| Click here to select a new forum. |
| Doom on 68000 Macs? |
Posted by: Anonymous on 2023-10-02 15:31:09
Would something like this be possible? Given the recent leak of Doom's (supposed) Mac source code, and the massive amounts of Doom ports and optimizations, I was curious as to whether this could be done (or reasons as to why it couldn't).
https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/139867-is-this-macpc-doom-source-code-on-ebay-legit/ (Where I first heard about the leak)
https://shorturl.at/fzL19 (The Ebay listing)
https://archive.org/details/doom-mac-source (The supposed source code) |
Posted by: Phipli on 2023-10-02 15:45:59
Would something like this be possible? Given the recent leak of Doom's (supposed) Mac source code, and the massive amounts of Doom ports and optimizations, I was curious as to whether this could be done (or reasons as to why it couldn't).
https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/139867-is-this-macpc-doom-source-code-on-ebay-legit/ (Where I first heard about the leak)
https://shorturl.at/fzL19 (The Ebay listing)
https://archive.org/details/doom-mac-source (The supposed source code) Unlikely, I can think of a few reasons.
Firstly, the current Mac version doesn't even run that well on a Quadra 700 (25MHz 68040), which in CPU benchmarks scores about 20 times faster than an SE (8MHz 68000).
The fastest stock 68000s Apple used were 16MHz, so still about 10 times slower.
Secondly, the majority of 68000 Macs are limited to a maximum of 4MB of RAM, which probably isn't enough for an OS and Doom.
Thirdly, there isn't a version of 32 bit QuickDraw for 68000 macs, and so all the graphics would need rewriting for 1bit video. This is quite a serious issue.
On the other hand, you could install Maze Wars? |
Posted by: Daniël on 2023-10-02 23:17:59
Firstly, the current Mac version doesn't even run that well on a Quadra 700 (25MHz 68040), which in CPU benchmarks scores about 20 times faster than an SE (8MHz 68000).
I do wonder if that couldn't be at least somewhat solved with better 68k optimization. Don't get me wrong, it won't make it any more playable on the little 68000, but I've always found that Doom (and Wolfenstein 3D for that matter) run quite poorly on the later 68k chips, when they are in the same ballpark performance-wise to PC chips like the 486 which had a much better time (and 386 for Wolf3D).
Always felt like they prioritized PowerPC optimization and kept 68k compatibility to actually be able to sell the games to most Mac users. |
Posted by: stepleton on 2023-10-03 10:50:26
If some maniacs out there are making DOOM run on an 8088, then sure, why not go for the 68000? You might achieve "frames per minute", but even so. |
Posted by: LaPorta on 2023-10-03 10:57:57
Yeah, Wolf3D was brutally slow on my dads Quadra 660av, I get your point. |
Posted by: Anonymous on 2023-10-03 12:57:25
If some maniacs out there are making DOOM run on an 8088, then sure, why not go for the 68000? You might achieve "frames per minute", but even so. That what I’m saying! I have no experience with coding, but it would be an interesting experiment in creativity |
Posted by: ymk on 2023-10-03 13:19:36
Wireframe rendering or flat patterns might be halfway playable.
The game Vette is a good indicator of how each of these modes would run on a 68000.
Eliminating wall/ceiling/floor textures would help fit into 4MB. They're wasted on a 1 bit display. |
Posted by: stepleton on 2023-10-03 14:15:12
I flew a lot of Microsoft Flight Simulator hours as a teenager on a Macintosh Classic, with frame updates dipping down to about 1 Hz around cities. Having since moved on to real aircraft I think it may have been good training to avoid overcontrolling: you put in the control input and then you wait to see what happens. If you got twitchy flying the Classic you'd be lost in no time. |
Posted by: Phipli on 2023-10-03 14:18:42
I flew a lot of Microsoft Flight Simulator hours as a teenager on a Macintosh Classic, with frame updates dipping down to about 1 Hz around cities. Having since moved on to real aircraft I think it may have been good training to avoid overcontrolling: you put in the control input and then you wait to see what happens. If you got twitchy flying the Classic you'd be lost in no time. How do the frame rates compare on real planes? |
Posted by: treellama on 2023-10-03 16:30:27
We used to play Spectre on the Mac Plus networked |
Posted by: stepleton on 2023-10-04 11:07:16
How do the frame rates compare on real planes? This will always depend on the aircraft, the pilot, and the workload.
I've had the privilege to fly a few human-powered airplanes, where in any flight you are putting a few hundred watts of continual effort into the work of remaining airborne, and where the enormous wings mean that control inputs are heeded in a fairly unhurried way. The gradual dynamics and the diminished residual attention you possess during your effort makes this some ways comparable to flying a 68000-powered flight simulator, perhaps moreso if you happen to be powering the computer with a generator attached to your exercise bike. |
| 1 |