why do the PSX and Saturn ports lag at all? I know their at a

>>3496723
Only large rooms lag, not high numbers of enemies it projectiles. That's not really a full answer, but it does seem to have to do with the poly count of the room and nothing else.

It was most likely a hack job... some fellas must have been sweating a lot during design.
Wall height seems crucial to the slowdown although one can't exactly pin point what's the cause without having the code plus experience on both machines. Most likely it's also connected to improperly drawing Doom's world as in generating wall polygones from the line segs to accomodate the consoles way of "doing things". Carmack should have been asked to look over their shoulder.

>>3496723
graphics are not the only thing to impact performance in games. You could easily create a game that looks like straight out of something C64 was capable of, and still genuflect modern turbo PCs with ease.

In Doom's case, the games were drawn in software mode, and had to do lots of calculations.

>>3496794
>>3496834
PSX and saturn version use polygons and not a raycaster engine? Didnt know that

File: dwarf-fortress-cover.png (3KB, 660x360px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 660x360px

>>3498574
>You could easily create a game that looks like straight out of something C64 was capable of, and still genuflect modern turbo PCs with ease.

>>3496723
Because not only do they are at a higher resolution, but also because everything is done by the CPU instead of trying to use the hardware inside in a more proper way (as in using the "GPU" to draw the game, for example)

2.5D engines like Doom or Build require more CPU power, which computers offer, but not console.

On the contrary, on the PS1 and Saturn you could use dedicated 3D hardware which is why early on in that generation consoles were better for 3D.

You know Powerslave? It has a 2.5D Build version on PC made first. At first they wanted to port it on console, but due to the reasons above (given in interviews) they decided to remake an entirely different game in 3D instead.

File: Untitled.png (56KB, 608x420px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 608x420px

Apparently the Saturn team wanted to use a hardware-accelerated renderer but Carmack shut down their idea so they were forced to use a software one. I wonder how much better it would have ran on the hardware renderer.

>>3498797
That game turns my laptop into a portable heater with a 40 minute battery life.

tl;dr version: Because Id didn't feel like re-writing half the engine.

A lot of the console ports of Doom were done in a matter of weeks.

>I know their at a higher resolution but still its use so few polys

>polys

Doom's engine doesn't use polygons, and that's part of the problem.

The doom engine was made to run on PC's with powerful processors and shitty (or non-existent) graphics chipsets. As a result, it ran poorly on the consoles with their slow CPU's, as it wasn't really able to take advantage of their graphics hardware.

The console versions of Quake and Quake 2, on the other had, run very well on consoles, because by that point, PC's had dedicated graphics hardware too.

>>3496723
Doom 64 best.

>>3499667
Nice meme.

>>3496723

The reason why its slow is due to the fact that its rendering every individual column as a polygon (just like the software renderer's column and spans).

All because Carmack hated the PSX's affine texture mapping.

So yeah, its drawing a lot of geometry, even when it doesn't look like it.

And yes, the emulator is buggy but the point of the video is to showcase what exactly is being drawn per frame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS9MGSm4gng

>>3499721

...Oh. So it actually IS technically using the 3D hardware of the system, it's just abusing the shit out of it to draw things similarly to the software renderer.

Interesting. Since you apparently know what you're talking about, would a truly-3D polygonal port of Doom have been feasible? Would it have looked any better? Or would the developers have run into other limitations?

>>3496723
Saturn port lags because they tried doing a straight port using raycasting, instead of making the game run with the native video hardware.

Apparently some guy got it working natively and it ran fine, but one of the execs at Id, perhaps Romero, said that they want it to run like the PC version.

>>3499624
>The console versions of Quake and Quake 2, on the other had, run very well on consoles, because by that point, PC's had dedicated graphics hardware too.

Wrong, Quake was built primarily for software rendering, and was optimized the shit out of to get acceptable speeds. The Saturn version was completely rewritten using the Powerslave/Exhumed engine so it can run.

Quake 2 indeed ran using hardware acceleration on PCs and so it was more suitable to port it directly to the Playstation; though I don't know if it was a straight port or not.

>>3499753

I am guessing no, because while PSX Doom had the ability to render geometry as true polygons the texture mapping would of looked really awful when viewed up close, so rendering the game via columns was probably the best solution for them at the time.

Doom64's renderer on the other hand was designed to render true 3D polygons per wall/floor/etc since the N64 had proper texture mapping.

>>3499721
What does that video explain? It's just a red line poking things.

>>3499825

Each red outline you see in the video shows every single quad (or polygon) that's being rendered. Though they look like lines because they're very thin quad strips.

>>3499825

It is showing you the process of each "polygon" being drawn at 100000x slowdown, which reveals that each polygon is being rendered 1px wide one right after the other to render a single wall.

You don't actually see the finished wall because the emulator itsefl blows. But the process is similar enough to the software renderer that if you've never seen a screenshot of doom being rendered column by column you can see that here:

http://fabiensanglard.net/doomIphone/doomClassicRenderer.php

>>3496723
Because the processors are slow. Doom doesn't run fast on a slow PC either.

>>3499721
That's pretty interesting.