according to wikipedia doom64 used IDtech1?

[Shakariki Heisenberg]

is the wiki wrong or sumtin cus doom64 has much more advanced tech and ik 64 was 1997 and doom1 was 1993 but still it seems a little weird to me that doom64 and doom1 were both developed on the same game engine?

link to the wiki : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech

[LadyMistDragon]

It most certainly is, it was just heavily modified so the 2-D of everything else wasn't so obvious

[Edward850]

I think the better question is why do you think it's weird? Doom64 is frankly not that more advanced, it's got a couple of fancy tricks with the updated renderer and that's really about it.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Edward850

[OniriA]

It was IDtech 1 but just very edited. id Tech 1 was just a very flexible engine and still is to this day. Gzdoom is a form of an heavily modified idtech 1 engine aswell for example. You wouldn't imagine it being idtech 1 at it's core when looking at all the Gzdoom games made from it (the modern form of Doom Total Conversions basically).

 

^{Selaco (If you said this was idtech 1 at its core, I would've called you insane.)}

Edited October 28, 2023 by OniriA

[Lila Feuer]

I think my first "you're munchin' crazy pills" was seeing Total Chaos back in 2009 on the-then Skulltag forums and thinking it was a completely different engine because no way in hell was that actually GZDoom. The requirements cracked me up too: "If you can run Crysis on at least medium settings you can play this." I have never heard of GZDoom anything being so demanding in my life.

[banjiepixel]

Slightly offtopic but what makes GoldSrc (the Half-Life 1 engine) to be no longer the Quake Engine?

 

But like people have said Doom 64 is just idTech1 with modifications, like Hexen is idTech1 with modifications. Doom 64 just added more advanced graphical features to the mix. And if I am not mistaken, PSXDoom is also idTech1 and does some advanced things too. Both the base Doom code and modified forms of it are still idTech1.

[Graf Zahl]

3 hours ago, Lila Feuer said:

I think my first "you're munchin' crazy pills" was seeing Total Chaos back in 2009 on the-then Skulltag forums and thinking it was a completely different engine because no way in hell was that actually GZDoom. The requirements cracked me up too: "If you can run Crysis on at least medium settings you can play this." I have never heard of GZDoom anything being so demanding in my life.

 

I only was able to play that mod after upgrading from a 3GB Geforce 1060 to a 12 GB RTX3060. If it wasn't for the insane texture memory requirements this would actually work on any semi-decent setup.

 

[Gez]

8 hours ago, Shakariki Heisenberg said:

is the wiki wrong or sumtin cus doom64 has much more advanced tech

nah.

 

It's kind of like saying Hexen has much more advanced tech.

[DNSKILL5]

Even Duke Nukem Zero Hour is just using BUILD. This isn’t really all that shocking that Doom 64 just uses an updated version of the same tech that made Doom & Doom II. 

[Lila Feuer]

Imagine her mind when she learns GBA Doom 1 is still running on the Doom engine (albeit based on the popular Jaguar port.)

[Koko Ricky]

That's the thing about engines with a lot of flexibility--they can be pushed to achieve more than the sum of their parts. 

[Soundblock]

5 hours ago, banjiepixel said:

Slightly offtopic but what makes GoldSrc (the Half-Life 1 engine) to be no longer the Quake Engine?

 

But like people have said Doom 64 is just idTech1 with modifications, like Hexen is idTech1 with modifications. Doom 64 just added more advanced graphical features to the mix. And if I am not mistaken, PSXDoom is also idTech1 and does some advanced things too. Both the base Doom code and modified forms of it are still idTech1.

 

Likely just a difference in the licensing agreement? Idk the details, but Valve _might_ have requested a pricier license that allowed them to re-brand, in order to keep using bits & pieces of their evolution on the Quake Engine for future tech efforts?

[Shakariki Heisenberg]

ig doom64 uses a very modified ver of idtech1 very cool

Edited October 28, 2023 by Shakariki Heisenberg

[banjiepixel]

1 hour ago, Soundblock said:

 

Likely just a difference in the licensing agreement? Idk the details, but Valve _might_ have requested a pricier license that allowed them to re-brand, in order to keep using bits & pieces of their evolution on the Quake Engine for future tech efforts?

 

Rebranding is definitely a thing, but in terms of actual code, where does use of Quake Engine end and use of GoldSrc start? How many of the Quake bits need to be replaced before it is actually a new separate engine. Otherwise we are talking only about modified versions of same engine, just with different branding.

[inkoalawetrust]

On 10/28/2023 at 3:15 AM, OniriA said:

It was IDtech 1 but just very edited. id Tech 1 was just a very flexible engine and still is to this day. Gzdoom is a form of an heavily modified idtech 1 engine aswell for example. You wouldn't imagine it being idtech 1 at it's core when looking at all the Gzdoom games made from it (the modern form of Doom Total Conversions basically).

 

^{Selaco (If you said this was idtech 1 at its core, I would've called you insane.)}

Nah, GZDoom and other forks like it such as K8Vavoom are their own thing. Doom 64 is id Tech 1 because it's basically just another console port of the PC engine, but with some extra tricks up it's sleeve like Edward said, and even then the biggest change is just the total change in art style, which isn't really impossible with like, the Linux Doom codebase.

 

But modern source ports like GZDoom and K8Vavoom have WAY WAY MORE changes and additions. Doom 64 was a slightly more sophisticated console port, GZDoom is more like the difference between Quake 1 and GoldSource.

[Rykzeon]

If you think Doom 64 is 3D because of the room-over-room, then try use noclip cheat the area nearby that has the room-over-room effect. You'll notice that the 3D and the room-over-room is an illusion, the effect is made by silent linedef trigger that moves the sector's floor and ceiling, similar to Doom maps that has 3D Bridge and 3D Double Bridge. Also there's other 3D effects such as Window above Ceiling and Fake Bridge by mappers.

I also bet id team can implement features like color lighting, animated sky, map script, moving geometry, portal, hub system, inventory, looking up & down, etc to original Doom, as seen in Hexen and Blood^{(Build Engine, but also has similar technology to Doom)}, but the Doom ultimate goal is to deliver seamless fast-rendering 3D games to general^{(or even very low-end)} home PCs at the time, unlike its competitor, which the system requirement is very high. Also I think id worried about the market competition and wanted to deliver the engine as fast as possible before anyone else can achieve similar thing, and also maybe id wanted to deliver Doom to the people who can't afford Ultima Underworld system requirement and dying out wanted to try newly booming 3D-technology games^{(Wolfenstein 3D is nothing compared to Ultima Underworld 3D-ness btw, it has room-over-room bridges, 3D-rendered stone, height difference, slopes, water, etc. Wolfenstein 3D is just 2D game rendered in 3D perspective.)}.

PS: I think they can also implement pre-render & baked static lighting effects to the flat and textures, but it'll cost more disk space, or more hardware taxation, since even its static lighting, it must be affecting moving entities like player, monster, projectile, etc.

[Edward850]

2 hours ago, Rykz said:

If you think Doom 64 is 3D because of the room-over-room, then try use noclip cheat the area nearby that has the room-over-room effect.

Nobody thinks that or even made such a suggestion.

We already know Doom is 3D because it uses all 3 dimensions for movement and collision. Some effect in Doom64 doesn't change that.

[Koko Ricky]

I think people continue to argue about this because we generally associate three dimensional space as being free of any hard limits, such as Doom's single-floor prisms or its lack of slopes. But really, it's a limited form of 3D in the same way that the original Quake engine relies on brushes instead of more flexible primitives. It's still 3D at the end of the day. 

[Individualised]

3 hours ago, Koko Ricky said:

.But really, it's a limited form of 3D in the same way that the original Quake engine relies on brushes instead of more flexible primitives.

id Tech 2 doesn't rely on brushes. Map compilation converts the brushes into a 3D mesh, the engine never deals with them. Brushes are only used in the map editing process as a convenient way of building 3D worlds without having to actually 3D model everything, which takes time and is a skill that level designers shouldn't need to learn. Theoretically if you wanted to you could create maps for Quake using a traditional 3D modelling program. The Hammer level editor for Source and Source 2 still uses brushes to build levels, though at least for Source 2 games, a subtractive form of creating level geometry (think Doom editing but 3D) is now encouraged as the primary way to build levels.

Edited January 13 by Individualised

[Koko Ricky]

That's a good point, so my argument doesn't quite work when comparing Quake.

[Individualised]

On 10/28/2023 at 8:46 AM, banjiepixel said:

Slightly offtopic but what makes GoldSrc (the Half-Life 1 engine) to be no longer the Quake Engine?

Nothing. It's all semantics. You could argue Source 2 is just a really advanced version of id Tech 2, and technically it is. Saying Counter Strike 2 runs on id Tech 2 might raise some eyebrows, but saying Half Life 1 does I think is fair.

 

The whole "id Tech" naming scheme is retroactive (before id Tech 5 they were unnamed) and incredibly stupid anyway. I use them because I prefer it over calling the engines by the games they were originally used in*, but they actually make no sense because id Tech 1 (Doom) is completely unrelated to the later id Tech engines, because Quake didn't iterate on the Doom source code and is completely original (bar some small copy/pasted sections of code), but future id games did iterate on the Quake source code. They should have just called the Quake 1 engine "id Tech 1" and the Quake 2 engine "id Tech 2", because they're both considered "id Tech 2" despite Quake 2 making some pretty major changes (more major than GoldSrc arguably).

 

 

*but if we're going to go into that territory, we can argue that they aren't engines at all, because Doom and the Doom engine is one and the same and "Doom engine" games are just modifications of the Doom source code rather than being based on an "engine" separate from the actual Doom game, the same applies to Quake)

Edited January 13 by Individualised

[andrewj]

8 hours ago, Individualised said:

id Tech 2 doesn't rely on brushes. Map compilation converts the brushes into a 3D mesh, the engine never deals with them.

Quake 2 (which is considered idTech 2) actually keeps the brushes and uses them for physics (collisions).  It is a more reliable method than the clipping hulls of Quake 1.

[Individualised]

6 hours ago, andrewj said:

Quake 2 (which is considered idTech 2) actually keeps the brushes and uses them for physics (collisions).  It is a more reliable method than the clipping hulls of Quake 1.

I didn't know that. Interesting.