15).

 

It was either a troll or something calling it nonsense? Is there any work we could play test if you know so many smart words?

[Edward850]

1 hour ago, Darkcrafter07 said:

GZDoom utilizes Vulkan but it's not of a much help really

GZDoom's performance has bottlenecks related to still trying to support OpenGL 3/4/ES in the same graphics pipeline. Any advantage Vulkan could use is unavailable while GL is still defining the spec.

 

1 hour ago, Darkcrafter07 said:

I have an evidence that gzdoom works much faster when all static geometries are exported to 3d models and it's actually faster on any type of system (Hell Renaissance Map15).

I already saw this thread; You were comparing GZDoom's per-frame world generation to a statically compiled mesh, which is extremely not an equivalent comparison. GZDoom has to calculate visibility and redraw the world every frame because Doom's map structures are unpredictably dynamic. That bottleneck could be lifted by using state-change triggered compiling of a runtime geometry mesh (we did this for Blood using software tessellation), but that's a rather complicated ask this late in it's development cycle with the likes of Zscript now commanding the map data in unpredictable ways.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Edward850

[indigotyrian]

will be very exciting for GZDoom to finally get good performance once its moved to the brand new Vulkan platform (finally! a solid 60 FPS on Entryway!)

[dpJudas]

9 hours ago, Bauul said:

With the ongoing development of VKDoom (my understanding is that it has a good chance to become the defacto choice for indie develop rather than base GZDoom) this is even less of a factor.

VkDoom uses different defaults than GZDoom. It uses nearest filtering, software light mode, fuzz shadow mode and a few other things like that. Why? Because those are my preferences.

 

GZDoom uses Graf's preferences. I know Graf has used various arguments for the defaults in GZDoom, but ultimately I think it comes down to this is what he prefers and thinks is the best default.

 

Indie game developers will change those defaults to how they think their game should look like anyway - regardless of what defaults the source port has.

 

I know everyone here on DW are having great fun showing that this GZDoom default isn't exactly popular, but I do sometimes wonder if people truly understand the implications of mocking a guy over his choices year after year after year. Working on a source port is supposed to be fun. This ain't it.

[JadingTsunami]

53 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

The Vanilla Essence mod does a solid job of configuring "vanilla-like" settings in a quick and easy way. There are some defaults in it that I would change, but that's mostly personal preference. Many people don't even get as far as opening the options menu, though.

 

I like this suggestion; for anyone interested I believe the mod is here if you want to try it out.

[Herr Dethnout]

43 minutes ago, dpJudas said:

 

I know everyone here on DW are having great fun showing that this GZDoom default isn't exactly popular, but I do sometimes wonder if people truly understand the implications of mocking a guy over his choices year after year after year. Working on a source port is supposed to be fun. This ain't it.

That's fine if he likes it, but you cannot expect that the community will like it, even more when he gives poorly excuses for maintaining such feature on as default.

 

I mean, he wanted evidence that general public doesn't like filtering, here is...

[jazzmaster9]

I do wonder after years of people complaining about it and nothing changing when do we just call it a day and it just consider it beating a dead horse? 

 

People have this "its Le No chicken Graf wont change lol not true doom source port" yet expect him to change magically if we make fun of him long enough.

Edited July 3, 2023 by jazzmaster9

[D4NUK1]

31 minutes ago, jazzmaster9 said:

 People have this "its Le No chicken Graf wont change lol not true doom source port" yet expect him to change magically if we make fun of him long enough.

 

This is also my take,  many of the vocal ones make the critic with the discomfort aimed to the user instead of the options.

[jazzmaster9]

I understand where they are coming from with GZDoom being the popular port so it MUST look like the original doom. I get that.

 

But if it didn't change then, it certainly wont change now with added memes/shade being included. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy 

Edited July 3, 2023 by jazzmaster9

[indigotyrian]

1 hour ago, jazzmaster9 said:

I do wonder after years of people complaining about it and nothing changing when do we just call it a day and it just consider it beating a dead horse? 

 

People have this "its Le No chicken Graf wont change lol not true doom source port" yet expect him to change magically if we make fun of him long enough.

 

So is the solution then really to make a whole shitton of noise whenever the topic of GZDoom comes up to say "hey watch out, the lead developer has some really dumb ideas on how this game should look so everyone should download this mod?" Wouldn't that just be an order of magnitude more bullying?

 

I'm not gonna lie, I think the decision to have texture filtering on by default is boneheaded, but I'm not trying to make personal attacks on Graf Zahl for multiple reasons. His accomplishments speak for themselves, his work drives multiple indie games and what is the single most popular (for good reason) Doom source port. I'm just some guy.

[Scuba Steve]

3 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

People have this "its Le No chicken Graf wont change lol not true doom source port" yet expect him to change magically if we make fun of him long enough.

I think it's been talked about a lot and individuals have constantly brought it up, but I don't think there's ever been a concerted and forceful campaign to explain just how awful it looks; creators hate it, almost every user hates it and it gives novice users a bad first impression. After watching Romero switch to the hardware renderer and assume "that's just how it looks" I decided it was best to just go on a warpath and attempt to kill it as the default setting. Members like @Nash are probably best positioned to put forward a list of "best default settings" that the dev team would ultimately change.

 

This isn't about making fun of Graf, it's about artists and content creators explaining why these settings ruin carefully crafted visuals and GZDoom is doing novice players a disservice by presenting them with a terrible first impression. We artists aren't going to all the trouble of making beautiful sprites and textures just to have them look like a blurry mess for half the player base who doesn't know it's not supposed to look like that.

[BeachThunder]

1 hour ago, jazzmaster9 said:

I do wonder after years of people complaining about it and nothing changing when do we just call it a day and it just consider it beating a dead horse? 

 

People have this "its Le No chicken Graf wont change lol not true doom source port" yet expect him to change magically if we make fun of him long enough.

This poll was definitely not intended as a way to make fun of him (or anyone). I honestly didn't realise just how extraordinarily one-sided this poll would wind up being. I assumed it would be a majority, but I didn't expect it to be by this much...

 

I love GZDoom, and I want it to be as good as it can possibly be. I especially want people who are new to GZDoom to be immediately presented with the best possible experience. And I think we can now see the sheer magnitude of people who believe that texture filtering is NOT the best default experience.

Yes, I'd love it if this poll can help bring about a change. But, also, the one thing I dislike more than texture filtering is people being bullies. So, I'd also love it if we kept the conversation civil and avoided personal attacks.

[Xaser]

The "it's the port author's preferred defaults" counter-argument tends to come up a lot, but that's never made any sense to me, because configuration files exist. The defaults ought to be what works best for the general audience (i.e. n00bs :P), and well... *points at poll*

 

If the dev(s) want to have quick access to their preferred settings from a fresh install/clone/etc., maybe take a page from Quake 2's book and ship a bunch of .cfg files in gzdoom.pk3 itself, so a quick `exec grafzahl.cfg` in the console is all it takes to get everything all set up to taste.

 

Also seeing the "it's configured for modern indie games" comment come up a couple of times, but I'm not sure I understand that one either. Folks using GZDoom for a standalone game can set the defaults to whatever works best for them (in fact that's the one place where you do have full control even without forking gzdoom -- you can define default values for cvars, but only for IWADs), and most people who reach for GZDoom are likely going to be part of the "modern retro" / "boomer shooter" crowd who loves their crunchy pixels.

[jazzmaster9]

@Scuba Steve I apologize if i make made it sound like im defending Texture Filtering in any way, Im not and my initial post says i prefer to play with it off. I Too am a GZDoom Mod developer so Im very familiar with GZDoom's default affecting my work.

 

But I will stand by that unless Graf lets go of GZDoom (which i highly doubt) this probably won't change. And thats my observation.

 

But ill go ahead and bow out of this one. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by jazzmaster9

[Darkcrafter07]

Well, it's actually only up to the developer of the source ports, GZDoom is his creation, product and property, he could listen to the opinion though but as a form of suggestion not a soviet union style red peasants gathering sending you an order, just because many can't be wrong and because they decided so. Obey!

 

So sad we can't change things sometimes that easily. Sorry if I hurt somebody, this time it's a joke.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Darkcrafter07

[Professor Hastig]

12 hours ago, SuperPIter_DoomWorldthe2nd said:

I honestly doubt that GZDoom is "easier" to run on modern systems if we were to consider the... Ahem, slightly non-existent optimization for hardware that ain't exactly that strong that... quite honestly, a pretty big part of the population here on Earth has.

.

 

If you run weak hardware you run into performance problems far more quickly, that's the nature of the thing. Weak hardware cannot run maps that need more processing power.

The claim is also flat out wrong. The current GZDoom has the GLES backend which gets quite a bit of mileage out of weaker systems. But at some point there's little that can be done about optimization and the far more important question of viability of doing so becomes dominant.

 

But what I find far more disturbing about that 'discussion' is that the people participating seem to display a severe disconnect from reality. Can the engine be optimized? Yes, of course it could, but let's not forget that nobody involved in source port development is getting any money for it - this isn't a professional product or at least one with corporate sponsors. Which begs the question, who is going to do it, if the developers are busy with real-life problems that logically take priority?

 

6 hours ago, indigotyrian said:

will be very exciting for GZDoom to finally get good performance once its moved to the brand new Vulkan platform (finally! a solid 60 FPS on Entryway!)

 

WTF? What kind of computer are you running? The oldest and crappiest computer I have access to at work is an 11 year old system with a low end Intel CPU and an unnamed Intel HD graphics from the same era as the HD4000. You cannot get any weaker while still retaining compatibility with GZDoom and it gets up to 100 fps with the GLES backend on vanilla maps. But this is a classic office computer from a different era, trying to run any games on it will just bring endless misery and pain so taking it as a valid benchmark is as pointless as it comes.

 

 

Back on topic:

 

No, no you are all wrong. Giving the engine different defaults won't change anything. Users will still have to configure it to their liking, they just may have one less option to trigger - or maybe not. A very common setup I have seen is to use the normal2X texture scaler, but to make any use of that, texture filtering needs to be ON, otherwise it won't have any effect.

 

What GZDoom really needs is not a slight change of options but a mandatory preset choice run on first start that allows the user who lack the technical understanding to select something visually, i.e. show on a demo scene how common visual settings will affect it and then choose the one they like most. This, of course should not just consider the texture filter but also other visual preferences like light mode.

 

 

 

 

[Shepardus]

17 minutes ago, Professor Hastig said:

A very common setup I have seen is to use the normal2X texture scaler, but to make any use of that, texture filtering needs to be ON, otherwise it won't have any effect.

Same with anisotropic filtering, which is on by default but has no effect without texture filtering (though you can use "None (nearest mipmap/linear mipmap/trilinear)" if you like your crunchy pixels but also don't like the moiré effect).

 

I think having multiple presets (perhaps selectable through the default launcher?) would be a step in the right direction, not only making it easier for users to set up the port the way they like but also signalling to them that these options exist in the first place. Even some mods such as Doom CE have multiple presets for users with different tastes.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Shepardus

[Darkcrafter07]

You need a GL3 compliant card to have a good gzddom experience (older cards that were initially made for gl2 and then upgraded to gl3 via newer drivers are not eligible). Lzdoom is a good alternative if your graphics card was made for gl2 initially but of course it looks worse as there is no more software sector lighting mode. Ones made around 2010-2011 are a good way to go yet.

 

The performance issues start to rise with maps much more complicated than those of vanilla campaign and mods, the problem much bigger than work with GPU is definitely bogging CPUs so they crawl down under big things. I would really like for GZDoom to borrow something of helion port just because requiring a win 10 / gl3 card rewards you with super big fps numbers no matter what maps those are (modern video cards eat all those thousands of polygons like nothing).

 

All the improvements cost time, energy and money unfortunately.

[Professor Hastig]

26 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

Same with anisotropic filtering, which is on by default but has no effect without texture filtering (though you can use "None (nearest mipmap/linear mipmap/trilinear)" if you like your crunchy pixels but also don't like the moiré effect).

 

If properly implemented, the anisotropic setting should not matter if filtering is completely off. I wouldn't promote that setting due to the aliasing it causes. Nowadays it is most likely best to reduce the texture filter option to just "on/off" with 'on' meaning trilinear and 'off' meaning 'nearest with linear mipmaps'.

 

Personally I'd like to see something else as well: Allow upscaling by a factor of two and then use the regular texture for the first mipmap level and downfiltered levels of the original texture for the lower ones. From what I understand this is something very awkward to set up in OpenGL but with everything in Vulkan being explicitly done should surely possible there, right?

 

And while we are already bikeshedding the potential content, here's some suggestions about the light mode:

Most of the available settings are rather pointless to have in a menu. They are fine as per-map options that can be set through MAPINFO but should be limited to that. All the menu should offer is the 'software' setting and rename the 'doom' setting to 'performance'. For that it is still very valid - that old system from my last post is weak enough that the software lighting shader brings it down enough for fps to become a more serious problem. This simpler light mode works wonders on it.

 

Quote

I think having multiple presets (perhaps selectable through the default launcher?) would be a step in the right direction, not only making it easier for users to set up the port the way they like but also signalling to them that these options exist in the first place.

 

The main problem with any complex setup is finding the few settings that really need presetting. Due to the nature of the thing they are normally scattered throughout various menus so they are hard to find for the uninitiated. Even if presets may prove too complex, just having a quick setup menu with the 10-20 most important options - not just graphics but also sound, for example - pop up on start when no INI is found may already work wonders.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Professor Hastig

[Devalaous]

1 hour ago, Xaser said:

The "it's the port author's preferred defaults" counter-argument tends to come up a lot, but that's never made any sense to me, because configuration files exist. The defaults ought to be what works best for the general audience (i.e. n00bs :P), and well... *points at poll*

 

This, so much. When I was working in the games industry, the CEO and big boss had to often be brought into line by his other programmers and the business guys, and there was a whole bunch of cool visual effects and things we had to tone down for the 'general audience'. I had an integral role there, as my PC was the weakest in the group, and if it couldn't run on mine or bombed the memory outright we had to consider that the overall community's wide range of hardware. There were so many times when the lead developer wanted a specific thing and fought for it, but ultimately grumbled and relented (he always had his own set up where he could do his own things though without detracting from others)

 

The one time he stubbornly stuck to his guns outside of development, he got SO much backlash from literally every part of the internet, he was forcibly humbled and conceded

 

Now I know this is *different* to private 'for fun' engine development, but there ARE some parallels.

[Mr. Freeze]

Texture filtering makes it look like I took my glasses off. Absolutely hate it. 

[dpJudas]

24 minutes ago, Devalaous said:

Now I know this is *different* to private 'for fun' engine development, but there ARE some parallels.

The only parallel is that users seem to still think they are entitled to make demands. With a paid product there's official minimum specs, market share considerations and most importantly money exchanged. With open source projects there is not.

 

Entry way runs at over 2000 fps on my computer. The Disdain demo runs at 240 fps vsync locked. Nuts runs at 45 fps (after shooting, at default settings - there are settings to get it down to a slide show). Almost anything heavy from mods I've tried runs at about 90 fps.

 

If GZDoom runs poorly on your system then please keep in mind there's no incentive for open source developers to improve the situation except for being a nice guy. Make no mistake - every time I've made some adjustment for lesser capable systems I've just as annoyed as that lead developer. The only different is that now I wasn't even being paid. Just keep that in mind.

[Doomkid]

If your software is publicly available, users are entitled to sharing whatever opinion they have on it - good, bad, or otherwise, so long as it doesn’t get personal or underhanded. It comes with the territory of making literally anything intended for public consumption.

[Professor Hastig]

8 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

If your software is publicly available, users are entitled to sharing whatever opinion they have on it - good, bad, or otherwise, so long as it doesn’t get personal or underhanded. It comes with the territory of making literally anything intended for public consumption.

 

On the other hand the developers are just as much entitled to just quit if the user base gets too obnoxious and the project ceases being fun. They do not have a contract with you and are under no obligation to meet your demands. Never forget that as well! I have seen projects I cared for die under this kind of public pressure in the past.

 

[Azafran]

54 minutes ago, dpJudas said:

The only parallel is that users seem to still think they are entitled to make demands. With a paid product there's official minimum specs, market share considerations and most importantly money exchanged. With open source projects there is not.

 

Entry way runs at over 2000 fps on my computer. The Disdain demo runs at 240 fps vsync locked. Nuts runs at 45 fps (after shooting, at default settings - there are settings to get it down to a slide show). Almost anything heavy from mods I've tried runs at about 90 fps.

 

If GZDoom runs poorly on your system then please keep in mind there's no incentive for open source developers to improve the situation except for being a nice guy. Make no mistake - every time I've made some adjustment for lesser capable systems I've just as annoyed as that lead developer. The only different is that now I wasn't even being paid. Just keep that in mind.

 

All of that doesn't prevent users thinking that your defaults are garbage. GZDoom devs can do whatever they want with their unpaid piece of software, but the fact is that as a public release, said public doesn't like the defaults. Sticking to your guns doesn't make any sense and it will be criticized.

 

People have all the right to do that the same the devs have all the right to do as they please with their program.

[dpJudas]

10 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

If your software is publicly available, users are entitled to sharing whatever opinion they have on it - good, bad, or otherwise, so long as it doesn’t get personal or underhanded. It comes with the territory of making literally anything intended for public consumption.

Of course you can state your opinion, but this nicely brings me back to my original comment. If you don't think carefully about how you express that opinion you may well find yourself eventually with no active developers in your community. There are few enough already as it is.

 

Just to put some context into it - here's one fine example of top quality feedback: https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2665532. If this thread was the only thread about this subject, then yes, sure, in isolation it would be perfectly fine. In this thread Darkcraft07 was mocked for being so incredibly stupid to vote for his preferences. Great fun. Yeah I'm sure he likes hanging out here now.