SW or GL Quake: what minimal resolution we need nowadays ?

Discuss programming topics for the various GPL'd game engine sources.
Post Reply

What is the minimal video resolution you need to play ?

320 x 200 (ugh)
5
26%
320 x 240
0
No votes
512 x 384
0
No votes
640 x 400
5
26%
640 x 480 or higher
9
47%
 
Total votes: 19

frag.machine
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:49 pm

SW or GL Quake: what minimal resolution we need nowadays ?

Post by frag.machine »

I'd appreciate your feedback in this poll. Note please, that I am not asking if you guys want higher resolutions (I already know the answer :D); instead, what I want to determine is if I can safely drop the lower video resolutions supported by the original SW / GL Quake in my next project. That's why you won't find all possible video resolutions in the list, but only the lowest ones (that I believe is safe to get rid of without prejudice to anyone).
I know FrikaC made a cgi-bin version of the quakec interpreter once and wrote part of his website in QuakeC :) (LordHavoc)
Entar
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:27 pm
Location: At my computer
Contact:

Post by Entar »

I usually never play at less than 640x480, and I normally play at 640x480 or 800x600. But why would you want to eliminate those options? Seems like you'd leave 'em in for the odd player who has an old computer or likes the old timey feel.
venomus
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:54 pm

Post by venomus »

Thing is even moderately high resolutions in SW will pwn slow processors. And let's face it, most computers running SW Quake out of necessity (i.e: no 3D acceleration at all) are unlikely to be running on anything much faster than a P2.
I don't think there's as much of a demand for high resolutions in SW Quake* as there is for being able to play at 320x200 on a £20 laptop.


*There may be a demand for easily reverting to the feel of SW Quake, e.g. turn off all the eye candy with one option (that includes all texture filtering).
Quake Matt
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:59 pm

Post by Quake Matt »

Yeah, I agree with Venomus - keep the 320x200 for the older machines, and for the classic Quake look!

For GL, however, I'd probably say 640x480 is the minimum.
Sajt
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:39 am

Post by Sajt »

I much preferred software to hardware on my P2 233 MHz, and I always used 640x400 because it was smooth enough (and 640x480 was noticeably slower).
F. A. Špork, an enlightened nobleman and a great patron of art, had a stately Baroque spa complex built on the banks of the River Labe.
frag.machine
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:49 pm

Post by frag.machine »

Entar wrote:I usually never play at less than 640x480, and I normally play at 640x480 or 800x600. But why would you want to eliminate those options? Seems like you'd leave 'em in for the odd player who has an old computer or likes the old timey feel.
The problem is not the engine itself. I was planning to use some assets that would require higher resolutions (12x12 or 16x16 conchars versus the current 8x8, for example). But looks like lots of people are using 320 x 200. Frankly I am surprised because even when I had no hardware acceleration back in 199x I used to play at higher resolutions than VGA mode 13h :). Oh well... :roll:
I know FrikaC made a cgi-bin version of the quakec interpreter once and wrote part of his website in QuakeC :) (LordHavoc)
RenegadeC
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: The freezing hell; Canada
Contact:

Post by RenegadeC »

For software I use 640x480, or 800x600
For hardware I only use 1024x768 and above.
venomus
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:54 pm

Post by venomus »

What stops you from selecting conchar size based on resolution. Unless you are actually making a mod with new HUD elements.
frag.machine
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:49 pm

Post by frag.machine »

venomus wrote:What stops you from selecting conchar size based on resolution. Unless you are actually making a mod with new HUD elements.
My idea was to create higher resolution versions of as many assets as possible (conchars being only an example, a complete menu overhauling with customized gfxs is part of the to do list). Having to support resolutions below to 640 x 480 means either a) resample all gfx to lower resolution (with a crappy final result) or b) creating lower versions of those assets (which means more effort to a one-man-project). Both are possible but far from ideal options.
I know FrikaC made a cgi-bin version of the quakec interpreter once and wrote part of his website in QuakeC :) (LordHavoc)
venomus
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:54 pm

Post by venomus »

I would go with the resample option as long as its still readable. If not then either use simplified or the old assets. That is infinitely preferable to dropping support IMHO.
Post Reply