banjiepixel

This. Also,vanilla PE should have had projectile attack to use when lost soul limit is met. Single mancubus projectile would had worked or it could had been basically just lost soul turned into simple projectile.

True, but alot of people also just don't want deal with all that and rather just pay to remove the ads, especially since alot of YouTube use these days does happen also on devices without an option to install adblocker. And it is pretty much inevitable that amount of people accessing YouTube with web browser is going to shrink as time goes on. There is nothing wrong with YouTube taking the direction of becoming subscription service first and free service to be a secondary priority, especially since no one else has the infrastructure to do what YouTube does at the same scale. And more focus on being a paid subscription service means that advertisers will have less power to decide what is allowed on YouTube.

I have Premium mainly for watching Youtube from the Android TV app without ads. It has been funny see how much people are willing to do to avoid ads or paying premium. I watch way more Youtube than I would watch Disney+, Netflix or any other similar service so Youtube Premium is definitely worth the price for me. The amount of video that gets uploaded to Youtube every hour is massive and there are no storage limitations, so it easy to see why they want to move Youtube more to the direction of a being mainly a subscription service. The free version Youtube needs to have many ads or have many limitations, and generally even excessive amount of ads is better than limitations. Situation is messy, but the best way to stop Youtube becoming even worse is to either disable adblocker or go Premium.

I was really surprised how it doesn't really require very beefy hardware. I use Lakka OS on old office pc from 2009 with low profile GPU from 2010 and Flycast core can run almost any Dreamcast and related Arcade game just fine. Usually if some game doesn't work, it seem to be more of an emulation issue as Flycast isn't very accuracy focused emulator. My Lakka OS setup has some minor issues with Flycast, mainly the core doesn't close itself properly (nothing a quick RetroArch reload can't fix) and some games do have some graphical glitches that I assume to be caused of the ancient GPU that my machine has, but these are specific to my setup. It's kinda funny how Dreamcast works well on this hardware but Saturn doesn't. Also to me atleast, Dreamcast is the point where filesizes of games start to get too large, especially for the 120 gig SSD that my emulation machine has. My Dreamcast games are currently on external drive because of this. Flycast does require a bios files but outside of that, I feel like the experience isn't too far from using Dolphin to run Gamecube games. I have not tried other Dreamcast emulators but DC emulation seems to be in very good state, to me it feels like N64 emulation still has more issues these days, atleast what comes to emulators that have RetroArch core versions.

I can emulate Dreamcast version of Quake 3 Arena on my Dell Optiplex 380 (Core 2 Duo, Radeon HD5450) that was released in 2009. Granted, it is not very accurate emulator but it is still more advanced hardware than old pc being able to run Doom. And based on very quick testing, Doom 2 and Quake seem to work just fine. So there should generally no issues on actual modern hardware, and keep in mind this was while the image was being rescaled to 1080p similar manner as Chocolate Doom does it. And personally 320x200 is all the rendering resolution I need for these games. I mean it would be resource hog only when DOSBox portion itself would be running. And why are we so worried about it taking some extra resources? I don't doubt the accuracy of Chocolate Doom, it is more of a personal preference, I like to use the untouched original code. And I just happen like emulation, I play mostly retro console games these days and those already use emulation.

Not much I guess, especially if the DOSBox user experience would be more like using a source port. Both being together would be a neat package and OOSBox could be used to play other games too, not just Doom. And if it would be a very easy feature to add, what source port wouldn't want to have have built in DOSBox? It seems pretty natural thing to have in my opinion. And I do trust the DOSBox emulated Doom to have potentially less bugs/differences than native port like Chocolate Doom. But mostly it is just the extra step towards purism.

I am pretty big emulation enthusiast, especially on dedicated hardware instead of just running emulator on my everyday pc. My first dedicated hardware for emulation was Raspberry Pi 3 with RetroPie that was able to handle PS1 and pretty much anything lighter. Couple years ago I upgraded to old Dell Optiplex so I was able to also play N64 and Dreamcast. I am pretty heavily focused on arcade emulation because I play mostly arcade ports on consoles anyway. I do have a collection of older consoles but trying to hook them up to modern tv just isn't worth the time or money for me. It is also nice that one device can play some many different consoles and have so many games without taking extra space. There is also the huge selection of controllers that I can use, including those that need an adapter.

Complex Doom

Basically that, running DOSBox on top of Chocolate/Crispy session. Of course it would be probably easiest to just remove whole menu system of the source port and build new system that would be free from limitations of actual Doom engine. Loading the actual Doom engine is pretty fast and the I think there should be no problem with the menu system being more of a separate overlay. And maybe this overlay menu system could be then used to also launch DOSBox sessions within it, just like it could already run a source port within the overlay. DOSBox would just take over things so overlay's menus would be disabled while DOSBox is running so there would be no confict with menus inside games running in DOSBox. It would be atleast an interface to use with DOSBox that would work great with a controller. I am not actually sure about the actual controller support of DOSBox but simply reusing existing controller support of source port does atleast sound easier in many ways. It wouldn't even need to be that complicated for my own personal need, just translating controller inputs to keyboard inputs for DOSBox to read. And I know, probably many easier routes, but in general this was supposed to be more of a thought exercise.

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.

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.

In my opinion, we barely even got on topic, but can't blame people for not wanting to waste their time analyzing and hypothesising very niche concept. Atleast this thread has increased my motivation to learn coding and has helped me to form more concrete plan for it, and that was kinda the real point all along. And it is very ironic that thread related to DOSBox would turn into discussion about Windows. Personally as the OP of this thread, it doesn't really bother me that much and I would allow it. It is just taking over because there isn't that much on topic to talk about, unless people want to actually talk about my niche concept and not about me and my personal projects.

You'd be surprised how far this is actually from the truth, I am just constantly educating myself about so many things, it is just that for things less relevant to me personally, I have to go more by the general vibe I see. I should had made it clear that is was meant to be more of an option, didn't expect that people would turn it into drama.

I personally feel like it shouldn't really matter. My main purpose was to only ask about specific concept, the DOSBox integration, and rest has been just to give context. As we are talking about only private projects here so far, it seems bit irrelevant what I will be able to actually achieve. And I am always tinkering with something and contantly jumping between projects. It's less indecisiveness and more of a issue with attention span. I need to have other projects to stimulate my brain while I take a break from previous one that I worked on. I should probably experiment first with converting my DeHackEd mods into actual engine modifications. It would be probably closest to my current knowledge and my general Doom related interests. And adding the option to turn those modifications on or off could be pretty nice step towards understanding how things work. I also would assume that attempting limit removal would be good idea for learning. Despite this thread not really going as I planned, my desire to know how to modify ChocoDoom has really grown. The inspiration for this thread was based on being something that I could maybe do myself. Despite my intention being generally to just give people free inspiration, this time I wanted to seek inspiration for myself to create something. Perhaps it could be said to being progress from some of my previous discussions. I would say that Windows 11 does seem to take the operation system into a direction that is more anti-consumer, atleast based on alot things they have experimented with and what their future plans seem to be. To my knowledge the Win11 adoption rate is also lagging behind what they were with Win10 and clearly the official system requirements caused alot of that. And updates do rather often seem to break things. To be honest, I have not keeping up with most of that stuff. But I see no reason to trust the direction Windows seems to be heading.

I know that it is the most realistic place to start. To be specific, have the GUI be separate frontend that could be used basically with any source port. Only then start to actually think about combining the GUI with the source port, to get it to work like any other source port specific launcher, like the one that GZDoom has, with just my own twist. And work from there to trying to get them more seamlessly work together. If I feel like it, I might try coding better launcher for Eternity at some point. Just I like have said before, maybe it is the language I use. Alot of things I am speaking about are part of a very loose long term plan that might at some point go to completely different direction. I will start from more basic experimention and goals and see first where that goes, one step at the time. One idea I could also explore is turning Chocolate Doom into dueling focused multiplayer source port. And splitscreen stuff would be always close to my heart. There are plenty of places where my experimentation project could go. I am speculating about what could be possible on how it maybe could be done, but this is just pie in the sky until I know how to do basic development using Chocolate Doom as the base, and the very first step is to learn to modify it at the same level as I can mod ZDoom based ports. I do wonder if I could start "porting" simpler ZDoom mods to the Chocolate Doom engine.