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

[Darkcrafter07]

17 minutes ago, Herr Dethnout said:

Time for start a era for the ETERNITY

 

  Hide contents

Got it?

 

It's a really good sourceport but to me feature wise it falls behind GZDoom. I even like how Eternity is able to handle portals and moving geometry but even if some "unnecessary" features drop and the ones I'd still need anyway: 3d floors, terrain, 3d models; brutal doom (I like it and some other people do too). And if you'd said that 3d levels could be done with portals then no, the map sizes are huge and there are no more place to put those fake sectors around and also recreating maps this way would be way too much effort (when possible).

 

Even if I'd drop abovementioned, lots of my maps rely on 3D floors which is something that ACE engine supports and as far as DosBox exists for a huge variety of systems (pc, mac, android) I'd go with ACE instead. ACE is also more friendly towards zdoom mapping so the learning process would be different. What ACE doesn't support now is portals but I think this could be circumvented by placing textures of those tunneled transitions and using invisible teleporters.

 

Well, if I'd like to recreate Hell Renaissance for other engines, then a lot of shortcuts had to be taken.

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Darkcrafter07

[dpJudas]

Please don't turn this thread into a GZDoom vs Eternity thread. That's just boring and off topic.

[Biodegradable]

Perhaps the GZ team could simply put the Texture Filtering as a toggle option in the Extra Graphics section of the little menu that pops up when you launch the port? Look, there's even a little bit of space to squeeze it right in:

 

 

Mind you, I realise this might not really solve the first impression issue a lot of people are concerned with. After all, when I first started playing Doom again with GZ, I had no idea what any of the video settings displayed even meant.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Biodegradable

[dpJudas]

There is a proposal on the zdoom forum how an improved options menu could look like. While it won't fix the defaults, it is IMO a very large improvement when it comes to discoverability of settings compared to the current release. I have no idea if it will actually get merged into GZDoom though. We will see I guess.

[Noiser]

Just now, dpJudas said:

There is a proposal on the zdoom forum how an improved options menu could look like. While it won't fix the defaults, it is IMO a very large improvement when it comes to discoverability of settings compared to the current release. I have no idea if it will actually get merged into GZDoom though. We will see I guess.

7 minutes ago, Biodegradable said:

Perhaps the GZ team could simply put the Texture Filtering as a toggle option in the Extra Graphics section of the little menu that pops up when you launch the port? Look, there's even a little bit of space to squeeze it right in

It would be nice to see the software render emulation there as well. Maybe with a name easier to understand, like vanilla mode or original render.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Noiser

[Nash]

14 minutes ago, Biodegradable said:

Perhaps the GZ team could simply put the Texture Filtering as a toggle option in the Extra Graphics section of the little menu that pops up when you launch the port? Look, there's even a little bit of space to squeeze it right in:

 

 

Mind you, I realise this might not really solve the first impression issue a lot of people are concerned with. After all, when I first started playing Doom again with GZ, I had no idea what any of the video settings displayed even meant.

^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^

[banjiepixel]

I am actually pretty surprised that GZDoom hasn't adopted system similar system as modern pc games have for their graphic settings, including presets. Lowest preset could be visually closest to vanilla as possible while th highest preset would have basically every possible visual effect that GZDoom comes with turned to the max. And of course there would be an ability to customize freely if presets don't fit to your needs. Not only this would be more familiar for modern pc gamers, it would satisfy very large number of players and they wouldn't need to take any deeper dive to the graphics settings.

 

Mappers and modders also could easily specify to what graphical preset their creation is made for. so user can more easily understand if something doesn't look or behave correctly. For example, if a gore mod uses decals, it's creator could recommend using atleast the minimum level of preset that happens to have decals enabled.

 

And just like with Minecraft, people like me would have very easy access to raw chunky pixels  all in their unfiltered glory.

[Mr Masker]

12 minutes ago, banjiepixel said:

I am actually pretty surprised that GZDoom hasn't adopted system similar system as modern pc games have for their graphic settings, including presets. Lowest preset could be visually closest to vanilla as possible while th highest preset would have basically every possible visual effect that GZDoom comes with turned to the max.

Honestly, I can imagine Low Preset GZDoom and Max GZDoom would look not all that different. I don't think that kind of preset system entirely works in Doom's context.

 

The mappers and modders part could just be specific options it doesn't necessary have to be presets.

Edited July 11, 2023 by Mr Masker

[ENEMY!!!]

The default setting is the one that will be adopted by most people, so if it is sub-optimal for the majority, there is a very strong argument for changing it.  I suggest, though, that the views of Doomworld forum users may not necessarily be representative of GZDoom users as a whole, because Doomworld, as well as tending disproportionately towards power users, also tends disproportionately towards users who prefer a more vanilla aesthetic (as compared with, say, the ZDoom forums).  While I think there's a good chance that the majority of GZDoom users may prefer it to be disabled, I also think it's unlikely to be anywhere near as unanimous a preference among the user base as a whole as it is here on Doomworld.  I see a strong case for changing this default but I don't personally feel strongly about it.

 

Boycotting it because of this default setting is overdoing it really.  One pet peeve of mine is the trend towards companies making it inconvenient to choose settings other than the default ones (e.g. if you disable algorithmic curating of content on social media, typically it will keep turning back on automatically).  If GZDoom did that sort of thing with texture filtering, maybe I'd see a case for boycotting it.  But as it stands, GZDoom does nothing of the sort - you can turn it off easily, once you turn it off it stays off, and you can also import config files from one installation to another, so changing that setting is about as convenient as it gets.

Edited July 11, 2023 by ENEMY!!!

[Scuba Steve]

I can't wrap my head around the idea that anyone would want a user's first interaction with your software to look like absolute dogshit. Texture filtering is viscerally disgusting and absolutely ruins the carefully crafted aesthetic of every single project made for GZDoom. The recent polls makes this clear; everyone who knows you can turn it off, turns it off... everyone. Every commercial GZDoom game available on Steam has this disabled by default. That fact that there is some stubborn insistence on not simply flipping a single setting from on to off in the default configuration absolutely boggles my fucking mind. Imagine buying a Ferrari and immediately spray painting some shitty flames on it because you think it looks cool... I mean, that's your right, but literally everyone thinks it's stupid.

 

Look, I'm an artist by trade, not a programmer... so I always defer to programmers when they give me advice on coding. Why in the hell would you not listen to ALL the artists in this community when they can, and repeatedly do, give objective reasons why the filtering ruins our artwork? It's infuriating.

[LexiMax]

Personally, I think that it would be a good idea to open a Pull Request that has the desired texture filtering setting change - and nothing else, no bundling it with any other baggage so the individual setting has a greater possibility to be accepted.  The merits can be debated on a forum all day, but if it's literally a matter of accepting/rejecting a PR that might make the medicine go down a bit easier.

Edited July 11, 2023 by LexiMax

[Doomkid]

Imagine if there was debate on wether or not films originally released in black and white should default to some colorised version on all streaming services. If you had to look up instructions on YT or some shit to even figure out how to view the original B&W version.

Maybe I’m alone in this but I would find that extremely bizarre. Surely the “fucked with after the fact” version should be the one I have to do research to figure out how to enable, and not the other way around?

 

I know we’ve gone in circles by now but I can seldom think of another example where a famous piece of art ended up having a fan-altered version take place as the default visual experience the user is given, other than perhaps that painting of Jesus that got altered into a coconut monkey.

[indigotyrian]

3 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

Imagine if there was debate on wether or not films originally released in black and white should default to some colorised version on all streaming services. If you had to look up instructions on YT or sine shit to even figure out how to view the original B&W version.

Maybe I’m alone in this but I would find that extremely bizarre. Surely the “fucked with after the fact” version should be the one I have to do research to figure out how to enable, and not the other way around?

 

I know we’ve gone in circles by now but I can seldom think of another example where a famous piece of art ended up having a fan-altered version take place as the default visual experience the user is given, other than perhaps that painting of Jesus that got altered into a coconut monkey.

 

I mentioned it earlier but the motion smoothing effect that TVs have nowadays is the best analog. It just makes the experience worse all around, creators hate it and do their damndest to get everyone to turn it off, people who are in the know cringe whenever they see it, and the general public just accepts an inferior version of the work as what it's meant to look like. It's kept on as a default for God Knows Why, probably because it's another Innovative Technology that the company can point at to shareholders and demonstrate all the hard work they're doing.

 

The impetus with texture filtering (and honestly? yeah, with sector lighting too) being defaulted to what it is is different, for all the world it just seems like Graf Zahl's personal preference, but the end result is the same. Boycotts, forks, what have you wouldn't solve the issue because so much of the Doom community has pointed to GZDoom being the de facto Doom port for so long that people getting their feet wet just grab it and go. John Romero himself ran with the defaults. What more is there to say?

 

I like the idea of pull requests being submitted, either just to change the default setting or to add a new "Classic Render" option that disables the filtering and weird sector lighting, as that's probably the best way to actually communicate with a FLOSS project instead of constant forum wars.

[banjiepixel]

12 minutes ago, Doomkid said:

I know we’ve gone in circles by now but I can seldom think of another example where a famous piece of art ended up having a fan-altered version take place as the default visual experience the user is given, other than perhaps that painting of Jesus that got altered into a coconut monkey.

 

Fan projects generally should imitate the official product always when possible.

 

Serious fan translation of a old jrpg game shouldn't have modern references that the official translation wouldn't have. People hate that kind of stuff.

 

I have seen fan conversions of games that have control layouts that are different from both the general standards of the platform and the actual official ports of other games in the same series on the same platform. One of those fan conversions actually turned on autofire in a game where it's very far from normal playing experience and there was no way to turn it off.

 

As far as I know, only actual official sprite based Doom game with a blur filter is Doom 64 and that game was made for a platform that heavily used texture filtering in general because the limited storage space didn't allow very high quality textures and the game used pre-rendered models that actually do gain some benefit from a blur filter.

 

Why must some creators let their personal preferences be more important than universally better user experience and aiming to reach standards of an official product.

[Shepardus]

11 minutes ago, banjiepixel said:

Fan projects generally should imitate the official product always when possible.

 

 

If that were true then Chocolate Doom would be the only port that should exist.

[banjiepixel]

17 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

If that were true then Chocolate Doom would be the only port that should exist.

 

Unity ports of classic Doom do alot of things that Chocolate Doom doesn't. Also there is nothing wrong with fan source port adding whatever optional extras. But one very big thing is that we should assume that something like GZDoom can often be only way someone experiences Doom instead of actual official product so the default user  experience of GZDoom should reasonably close to actual official release. It could be BFG Edition or the Unity version but these ports show us how Doom should generally look and feel in the modern day, atleast by default.

 

Did you even read the rest of what I wrote?

Edited July 11, 2023 by banjiepixel

[Blzut3]

5 hours ago, LexiMax said:

Personally, I think that it would be a good idea to open a Pull Request that has the desired texture filtering setting change - and nothing else, no bundling it with any other baggage so the individual setting has a greater possibility to be accepted.  The merits can be debated on a forum all day, but if it's literally a matter of accepting/rejecting a PR that might make the medicine go down a bit easier.

Unless Graf's opinion on the matter has changed this wouldn't make any difference.  In the past he has stated something along the lines of while he accepts that the vast majority of people in the community prefer it off, he believes that the user base as a whole prefers it on.  The challenge is disproving this.  Using the telemetry survey won't work since the vast majority of users just roll with the defaults (whatever they may be) so it will simply show what Graf expects, and getting feedback from users who aren't engaged with the community isn't trivial.  So Graf's preference wins by default since it's his project and his opinion on what the majority think is backed by just as much data as our opinion.  I would, of course, argue given that neither side is backed by hard numbers the community's opinion should win.

 

While I do appreciate that by and large people have avoided calling out Graf specifically in this thread, I do think for this one particular setting it does come down to him since I believe the other devs (correct me if I'm wrong here) would happily change it to one of the mipmap modes with anisotropic.  Would be a reasonable default since I feel like most people will either think that looks better than no filtering at all or not really care.

 

9 hours ago, banjiepixel said:

I am actually pretty surprised that GZDoom hasn't adopted system similar system as modern pc games have for their graphic settings, including presets.

One key difference is that in modern games the presets are pretty simple to explain as lower = less demanding, ultra = more demanding.  Which basically the only controversial setting being motion blur.  What GZDoom would need is much more nuanced.

 

For example in regards to the light mode, that default has been what it is because the more accurate modes require shaders and at least the last time I personally asked there was still enough supported hardware for which the performance impact would be too much.  At some point it would probably make sense to change the default there, but seeing as I'm not a hardware rendering guy I have no idea when the assertion can be made that the performance impact is negligible.

 

So we have a situation where we have multiple presets any of which may be "best" by user preference.  Sounds like a great solution, but there's the universal truth that users don't read, so whatever preset is given first will win.  Even if they do read the name of the presets, with neutral naming they'd be about as self explanatory as the lighting modes.  If the easiest to select option is the status quo then all that gets accomplished here is that users that would have changed the settings anyway get a slightly faster way to get to their desired state.  Which isn't a bad thing, I'm just saying that presets may not solve the problem that people think it will solve.

 

10 hours ago, Biodegradable said:

Mind you, I realise this might not really solve the first impression issue a lot of people are concerned with. After all, when I first started playing Doom again with GZ, I had no idea what any of the video settings displayed even meant.

Given you admit that it doesn't solve the first impressions problem, what problem do you think it would solve?  The texture filtering option is more or less a set and forget option unlike everything else on that dialog.  Anyone who knows what texture filtering is probably isn't having a problem turning it off already.

[Biodegradable]

3 hours ago, Blzut3 said:

Given you admit that it doesn't solve the first impressions problem, what problem do you think it would solve?

 

Aside from less people bitching about it and giving you guys a headache? Perhaps making it slightly easier for new users to be able to turn it off, I suppose. Mind you, I know this is only meeting the half-way point between Graf's stubbornness and the community's admonishment of the feature and really only demonstrates how silly and feckless this situation is; but if texture filtering is absolutely never going to be turned off by default, even if everyone complains about it for yet another sodding decade, sticking the option on the pop-up menu could at least mitigate it a little.

 

It's a bandage solution, I know, but it's something.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Biodegradable

[Scuba Steve]

14 minutes ago, Blzut3 said:

Unless Graf's opinion on the matter has changed this wouldn't make any difference.  In the past he has stated something along the lines of while he accepts that the vast majority of people in the community prefer it off, he believes that the user base as a whole prefers it on.

I want to hear this for myself. I've made countless posts about the artistic failings of texture filtering in a Doom engine and how blurring sprites, which were never meant to be blurred, ruins the aesthetic and washes out the detail in all the carefully drawn artwork by real creators... but it's frustrating that none of this is even engaged with, merely glossed over. I want to hear it, I want it said "Yes, Scuba, you're right. Everyone hates it and turns it off, every commercial project disables it by default, and it does make everything look worse." And then I want a response to this question...

 

"WHY should it be enabled?"

 

I think that's the real question being lost here... "Because that's how it's always been" is the most meaningless, copout answer. If this were reversed and someone was requesting GZDoom enable texture filtering as the default setting, what evidence would you give in FAVOR of blurry sprites instead of nearest-neighbor? That's what I want... a defense of the now-currently-default terrible visuals.

[Blzut3]

6 minutes ago, Scuba Steve said:

and it does make everything look worse.

Given last I've known Graf actually does prefer texture filtering on, I don't think you'll ever be getting this particular series of words.

[Shepardus]

1 hour ago, banjiepixel said:

Unity ports of classic Doom do alot of things that Chocolate Doom doesn't.

Things that exist, might I remind you, because fans decided to add them to source ports, and in some cases make them defaults, even though there are still people who swear by 320x200 and 35fps. In an open, community-driven game, source port developers are under no more obligation to let the "actual official product" drive the direction of their work than map makers are obligated to make Knee-Deep In The Dead clones; the reality is closer to the reverse. People make source ports because they want to add or change features, and it only makes sense that they would enable these from the get-go because that's the point of the port's existence. The "actual official product" is quite usable nowadays, so if the "official" experience is what you want, you can stick with that. GZDoom is clearly stated on its website to be a modern/enhanced source port with many user options, so if someone makes GZDoom the only way they experience Doom and never touches the options, while expecting it to mimic the "actual official product," frankly that's their problem. Of course, GZDoom has grown a lot and texture filtering is far from its only defining feature now, so there is a legitimate argument to be made that it's not what people come to GZDoom for, but the "actual official product" has nothing to do with it.

 

2 hours ago, banjiepixel said:

Did you even read the rest of what I wrote?

Regrettably, I did.

 

9 minutes ago, Scuba Steve said:

I want to hear this for myself. I've made countless posts about the artistic failings of texture filtering in a Doom engine and how blurring sprites, which were never meant to be blurred, ruins the aesthetic and washes out the detail in all the carefully drawn artwork by real creators... but it's frustrating that none of this is even engaged with, merely glossed over. I want to hear it, I want it said "Yes, Scuba, you're right. Everyone hates it and turns it off, every commercial project disables it by default, and it does make everything look worse." And then I want a response to this question...

 

"WHY should it be enabled?"

 

I think that's the real question being lost here... "Because that's how it's always been" is the most meaningless, copout answer. If this were reversed and someone was requesting GZDoom enable texture filtering as the default setting, what evidence would you give in FAVOR of blurry sprites instead of nearest-neighbor? That's what I want... a defense of the now-currently-default terrible visuals.

The closest I've seen is Graf stating that one of the things he wants from a source port is "the ability to reduce aliasing as much as possible" (and mouselook, which curiously I don't see anyone complaining about here).

[banjiepixel]

48 minutes ago, Blzut3 said:

For example in regards to the light mode, that default has been what it is because the more accurate modes require shaders and at least the last time I personally asked there was still enough supported hardware for which the performance impact would be too much.  At some point it would probably make sense to change the default there, but seeing as I'm not a hardware rendering guy I have no idea when the assertion can be made that the performance impact is negligible.

 

You are overthinking the whole preset system. There is very little reason for the preset system to touch the light mode setting and it could easily remain as custom advanced setting for those that actually know what they're doing. Whole point would be to simply have different levels of modern graphical features being turned on with those graphical features using same defaults that already exist. Everything that doesn't fit to this model should be optional extra and exist fully outside of the presets. In some ways the presets would be more of a retro slider.

 

19 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

In an open, community-driven game, source port developers are under no more obligation to let the "actual official product" drive the direction of their work than map makers are obligated to make Knee-Deep In The Dead clones; the reality is closer to the reverse.

 

There is no obligation but there are good practices and there are bad practices. It is the direction of official release where most of the good practices can be seen as it is a commercial product with professional design and quality. And those are things any fan project should try to imitate as much as they can.

 

31 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

People make source ports because they want to add or change features, and it only makes sense that they would enable these from the get-go because that's the point of the port's existence.

 

Most people's own little source port project isn't basically the default way to play Doom for people that go beyond just using the official release and in many cases, official releases get skipped completely. GZDoom is a very special case because of the position it is in.

 

43 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

GZDoom is clearly stated on its website to be a modern/enhanced source port with many user options, so if someone makes GZDoom the only way they experience Doom and never touches the options, while expecting it to mimic the "actual official product," frankly that's their problem.

 

Because so many people skip the official releases and go straight to using GZDoom. It's the source port that represents the game and the community in so many cases and that naturally also comes with accountability in many cases. This is why the default experience should imitate the official release of the game to atleast a reasonable degree. The blurry texture filter is far beyond anything reasonable for something that doesn't even have a Doom 64 support.

[Lippeth]

14 minutes ago, banjiepixel said:

It is the direction of official release where most of the good practices can be seen as it is a commercial product with professional design and quality.

Are you referring to the Unity port and its totally professionally designed 4:3 setting?

[Ludi]

Why are we still talking about this? Haven't we had this discussion a million times and come to the same conclusion? Texture smearing filtering vs. crisp pixels as God intended will always look like shit.

 

The fact that GZDoom has it enabled by default despite better judgment will always baffle me. GZDoom is the "default" source port most people download first when getting into the game. What kind of impression does it leave on those new to Doom when it looks like Vaseline is smeared on everything, including objects? The option to turn it off is buried in like 4 layers of settings too.

 

Currently in a vc with @Mr. Freeze and I rue him for linking this. Decay was right.

 

Sorry if I come off really bitter but like, come on guys.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Ludi

[Mr. Freeze]

Quote

nine pages of this bullshit, with no end in sight

perhaps decay was right
we are each our own devil, and we make these threads our Hell
 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Mr. Freeze

[Shepardus]

25 minutes ago, Ludi said:

The option to turn it off is buried in like 4 layers of settings too.

It's not that bad with the simple options menu (which is the default), it's just Options -> Display Options -> Texture Filter mode. The only problem with that is the people who don't know that the blurriness they're seeing has a name and that it can be turned off.

[Ludi]

4 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

It's not that bad with the simple options menu (which is the default), it's just Options -> Display Options -> Texture Filter mode. The only problem with that is the people who don't know that the blurriness they're seeing has a name and that it can be turned off.

 

Absolutely. It's all about user-friendliness. As a programmer, it frustrates me to see such a lack of UI accessibility, but it can def be fixed with some simple tweaks.

[Redneckerz]

31 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

perhaps decay was right
we are each our own devil, and we make these threads our Hell
 

Does anyone wonder why Graf himself has not been in this thread? Its not like he was not tagged.

 

No?

 

Good. I thought i was the only one.

 

The best idea is Nash's and/or a PR.

 

5 minutes ago, Shepardus said:

It's not that bad with the simple options menu (which is the default), it's just Options -> Display Options -> Texture Filter mode. The only problem with that is the people who don't know that the blurriness they're seeing has a name and that it can be turned off.

And is that something the port should account for? I suppose that's the actual debate here.

[Edward850]

18 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

And is that something the port should account for? I suppose that's the actual debate here.

Anecdotally, when we originally pushed the accessibility options for Quake there was a lot of confusion around the alternate UI style being the default. Users were shown the accessibility menu up front (upon opening the main menu, if you hadn't seen the accessibility options yet it automatically presented it to you) but thought nothing of it and closed the menu, then they complained about the UI style and didn't seem to look or even notice the accessibility options were there despite them even being shown the options.

We actually had to go back and redo how the menu was first shown, so it would instead force you to pick an option (default to all accessibility options on or off) to be able to close it, so users were forced to interact with the options and understand their user preferences. This seemed to resolve all (legitimate) complaints and the common question of "how do I make the UI look like Quake" has basically entirely vanished.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Edward850

[LexiMax]

4 hours ago, Blzut3 said:

In the past he has stated something along the lines of while he accepts that the vast majority of people in the community prefer it off, he believes that the user base as a whole prefers it on.  The challenge is disproving this.

 

I don't think there's really a point in attempting to disprove anything, as the assertion seems almost un-falsifiable.  Even before you said so, I get the impression that this is really just as simple as "Graf prefers texture filtering enabled, and there's no talking him out of it."

 

I still think it would be a good idea to open up a PR, even if Graf closes it.  That way, if the question ever comes up again, we can just link the PR.

 

1 hour ago, Lippeth said:

Are you referring to the Unity port and its totally professionally designed 4:3 setting? 

 

I implemented that feature, in concert with the actual widescreen implementation.

 

Part of being a professional is delivering on time and on budget with the resources you're given, and this was the easiest way to deliver a relatively niche feature (that being 4:3 support in a port that is natively widescreen) in the context of a patch for a game that was already released and working.  I was juggling working on this port with my old day job, and the time that I could have spent implementing 4:3 in a nicer way instead went towards other features and fixes.

 

Scuba Steve was the one who drew the widescreen versions of the title screens, by the way.

Edited July 12, 2023 by LexiMax