The most circular argument in Doomworld history (max. resolutions of Quake, Quake 2 and Hexen 2 as of 1997)

[Redneckerz]

4 hours ago, Edward850 said:

Back in 1996? No they very much weren't: https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?p=979672

320x200 was still a struggle. Running Quake at "max resolution" would have been an absolute pipe dream, and high performance at higher framerates than 320x200 very much demanded hardware acceleration.

The only plausible alternatives were:

• Windows NT (Integraph TDZ workstations) (Quad Pentium Pro 200 Mhz with up to 1 GB ram) with Integraph Realizm (As that is what Carmack used at what, 1280x1024? He also had this huge ass 1080p screen somewhere) which ran in 1996.
• SGI machines (Hexen 2, a 1997 Quake game, can run on a 1995 Indigo2 with Maximum Impact graphics at 1280x1024 at above 30 fps)

Ofcourse neither of these was available for the consumer space - prices ranging from 10k to as high as 50k. 

4 hours ago, Technicolor said:

Then what is the point of putting high resolutions in Quake if no computer in the world existed for it?

Future proofing. In the mid 90s, 3D improvements were insane - We went from 3D acceleration to transform and lighting in 1999 and pixel/vertex shaders in 2001 in a mere 5 years. Nowadays your 2017 GPU runs the same games as your 2022 - The only difference being Raytracing support.

4 hours ago, Technicolor said:

There is no point for video resolutions to be that high if there was no pc in the world that could run it in 1996.

 

3 hours ago, Technicolor said:

If even highest end, most expensive, best PCs of 1996 can't run Quake at max resolution, then it is absurd to have high resolutions in video setting. This is my point.

My point is that you are rather dense on your points. Developers threw these insane resolutions in (Rebel Moon i believe also has extreme resolutions and so do a few others) because:

• There was no established standard yet.
• Future proofing your game for newer hardware. At a time when technological improvement came in a rapid paces with new rendering paradigms, support for high resolutions was an easier way to keep an older game visually relevant by enabling high-res support.

[cybdmn]

On 12/21/2022 at 12:23 PM, Redneckerz said:

The only plausible alternatives were:

• Windows NT (Integraph TDZ workstations) (Quad Pentium Pro 200 Mhz with up to 1 GB ram) with Integraph Realizm (As that is what Carmack used at what, 1280x1024? He also had this huge ass 1080p screen somewhere) which ran in 1996.
• SGI machines (Hexen 2, a 1997 Quake game, can run on a 1995 Indigo2 with Maximum Impact graphics at 1280x1024 at above 30 fps)

 

They were stupidly expensive. We're talking about prices in the 5 or 6 digits realms here. I highly doubt that these are qualified as a PC, if by PC someone think of it as an (even high end) gaming machine.

[Edward850]

On 12/22/2022 at 12:23 AM, Redneckerz said:

Windows NT (Integraph TDZ workstations) (Quad Pentium Pro 200 Mhz with up to 1 GB ram) with Integraph Realizm (As that is what Carmack used at what, 1280x1024? He also had this huge ass 1080p screen somewhere) which ran in 1996.

Keeping in mind that these high resolutions certainly existed (after all, SVGA did), and you could use them on even average consumer PCs with the right graphics card, the catch was these weren't meant for gaming but office tasks such as data entry, and of course programming, where rendering wasn't as demanding. These were CRTs though so changing resolution for a game made sense at the time. It's only with LCDs that we had the "one resolution fits all" mentality.

[Azuris]

On 12/21/2022 at 8:10 AM, Technicolor said:

 

In our time, PC differes a lot. Low end PCs and High end PCs from 2022 are nothing like each other.

 

 

There is no difference to these days.

They implemented even software and gpu modes, to have them all on board.

 

When Doom 3 came out, there was no GPU aviable that had enough RAM to support its highest Graphics Settings.

(if i remember it well 512mb)

 

They just made Software compatible to its max, yes even for hardware that isn't aviable yet.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Edward850 said:

Keeping in mind that these high resolutions certainly existed (after all, SVGA did), and you could use them on even average consumer PCs with the right graphics card, the catch was these weren't meant for gaming but office tasks such as data entry, and of course programming, where rendering wasn't as demanding. These were CRTs though so changing resolution for a game made sense at the time. It's only with LCDs that we had the "one resolution fits all" mentality.

 

Oh i really dislike how stiff televisions are nowadays with resolutions and how bad they scale it by themself.  

 

On PC-Monitors: 

I am pretty sure there are more "dumb" people as me, choosing a lower resolution because menues and font don't scale enough (i am looking at you Civilization IV).  

 

And yes, sometimes i scale down stuff because the GPU keeps being absolutly quiet. 

Not especially in something as Cyberpunk, but in some games it just doesn't make a big difference.  

 

But i am 34, i played Black and White on a pentium 2 with 350 mhz pc with maximal 10 fps. 

I maybe punished myself enough to just not care about perfectly shaped details :D

[Edward850]

2 minutes ago, Azuris said:

When Doom 3 came out, there was no GPU aviable that had enough RAM to support its highest Graphics Settings.

(if i remember it well 512mb)

For the unaware, this is because the Ultra graphics setting kept textures uncompressed, whereas all other modes used a GPU compressed format. Wolf:TNO had a similar thing that basically thrashed the VRAM of every GPU at the time, and people insisted it must be bugged somehow which is why such settings usually don't occur nowadays.

[Technicolor]

I am playing Windows Quake. The game is unplayable above 800X600 Pixels.

 

I think fps drops too low. It is like game is freezing. It must be very low fps at max resolution.

 

At 640X400, the game can be played smoothly, also bigger screen.

Edited December 30, 2022 by Technicolor

[Woolie Wool]

On 12/23/2022 at 5:52 PM, Edward850 said:

Keeping in mind that these high resolutions certainly existed (after all, SVGA did), and you could use them on even average consumer PCs with the right graphics card, the catch was these weren't meant for gaming but office tasks such as data entry, and of course programming, where rendering wasn't as demanding. These were CRTs though so changing resolution for a game made sense at the time. It's only with LCDs that we had the "one resolution fits all" mentality.

Unfortunately LCDs caught on a few years before running every game at native resolution was realistic for most computers, so you had a few years in the 2000s where you often had the choice between blurry linear scaling or poor framerates, and the image quality was often worse than CRTs too. Early consumer LCDs blew goats and I missed my Samsung CRT for years after it died.

[Dark Pulse]

Man, don't tell the OP about the original release of Crysis. His brain will fucking melt.

[Bucket]

On 12/21/2022 at 2:10 AM, Technicolor said:

 

That's not what I am talking about.

 

In our time, PC differes a lot. Low end PCs and High end PCs from 2022 are nothing like each other.

 

If even highest end, most expensive, best PCs of 1996 can't run Quake at max resolution, then it is absurd to have high resolutions in video setting. This is my point.

 

Even if you have a low-end PC, as long as it's current you can reasonably expect to be able to run AAA games. Not well, but still.

 

In the mid-90s there was NO incentive for the average household to keep their PC hardware current. Plenty were still using their old 8-bit micros. Lots of people never used a PC. The TV said the internet was a passing fad. So no, it's not inconceivable that games had to have some future proofing programmed in.

[Technicolor]

2 hours ago, Bucket said:

 

Even if you have a low-end PC, as long as it's current you can reasonably expect to be able to run AAA games. Not well, but still.

 

In the mid-90s there was NO incentive for the average household to keep their PC hardware current. Plenty were still using their old 8-bit micros. Lots of people never used a PC. The TV said the internet was a passing fad. So no, it's not inconceivable that games had to have some future proofing programmed in.

 

Looks like such high resolutions didnt mean much for future either.

 

I have Windows Quake and when I choose the maximum resolution of 1024X768 pixels, the game suffers with low fps.

 

I am seeing tons of modern quake versions on Youtube.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Technicolor

[Redneckerz]

9 minutes ago, Technicolor said:

 

Looks like such high resolutions didnt mean much for future either.

As has been told time and time again, the high res support was an easy way back then for developers to future proof their games with newer hardware at a time when 3D acceleration and advances were pacing at a insane speed.

 

At this point i feel you are acting coy.

9 minutes ago, Technicolor said:

I have Windows Quake and when I choose the maximum resolution of 1024X768 pixels, the game suffers with low fps.

Depends on your setup.

9 minutes ago, Technicolor said:

 

I am seeing tons of modern quake versions on Youtube.

Yep, go try them! Like VKQuake, or Ironwail. Or this has most what you seek.

[Technicolor]

5 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

At this point i feel you are acting coy.

Depends on your setup.

Yep, go try them! Like VKQuake, or Ironwail. Or this has most what you seek.

 

You are talking about things like GZDoom, which changes what the original game offers.

[Technicolor]

10 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

Depends on your setup.

 

Fps lowers in old version of Quake when resolution gets higher.

 

 

[Dark Pulse]

1 hour ago, Technicolor said:

Fps lowers in old version of Quake when resolution gets higher.

Old versions of Quake were also optimized for 1995 PCs, not 2023 PCs.

 

This is like complaining "Why does a car made in 1910 runs slower than a car made in 2023? They both got four wheels, a gasoline engine, and a steering wheel," while you completely ignore that the engine technology has absolutely changed under the hood, and the addition of modern features. Like taillights. And windshield wipers. And heating/cooling. And a key, or increasingly, electronic starter; not a crank.

 

The reason those newer engines can run Quake at higher resolutions better than the older ones is precisely because engine developers are taking advantage of things like multithreading, faster clock rates, and higher-level CPU instruction sets that can do 3D math faster.

 

John Carmack may be a super-genius alien-in-person-suit, an experimental artificial intelligence gone rogue, a sentient galaxy brain, and have a keen insight into where gaming would be a few years later, but even Carmack can't peer nearly thirty years into the future.^*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{*Yes, I know he's also a time-traveling interdimensional overgenius space wizard and actual rocket scientist. Shaddap.}

[Redneckerz]

2 hours ago, Technicolor said:

 

You are talking about things like GZDoom, which changes what the original game offers.

You were talking about modern Quake versions. What i mentioned are exactly those.

1 hour ago, Technicolor said:

Fps lowers in old version of Quake when resolution gets higher.

It likely has never heard of framecaps. Just as i would not dare run Darkplaces on DOS, i would not run WinQuake on modern OS.

[Technicolor]

1 hour ago, Dark Pulse said:

Old versions of Quake were also optimized for 1995 PCs, not 2023 PCs.

 

 

And I said such high resolutions didn't mean much for future because fps drops terribly low.

 

640X400 Pixels is the way I play Old Quake. The gameplay is smooth with around 30 fps, plus bigger screen.

 

New PCs differ a lot from each other also. They are nothing like each other.

 

My 2020 model PC has 4 GB Ram. I see expensive PCs with 128 GB Ram.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Technicolor

[Dark Pulse]

1 hour ago, Technicolor said:

And I said such high resolutions didn't mean much for future because fps drops terribly low.

 

640X400 Pixels is the way I play Old Quake. The gameplay is smooth with around 30 fps, plus bigger screen.

 

New PCs differ a lot from each other also. They are nothing like each other.

 

My 2020 model PC has 4 GB Ram. I see expensive PCs with 128 GB Ram.

They were also of the mindset that newer PCs would have faster processors, and just a year or two later, GPUs started being a proper "thing." GLQuake existed, after all, and singlehandedly drove the adoption of early 3DFX Voodoo cards.

 

Technology was changing fast, and at this point, you just could assume that in a few years everything will be faster, better, and able to run the higher framerate. So you coded your game to generally try to run in whatever setups you think might exist over the next 5-ish years. Which multiple people have said, and you don't seem to grasp.

 

But again, you are also neglecting to remember that it's still a game from 1995. It's not going to know about SSE, for example - that came out only with the Pentium III, by which time we were onto Quake III, not original Quake. So the reason it's running slower even on modern hardware is simple: It's literally just straight-up floating point x87 instructions, which nowadays are considered HIGHLY legacy. Not even MMX - that came out in 1997, and even then, only as part of the Pentium Pro. (The first real mainstream CPU to have them, if memory serves, was the Pentium II.)

 

Modern processors are tuned for instruction sets like SSE at a minimum (you may hear terms like "686-compatible processor" - this refers to the OG Pentium Pro, which introduced stuff like parallel execution), so oftentimes these legacy modes are retained for compatibility but never really tuned. And the fact the legacy is so old becomes both floor AND ceiling - there's only a certain amount of capability you have in order to remain in spec, and sooner or later, the limit is hit no matter how fast the processor is, and vagaries of the setup (x87 registers acted like a stack rather than being directly addressable, for example) also contribute to the speed of it being slow. It was faster than what was out there at the time, but it scaled very poorly, and newer instruction sets were designed specifically to deal with such shortcomings.

 

This is why modern source ports compile with support for newer instruction sets. This is why those ports have no problems running Quake at insanely high resolutions; thanks to the widths of registers on modern CPUs, they can often do things in one instruction (and at a much faster cycle time) than something the original code might've needed multiple instructions to do, also with a slower CPU cycle time on top of that.

 

This is also why the original Quake will struggle to run at those same resolutions - its engine, literally, is not aware of most of the processing power that exists now, thirty years later almost.

[Edward850]

Also keeping in mind that id knew that Doom was being used to bench test hardware performance and compatibility using timedemo (Doom in fact could be a very useful diagnostic tool for DOS), so Quake was naturally going to be used for that too, and it did. Quake timedemo benchmarking was a regular thing, so even if you weren't getting high performance with higher resolutions, it still had a purpose to compare just how well machines could do against each other.

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

Why do you guys keep putting effort into trying to explain things to him when he's just going to flush your words down the toilet and return with some kind of non sequiturd?

[Murdoch]

1 hour ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

Why do you guys keep putting effort into trying to explain things to him when he's just going to flush your words down the toilet and return with some kind of non sequiturd?

 

Yeah i really don't understanding what the OP isn't getting about this whole issue.

[ReaperAA]

7 hours ago, Technicolor said:

And I said such high resolutions didn't mean much for future because fps drops terribly low.

 

The high resolutions were added at the time because the developers thought they would end up being useful in future when people would want to play the games at high resolutions and the hardware would also be advanced enough to do so. And for the record, stuff like 1024x768 was very achievable even back in the tail end of the 90s. A Pentium 3 computer with either Voodoo 3 or Nvidia 256 GPU could definitely handle GLQuake and even Quake 2 at that resolution with good fps.

 

The fact that your semi modern (even if it is low end) computer couldn't handle the game at above 1024x768 is likely due to compatibility issue and the old .exes just not being designed to take advantage of the modern cpu architecture. I would recommend Ironwail or Quakespasm, if you want better performance. I also have a measly 4GB Ram computer and yet I run the game using Ironwail at 1920x1080 and it runs fine, even when playing Arcane Dimensions maps.

[Technicolor]

51 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

 

And for the record, stuff like 1024x768 was very achievable even back in the tail end of the 90s. A Pentium 3 computer with either Voodoo 3 or Nvidia 256 GPU could definitely handle GLQuake and even Quake 2 at that resolution with good fps.

 

The fact that your semi modern (even if it is low end) computer couldn't handle the game at above 1024x768 is likely due to compatibility issue and the old .exes just not being designed to take advantage of the modern cpu architecture. 

 

Windows Quake has 1024X768 as max.

 

At 1024X768, the game runs at terribly low fps. It is so terrible.  There is no way to play Vanilla Quake (Dos and Windows) at 1024X768 Pixels.

 

Maybe GLQuake is different.

 

I tried Quake 2 Quad Damage, which was released in 1999. I didn't have any fps suffering at high resolution. It worked smoothly at high resolution.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Technicolor

[Redneckerz]

 

1 hour ago, Technicolor said:

 

Windows Quake has 1024X768 as max.

 

At 1024X768, the game runs at terribly low fps. It is so terrible.  There is no way to play Vanilla Quake (Dos and Windows) at 1024X768 Pixels.

You aren't telling anything new, and what has been suggested already, gets ignored.

 

So there is a stalemate here. When presented with a suggestion or a solution it *usually* helps following up on said suggestion or solution instead of ignoring it and thinking we aren't understanding what's going on.

1 hour ago, Technicolor said:

I tried Quake 2 Quad Damage, which was released in 1999. I didn't have any fps suffering at high resolution. It worked smoothly at high resolution.

Its also not Quake, but Quake 2.

[Technicolor]

1 hour ago, Redneckerz said:

Its also not Quake, but Quake 2.

 

That is what I said above. Quake 2.

[Redneckerz]

13 minutes ago, Technicolor said:

 

That is what I said above. Quake 2.

You were talking about Quake in the previous sentence. But alright, not that it matters.

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

15 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

You were talking about Quake in the previous sentence. But alright, not that it matters.

Why is it that I played Quake 4 and my framerate in Quake 2 gets low at high resolutions. Why did they make Quake 3 like this? I'm talking about Quake.

[amackert]

4 hours ago, Technicolor said:

At 1024X768, the game runs at terribly low fps. It is so terrible.  There is no way to play Vanilla Quake (Dos and Windows) at 1024X768 Pixels.

 

That is total BS.

 

Here's me playing Quake's DOS version (in Windows '98) on a 2003 CPU (Athlon XP 3000+). 1024x768, never drops below 60fps. https://youtu.be/vonCamEE1uk?t=1571

 

A few caveats that might have an effect on performance - I am using a GPU that's from 2005 and the system RAM is maxed out for '98, but still. The point is, PCs certainly could run this game at the higher resolutions it supported. It didn't happen overnight, but that's what makes PC gaming special: The future-proofing of your games and the improvements they naturally get over time as hardware capabilities increase.

[The Almighty Egg]

Oh wow, locked thread when.

[Bucket]

15 hours ago, Technicolor said:

 

Fps lowers in old version of Quake when resolution gets higher.

 

 

 

What exactly is your argument here? That this is no longer the case...? I can buy a new game today that will run like shit on my PC if I try to play it at 8k. HOWEVER, someday I may have a more powerful PC that will be able to handle it.

 

How is this concept so hard for you to digest?

[Gez]

8 minutes ago, Bucket said:

What exactly is your argument here?

I think the argument was that Quake's programmers were absolute fucking dumbass morons because they wrote stuff that Technicolor doesn't understand. What a bunch of idiots.