Legacy 2.0 screenshots

[lucius octavion]

Yeah real life definitely performs better than game. Better graphics, no limit, interaction with everything, no lag, everything looks so real. But John Romero already said that regardless of how realistic it is, doom is "more fun than real life".

[rustyslacker]

So...any new screenshots to show us plaz?

[Jive]

pathetic !!!
real life... bla bla bla... development... bla bla bla... Time... bla bla bla...
Doom is dead!

[MR_ROCKET]

Well that's.. definitely a new statement coming from our good buddy Jive?
What brings you here to say something like that..I mean sure it's an old game but it's "just as fun to play as it always has". Your feeling for the game hasn't changed my friend, I personally think you'v been hanging out with those nasty Hell Knight's to much..When worse comes to worse, dude pick up some med packs and run, then get your ground and take aim again..Until then, play all the awesome new games as we all do, and then jump back into the battle of the most responsive game ever.
Looking at today's sourceport standards, Doom isn't dead, it's only gotten better.

Anyways, here's some Legacy2 screenshots:
Clicky

[Aliotroph?]

What's with the console in all those? The console does look nicer, but one pic of it is enough.

Jive, I bet there's something else bugging you. No reason to be mad over a lack of development in Legacy. It happens. Meanwhile, I'm making a clever little map for GZDoom so I can learn ACS and ZDoom editing. I don't play much DooM anymore but I still play some. Real life really does get in the way of DooM though.

[MR_ROCKET]

I couldn't decide which console background I liked best.
There's plenty more heh, even one partly translucent Newdoom forums console background. Which wasn't included in the package.

[g6672D]

E1M2
-------
E1M1

Like this picture. What's the latest available build?

[MR_ROCKET]

The latest SVN build for Windows is available here:
http://legacywiki.net/index.php/Main_Page

The above HUD icons and Console stuff aren't included in this version, but I believe they may be releasing a new version soon.
The icons are a little fancy. If everyone still likes them I donno. I was thinking of making another version and just updating the original icons in the Legacy resource.

[Doom_Dude]

What I want to know is how much work is left on the renderer? Can't help but wonder as we don't hear anything about that kind of stuff, it seems.

[MR_ROCKET]

Well Pate was showing the texture filtering here over on page 2. And Smite was showing shader stuff and the 2 and 4 player split screen stuff. And I was showing the HUD stuff. All of which has to do with the rendering in a way.

What's bothering me is the sprites, they seem overly pixilated, like something in the code says make the boarder around the sprites transparent tolerance off the scale. Very strange, maybe Pate will put a filter on the sprites which will take care of that?

: Alio, any comments on the HUD icons in the last screen?

[Pate]

The biggest problem currently is doing transparency correctly. This turns out to be quite hard to do. The old renderer cheats like a mofo and I'm sure you have all noticed some bugs there.

Then the only main missing thing would be dynlights. Hurdler? Some comments here?

[Doom_Dude]

Yes please Hurdler, we need to hear from you too.

[Hurdler]

Ah yes, the transparency thing was a nightmare! It was a legacy of the glide code and because in the past we couldn't waste video memory at all (remember we had to deal with 2x2Mb for all textures). Biggest problems happen when the fog is activated.

As for dynamic lighting, that depends what we want to do... Do we still need the old way to do it (not with shaders)? If yes, I could have a look at it but I don't know when. For sure, doing this with shaders would give much better results (see Smite's screenshots). I suppose Smite code use GLSL, so maybe we have to adapt it a bit to support older hardware like GeForce3 or even Intel integrated chipset?

[MR_ROCKET]

I was looking at this, would it be any help?
Not saying you guys would need, but it's just what I found and it may have something in there worth looking at.

[smite-meister]

Originally Posted by Hurdler

As for dynamic lighting, that depends what we want to do... Do we still need the old way to do it (not with shaders)? If yes, I could have a look at it but I don't know when. For sure, doing this with shaders would give much better results (see Smite's screenshots). I suppose Smite code use GLSL, so maybe we have to adapt it a bit to support older hardware like GeForce3 or even Intel integrated chipset?

The old way of doing dynlights is to find N most relevant point light sources for the player whose view is being rendered and for each such source, render a circular lightmap (same as the corona texture) on each surface near the light, scaling it according to the distance of the light from the surface.
In other words, cheating like hell, but getting pretty good results and performance

The GLSL per-pixel lighting approach would be entirely different and MUCH slower on older hardware. On more recent cards though, it could work just fine.

Both approaches suffer from the fact that there is no occlusion from the geometry (no dynamic shadows). AFAIK Doom 3 used stencil shadows everywhere, but it's very GPU-intense...

[Hurdler]

Originally Posted by smite-meister

The old way of doing dynlights is to find N most relevant point light sources for the player whose view is being rendered and for each such source, render a circular lightmap (same as the corona texture) on each surface near the light, scaling it according to the distance of the light from the surface.
In other words, cheating like hell, but getting pretty good results and performance

Well resumed!

Originally Posted by smite-meister

The GLSL per-pixel lighting approach would be entirely different and MUCH slower on older hardware. On more recent cards though, it could work just fine.

performance tests have to be done, but it might just work even on older hardware (I mean GeForce 3 and higher) on medium resolution (like 800x600).

Originally Posted by smite-meister

Both approaches suffer from the fact that there is no occlusion from the geometry (no dynamic shadows). AFAIK Doom 3 used stencil shadows everywhere, but it's very GPU-intense...

But that's not really an issue since we haven't done that before. We can still add this kind of stuff later if the hardware support it.

[xbolt]

Originally Posted by Hurdler

performance tests have to be done, but it might just work even on older hardware (I mean GeForce 3 and higher) on medium resolution (like 800x600).

You mean... My GeForce 3 is now at the low end of the spectrum?

[Aliotroph?]

Yeah, pretty much has been for a while. Despite the hype around those things they don't like doing a lot of stencil shadows.

Where I'm curious is what kinds of lighting methods would look good in DooM? Legacy's previous dynamic lights looked ok in a bright room but the way they blended looked like garbage in the dark. The coronas on the tech lamps were damn pretty though!

I have to say I stopped caring much about stencel shadows. They tend to look bad in most cases unless you have a lot of trickery going on to soften them. Lots of games like Alien vs. Predator, or Oblivion, have neat-looking lighting without the shadows. What might look pretty good (and be cheaper on the CPU) would be fake shadows. Oblivion has "tree canopy shadows" that are definitely not shadows cast by the trees but they look cool where they're used (John Carmack will hate me forever for that remark).

What would be especially neat is being able to cast light from specific surfaces, like a computer monitor, light texture, nukage, etc. Doomsday has a clever hack for this where you can stick regular lights to textures but it doesn't look all that great most of the time. Even Oblivion can't do this. They can define lights in cubes and such but they don't have a way of just emitting them from a surface like a window. Oblivion has a lot of windowed-areas that look like sets from a cheap, old TV show as a result.

[Pate]

Originally Posted by Hurdler

Ah yes, the transparency thing was a nightmare! It was a legacy of the glide code and because in the past we couldn't waste video memory at all (remember we had to deal with 2x2Mb for all textures).

I'm currently stuck with doing the back-to-front sorting correctly. If you only have on/off transparency, there is no problem. If you have translucency in monsters, there is no problem. But when you add translucent 3D floors you are pretty much screwed. Add translucent middle textures to that and you want to pull your hair out.

[xbolt]

Originally Posted by Aliotroph?

Yeah, pretty much has been for a while.

Yeah, I know. Never expected that it would be huffing and puffing trying to run Legacy though...