Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Doom Ported To the Web

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the when-can-i-run-firefox-in-firefox-in-firefox dept.

Games 248

kripkenstein writes "Ever since Id Software released the Doom source code under the GPL, it's been ported to platform after platform. Now, you can play Doom compiled to JavaScript on the web, using standard web technologies like Canvas and without any plugins. If your browser has trouble running it, here's a screencast." The translation was accomplished using Emscripten, a Javascript backend for LLVM. As per the GPL, full source code is available. Pretty neat.

cancel ×

248 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not bad (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300740)

8 fps, and that's on an older work laptop without a fancy graphics card and loaded with lots of crap in the background.

Re:Not bad (1)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300836)

4 to 5 fps ("full screen" with menu bar) on Intel 8400/nVidia 9800M GTS, Ubuntu 10.4.
Mybe ripping Joe Jackson in the background slows things down. :-P

Re:Not bad (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301024)

40fps for me on an nvidia 430gt and an amd quad core while running desktop effects and xbmc on another screen.
The sounds are fucking terrible however, the compression needs work for it to be playable my poor ears.

Re:Not bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301070)

0.9 fps om my iPhone

Re:Not bad (3, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301116)

1.4fps on my N900! IN YOUR FACE!

(Protip for N900 users: Use Firefox Mobile, if you try with MicroB it will just consume all your memory)

Re:Not bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301192)

Nokia can go to hell... I lost ALOT of money today... they down 15%

Re:Not bad (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301246)

You didn't dump your stock like a hot venom-filled potato the moment Microsoft bought them? I can't feel any pity for you...

Re:Not bad (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301282)

Oh sorry, not "bought," but "partnered"...but you can understand how I could make that mixup...

Re:Not bad (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301096)

On My Win7box (with Firefox 4) I'm getting lots of gfx corruption and bad audio. Unplayable, though the framerate is better than what I got on my old Pentium 60.

Re:Not bad (1)

cranil (1983560) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301050)

firefox 4? I got around 35 fps ATI 5740 Ubuntu 11.04 and Chromium 13 and firefox 4

Re:Not bad (4, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301108)

Video card hardly makes any difference, browser does. 35 fps full-screen on Firefox 7.0a1, 34 on Firefox 4.0, slideshow on Firefox 3.5. This is on a cheap-ass 2.8Ghz Phenom II. It uses no OpenGL, about any graphics card can handle shoving such bitmaps around. It's single-threaded, too, so what you're ripping on your other cores doesn't matter.

However, without such basic controls as strafe, this demo is not playable. No mouse input hurts but DOS versions had unusable mouse anyway so it's just a throwback to the old times. I estimate I've clocked around 4000 hours those days so I'd cope :p Heck, even comma/dot might be acceptable if they don't want to allow redefining keys, although I'd really prefer a sane setup like Z/X=strafe, alt=fire, shift=run (assuming no autorun like in the original).

Re:Not bad (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301312)

Hmm I'm pretty sure the original didn't have strafe, either.

Re:Not bad (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301426)

Wolf3D didn't have dedicated keys for strafe (only Alt-direction), Doom had both dedicated and alt, bound to comma and dot by default. Since it is vital to be able to turn all the time, you can't afford to use alt strafe in a fight. It's only for abusing the double-strafe bug.

Re:Not bad (3, Informative)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301336)

However, without such basic controls as strafe, this demo is not playable.

Actually strafe works, hold down alt.

Re:Not bad (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301528)

However, without such basic controls as strafe, this demo is not playable. No mouse input hurts but DOS versions had unusable mouse anyway so it's just a throwback to the old times. I estimate I've clocked around 4000 hours those days so I'd cope :p Heck, even comma/dot might be acceptable if they don't want to allow redefining keys, although I'd really prefer a sane setup like Z/X=strafe, alt=fire, shift=run (assuming no autorun like in the original).

Alt=fire? You must have some strange, deformed hands. Clearly Ctrl should be fire.

The rest is okay.

Re:Not bad (1)

basotl (808388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300868)

Just was testing and that's about what I was getting on my NookColor. Though the lack of a physical keyboard was an issue... I just wanted to check if it would run at all.

Re:Not bad (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300900)

I got 8 FPS on a rather well-dressed machine.

JavaScript is nobody's first choice for code.

Re:Not bad (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300968)

Can't be that well dressed. I'm getting 35.

Re:Not bad (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301314)

8 fps? Your phone is awesome then, I'm getting only 2.8 fps on mine. Oh, wait, you meant a regular computer?

(2.8 fps in the start room of EP 1, in busy rooms it gets down to ~1.1 fps. And the sound, well, let's skip it.)

Re:Not bad (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301524)

8 FPS? Are you using IE? I was getting 30-40 FPS on a crappy years-old work laptop using Opera. The CPU was chugging and made all of the fans turn on, and some textures were flickering, but it ran smoothly the entire time. The menu was only running at about 5-6 FPS though.

Re:Not bad (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300978)

30+ FPS in Firefox 4.0.1 on a fall 201 iMac.

The sound was choppy but graphically it was buttery smooth.

Re:Not bad (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300984)

45fps on an almost 4 year old MacBook Pro with Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz.

I'm not quite sure that Doom used 170MB of memory, which JS alone is using in the tab.

Re:Not bad (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301402)

Since Doom ran in 4 MB, why 170MB? I expect some overhead, but not 166MB overhead :p

Re:Not bad (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301480)

Yeah, that's a bit of a jump from the 4MB it required in 1994 :)

Re:Not bad (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301058)

On an 8-year-old laptop, with 1.6GHz Pentium M:
Opera: 8fps
Firefox: 4fps
Chrome: unresponsive
Mind you, these results were just for viewing the static slides of the introduction. The game refused to play, giving a perpetual message loop saying "Demo is from a different game version!". Clicking on the "NEW GAME" menu item had no discernible effect.

Re:Not bad (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301170)

You are doing it wrong, it's not GZDoom.
You just use the keyboard to pick stuff. Use the arrow keys to move, enter (control?) to accept, space to open doors, control to fire.

Re:Not bad (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301334)

You are doing it wrong, it's not GZDoom.
You just use the keyboard to pick stuff. Use the arrow keys to move, enter (control?) to accept, space to open doors, control to fire.

Thanks for the tip on keyboard use (wow, I'm not exactly a youngster and still only tried the mouse). I got 33-35fps in Opera 11.11 while running around shooting things. Of course, the game resolution sucks a little bit and looked small on my display, but it was actually sort-of playable on ancient hardware.

Laptop: 8 year-old 1.6GHz Pentium M, with 1GB RAM and 1920x1200 Radeon 9600, running Lubuntu 10.04 LTS.

Re:Not bad (1)

jon_doh2.0 (2097642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301236)

Getting around 23fps on my 6 year old laptop with 2.1GHZ Pentium M, with 2GB RAM under Debian and Firefox 4. Drops as low as 13fps under action.

Totally playable (barring lack of strafe).

Is it just me... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36300780)

It seems pretty damn impressive that web browsers are as powerful as an entire computer with the specs required to play Doom back in the day. And it's reporting about 35 FPS, too (FF 4.0.1 with a 1.8 GHz dual-core processor and 1 GB of RAM, for what that's worth).

Re:Is it just me... (1, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300880)

It seems pretty damn impressive that web browsers are as powerful as an entire computer with the specs required to play Doom back in the day. And it's reporting about 35 FPS, too (FF 4.0.1 with a 1.8 GHz dual-core processor and 1 GB of RAM, for what that's worth).

Considering that DOOM ran at, what, 60 FPS on a 486 SX 33Mhz with the DOOM graphics quality set to high and at the largest screen size it supported, it's not really that impressive.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

Savantissimo (893682) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301168)

Hmm... the 386-40 with coprocessor wasn't much slower (~20%) than the 486SX-33 and it only got about 15-20 FPS.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301466)

A DX2-66 might have gotten 60FPS on a PCI or VLB videocard. I highly doubt a SX (no co-processor) could do it, since that kind of machine probably had an ISA videocard.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301490)

It depended a lot on the video card, but since the game was capped at 30 FPS (IIRC) 60 is out of the question for any 486.

Re:Is it just me... (4, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301540)

No. My 486SX-25 would run Doom at 20-some FPS (mainly dependent on how many monsters were within visual/acting range), and after an upgrade to a DX2-50 Overdrive it would usually be 30-something -- and the original DOS executable had a hard limit of 35 FPS.

Don't forget this is running as interpreted code in what amounts to a virtual machine.

No, It's Not Just You, It's Just Developers (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300886)

It seems pretty damn impressive that web browsers are as powerful as an entire computer ...

I think it has more to do with the power/stability/impressiveness of the JavaScript engines and implementations of standardized ECMAScript specifications. I had submitted a story about Fabrice Bellard [slashdot.org] emulating a very basic (even primitive) computer and then running Linux in it [bellard.org] . But that got rejected.

Developers are slowly coming full circle and using JavaScript a client side application. As the performance cost of emulation and virtualization are outweighed by better machines and as HTML5 become more solid and supported, expect some pretty crazy awesome demos to be seen and maybe a handful of them turning into something generalized and really useful (like the mentioned Emscripten).

Re:No, It's Not Just You, It's Just Developers (0, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301084)

My 21st century machine can now not play a game from 1993. Thanks jackasses who think javascript is a good idea.

Re:No, It's Not Just You, It's Just Developers (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301470)

Javascript is fine. It's the 'running inside a browser' that kills performance by 99%, and makes this an impressive feat. If the Javascript engine was ripped out of Firefox 4 or Chrome, and given a decent graphics & sound API, it would have respectable performance (nowhere near C or C++, of course). When you're writing a graphics heavy app in a browser, though, it's like playing a song on a dot matrix printer. The fact it exists at all is the amazing thing.

Re:No, It's Not Just You, It's Just Developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301208)

I had submitted a story about Fabrice Bellard emulating a very basic (even primitive) computer and then running Linux in it. But that got rejected.

It was posted here. [slashdot.org]

Re:No, It's Not Just You, It's Just Developers (1)

pugugly (152978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301504)

What I actually like better is this Java C64 emulator [jac64.com] - {G}
Uridium [jac64.com] !

Pug

Re:Is it just me... (1)

NoOneInParticular (221808) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301272)

If find it truly depressing that after 16 years of hardware development, the most ubiquitous client-server architecture around actually runs slower than ever before. What the hell are we doing with those 8+ cycles of Moore's law? Treat Javascript as if it were assembler! The trick is nifty, in a "let's put the heating on because the air-conditioning is cooling the house too much" kind of way.

Hooray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36300782)

I've always wanted to be able to play Doom at 5 fps, with periodic second-long delays while the JS engine garbage collects, and having to close the browser and restart when the memory leaks get too bad.

Re:Hooray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36300866)

Yea, most of the rest of us have upgraded our computers since the time Doom originally came out.

Re:Hooray (2)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300930)


Yea, most of the rest of us have upgraded our computers since the time Doom originally came out.

Don't be too hard on the poor fellow, he's probably having a hard time finding a shop which sells the correct vacuum tubes.

Cool (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300820)

34FPS on average. The only problem is the sound quality is really bad. Like, really, really bad.

Every platform? (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300822)

"versions of Doom have subsequently been released for the following systems: DOS, Microsoft Windows, Commodore Amiga, QNX, Irix, NEXTSTEP, Linux, Apple Macintosh, Super NES, Sega 32X, Sony PlayStation, Game Boy Advance, iPhone OS, Symbian OS, RISC OS, Atari Jaguar, Sega Saturn, Nintendo 64, Tapwave (1) Does this work on Dialup connections?

(2) "Zodiac, 3DO, Xbox as a feature of Doom 3: Limited Edition, Xbox 360 on Xbox Live Arcade, and the PS3." - wikipedia

No Commodore 64.
Or NES.
Or Sega Genesis? That last one is a surprise since the Amiga version should be able to run on the Genesis with some simple modification.

Re:Every platform? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300992)

It's also available for PalmOS (ZdoomZ)

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36300828)

And it only took 18 years for us to get there (the graphics, that is; sound isn't working very well).

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301030)

- Does not work on Chromium here (v12)
  - Only 40 fps in Fx4 (hey, this is doom)
  - Rendering glitches I never saw in any doom port (many sprites just disappear sometime, enemy sprites behind doors are shown through the door when opening it)
  - Sound is horrible

IE 9 is Doomed, I tell you, DOOMED! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36300864)

*surprised nobody beat me to the punch on this one*

Wow (0)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300874)

And it almost gets 30 FPS too completely pegging one of my two cores on a 2.4 ghz proccessor! I understand (hope?) that this isn't supposed to be a serious tech demo, but honestly, if Javascript is (at least one of the parts of) the platform of the future we are seriously fucked. State of the art dynamic recompiling VMs and this is the best we can do for performance? It's time people started realizing that Javascript as a language is fundamentally broken and needs to be replaced.

Re:Wow (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300896)

I really doubt that Javascript itself is the bottleneck on this one. Much more likely to be the browser's ability to draw quickly.

Re:Wow (2)

empiricistrob (638862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300932)

I agree that we should start considering replacing javascript as a language. Why not provide a strongly typed extension to javascript? Javascript would get a lost faster.

Re:Wow (4, Informative)

Necroman (61604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301042)

If you want real graphics performance out of a browser, you should be using WebGL (assuming Flash is not an option). WebGL lets you execute OpenGL code on the video card of the machine, which will be a ton faster than Canvas.

You have to remember that Canvas is just an image rendering platform. From my understand of Canvas in Firefox, it actually renders every frame as a PNG and displays it to the screen. There is no GPU acceleration. That's what WebGL is fore.

Re:Wow (2)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301158)

The original doom used software rendering which makes this a fair comparison actually, things like OpenGL and hardware accelerated 3D graphics certainly didn't exist (in the consumer realm) in 1993. Doom ran at full frames on 66 mhz Pentium processor. Loosely extrapolating, this means the Javascript version is about 200 to 300 times slower than the original.

Re:Wow (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301320)

It's one thing to generate a png for every frame you render and writing straight to (one of) the buffer(s) of the video card as they previously did.

The only thing it points out (as far as JavaScript is concerned) is that they need a better way to render the canvas.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301076)

Actionscript? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Wow (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301100)

Why not provide a strongly typed extension to javascript? Javascript would get a lost faster.

I'm all for Javascript getting lost faster.

What's needed is a strong sandbox for each browser instantiation to run binaries in, whether those be native or pre-compiled bytecode for a state machine. Not fettering developers to using a specific language that is interpreted or compiled from source.

Java applets were a good idea, but was hampered by the sandbox being a pixel-boxed applet, not the browser, and also by being proprietary and single-language.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301260)

What's needed is a strong sandbox for each browser instantiation to run binaries in, whether those be native or pre-compiled bytecode for a state machine. Not fettering developers to using a specific language that is interpreted or compiled from source.

Here you go: http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/

Re:Wow (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301278)

Not binaries, then we are again stuck with x86. I own many devices that are not x86 and even some workstations.

Re:Wow (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301122)

How about recognize this sort of thing is happening a lot of late (GWT, NaCl and others) and design a proper low level runtime and API set to properly accommodate it.

Re:Wow (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300938)

People won't realize that until it stops doing stuff like this.

Re:Wow (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301014)

JS VMs are far from state of the art compared to, say, Java VMs. They're working on it, though...

Progress (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36300876)

So instead of a 40MHz 486 and 8MiB of EDO RAM, we now require at least a 2,5GHz dual core with 1GiB of DDR3 SDRAM to accomplish the same thing on a web page.

screencast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36300878)

Screencast isn't a word.

Re:screencast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301078)

Hey moron, this is slashdot. Do you really think we care about things like spelling and mechanics? English is a LIVING language. Here at slashdot, we invent words like atomsmasher and topscore because we are on the cutting edge and are so smart that we shall be deemed as the definitive languagemakers of our LIVING English language. So just go die in a fire because rules do not apply to us. We are simply too smart to let our efficiency of journalistic reporting be hampered with such inefficiencies of consistency and clarity. Amen.

Re:screencast (1)

jon_doh2.0 (2097642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301542)

Man, wouldv modded you up if you hadnt posted as AC, modding up an AC seems a bit of a waste generally.

You're phrasing was somewhat hyperbolic, in the interests of humour, of course.

Woke up to a tight arsed gr/sp nazi this morning and it really pissed me off, mainly because i lost my cool and kicked off.

Why cant these lowlifes just let people be? They contribute nothing to the debate.

From now on i will always post with my sig.

Rant over.


-- Grammar is effective when meaning is conveyed, and i balk at english spelling conventions. So, go suck a pee-pee.

Not as cool as GWT Quake (2)

empiricistrob (638862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300882)

While this is impressive, it has been done before (and better): GWT Quake [youtube.com]

not here.. (1)

thehodapp (1931332) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300888)

doesn't work on a year old integrated graphics card (even with an i3 processor). What do you have to have to run it?

Re:not here.. (1)

mg127 (1074701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301026)

Macbook Pro (i7 w/ 4GB and Nvidia 330M) using Firefox 4 I get 37 fps. Neat demo, but I agree the sound is pretty awful.

My performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36300906)

GPU: GTX275 NVidia
CPU: E8400 Core2Duo @ 3GHZ

I'm getting 5-7fps. Is this down to me still using Firefox 3.6?

Re:My performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301102)

For me it "worked" in Firefox 4.01 (bounced between 12 and 35 fps). Didn't do anything at all in Chrome or IE 9. Seems like a waste - even when it worked it was too slow to play and the sound was abysmal.

Re:My performance (2)

nogginthenog (582552) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301256)

CPU: Celeron Dual-Core @ 1.8Ghz
Firefox 4.x gets around 30fps, so I guess the answer is yes.

Sound is abysmal (2)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300910)

So... no music, and the sound effects are like a half second delayed from the action, AND they sound really REALLY bad. I guess it's impressive what you can do visually with Javascript these days, but at least on my setup, the sound is just.... no where near as mature. That's probably not a huge problem for many people, but personally sound is a huge part of any experience for me, and I find the web constantly disappoints. Except, generally for Flash animation/Flash games which seem to have at least gotten THAT... well, MORE right.

Re:Sound is abysmal (1)

maitai (46370) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300950)

I actually wanted to play it, but the sound completely killed it for me.

Re:Sound is abysmal (1)

mcavic (2007672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301464)

I played it on mute. It's quaint, but not very useful because of the window size.

Re:Sound is abysmal (4, Interesting)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301366)

So... no music, and the sound effects are like a half second delayed from the action, AND they sound really REALLY bad.

I agree, the sound is terrible, sorry about that. I don't know much about how sound stuff works, that is the best I could do in a few hours of hacking something together with the Audio Data API.

Non-JavaScript browser languages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36300940)

It sure would be nice if we could use languages other than JavaScript in our browser. Not that JavaScript isn't a nice language, but not all problems fit into all languages comfortably. It's cool to see that programs in other languages can be converted into JavaScript, but then, unfortunately, they must be interpreted to be executed.

Ironically crashes my Firefox (1)

Teknikal69 (1769274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36300966)

Just crashed my firefox install when I tried it, Had a bit better luck with safari but the sound never initialized.

Not really that impressed in honesty especially since quake online has been about quite a while and works a lot better.

Come on, you could do this with flash 2 years ago (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301020)

Here's the link: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/470460, plus: it does run with a higher framerate.

Re:Come on, you could do this with flash 2 years a (2)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301186)

And that version runs faster, renders better, and has better sound.... AND it doesn't make every fan in my computer speed up to the point where I think I'm playing doom on a jet engine. Still not perfect (Gosh, native code runs better than code through a browser, who'd have thought?) but it's better than the JS version by leaps and bounds. Or it would be if you could jump in Doom.

sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301036)

For those of you who aren't familiar with Javascript for the web for that matter, JS efficiency is somewhat dependent on the browser. Chrome and Safari should be able to handle it just fine.

Ughhhhhh (2)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301038)

I mean, it's a cool accomplishment in terms of implementation and all, but...

Ughhhhhhhhhh.

Buggy (1)

Sigvatr (1207234) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301062)

I'm sorry to ruin everyone's fun but this is full of visual glitches.

unplayable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301274)

I'd go so far to say that this was unplayable due to the following major flaws:

Despite 30+fps rating on my laptop ...

Sound way out of sync -- (Extreme delay)

Sound caused high-pitched (anti-teenager?) whine from speakers -- Which I can hear despite my >35 age.

Enemies are not visible until you are right on top of them (they disappear from view when within shooting range)

Alt (strafe) key seems to have meaning to firefox -- works as a toggle? I don't remember this in the old Doom.

Step 2 (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301068)

Port the iOS APIs and run apps from any webhost. Obviously there would be limitations but I wonder what Apple could do about it.

This proves the old adage (2, Insightful)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301072)

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"

Re:This proves the old adage (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301188)

That's what she said.

Re:This proves the old adage (1)

sockman (133264) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301326)

And then the bed broke.

Gee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301294)

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"

I was about to port Firefox 4 to run under Javascript using HTML canvas and a web-service backend. Spoilsport!

Re:This proves the old adage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301342)

I'm pretty sure saying this about a Doom or Quake port means you instantly have to hand in your geek card.

Re:This proves the old adage (1)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301502)

I'm pretty sure saying this about a Doom or Quake port means you instantly have to hand in your geek card.

I just turned 40, so I am officially in old man mode.

Doesn't work!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36301092)

What am I missing? I tried it in FF 4.01, IE 8 somethingorther and latest chrome, it didn't work in either, chrome at least flored a CPU and sucked up hundreds of MB of memory the others did nothing!? I've got a decent core2duo with Nvidia discrete chip of some kind laptop...

This is why Plug-ins are a great option. (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301150)

Flash handles this just fine on my MacBook Pro(Core 2 9600m) full screen(1920x1200) using about 25%, where as this JavaScript version crashed Chrome at 100% CPU, then under FireFox sucked up 60% of my CPU for a little 640x480 box that could barely maintain 17fps... And the sound was completely jacked.

Never the less, a cool show and they can say they've done it, but thankfully this isn't our only only option.

A re-write in JS would have been MUCH faster. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301174)

This is one of those, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" kind of things.

Seriously, many Doom sourceports are doing it wrong, including this one. The thing is, Doom used fixed point math to simulate floating point -- now our on-chip float calculations are way faster than the code required to emulate them (that Doom uses).

Additionally: JS does not have any numbers except 64 bit floats! Bitwise math works on the lower 32 bits of the 52 bits of precision that the floats have available, and results are stored in -- FLOATS. So, using floats to emulate Doom's fixed point math (to emulate floats) is RETARDED (in every sense of the word).

Additionally -- the look up tables Doom uses for "speed" are very slow in JS -- a dynamic object property lookup -- Actually doing a Math.sin(), cos(), or acos() call would be a HELL of a lot faster.

P.S. So fucking what! You can compile just about anything into javascript now that we have a compiler for it. The compiler was impressive, the old programs were impressive in their time. You want a cookie for being able to compile something? Too bad, I'm fresh out.

Re:A re-write in JS would have been MUCH faster. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301332)

ARM machines are not so great at floating point, so that might not be true outside of desktops.

My only question is (1)

toby (759) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301276)

What took em so long??

oops broke it (1)

hilldog (656513) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301290)

Error: R_DrawColumn: 265 to 275 at 17 FAILURE in loop iteration: SDL_Quit! Fun while it lasted.

Dungeon Crawl Nettiles (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301322)

I am a raging fan of Doom (which I keep playing via source ports to this date), and this is a great experiment, however...the sound is abysmal, and I am too used to modern controls to go back to arrow keys :P
The FPS was OK for me, 20-30, but the sounds....sounded like...flatulence and a 2yo kid with very deep voice being recorded right next to the microphone.

Doom is not terribly complex by modern standards, but the browser struggles to get it moving (probably because of video rendering, not sure if webGL can do much about that, probably does help) and uses a lot of memory moving it. However, if this keeps advancing (most probably will) the web will become more interesting to this indie game developer, even if just for the ease of deployment (relatively speaking).

Despite not being so visually good, I have found the recent nettiles mode of Dungeon Crawl to be quite a surprisingly nice web interface to a game. (link : https://tiles.crawl.develz.org/ [develz.org] )
It uses no visible CPU and almost no network power at all in my computer and is very responsive, and is a novel interface to play a roguelike in a shared server (including spectators and messaging) without having to use putty or cope with the ASCII interface.

Is there any directory of comprehensive game-oriented documentation for simple 2D "webgame" development? I am quite intrigued about building a 7DRL for the browser using some cutesy tiles and some core basics like dungeon generator and item generator. Lua is my fetish language but I certainly could try some browser magic.

version of java matter? (1)

jasonmicron (807603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301372)

I loaded this up on my home server and tried it from two different systems.

System 1 - RHEL5 8 cpu 48g RAM - Java(TM) Plug-in 1.6.0_20 - 7-8fps
System 2 - WinXP 1 C2D cpu, 4g RAM - Java(TM) Platform SE 6 U22 - 35-45fps
System 2 wins. Graphics card unimportant as this isn't a 3D accellerated application. Not sure why the discrepancy is what it is, but whatever.

Sound does suck.

In Soviet Russia, Firefox Dooms You! (1)

jdgoulden (1575977) | more than 3 years ago | (#36301530)

Wow, it's not often that you find a script that will not only crash every open tab in Firefox but also take down every other instance as well.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>