A comparison of Quake Engines focused on Singleplayer

CocoT · Post by **CocoT** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:34 pm

Interesting stats: http://www.quaddicted.com/quake_engines ... rison.html
As spirits points out, some of the categories/comments might be a little subjective, but others seem to me quite objective.
What do you think?

Post by **Dr. Shadowborg** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:42 pm

I'd have to agree.

It'll be good once he adds in makaqu as well.

Overall well done.

Labman · Post by **Labman** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:19 am

He has QMB as not supporting fullbrights and animation interpolation when it does

Almost motivates me to try and fix the mod crashing bugs... but i'm not sure anyone uses qmb these days

leileilol · Post by **leileilol** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:37 am

Labman wrote:He has QMB as not supporting fullbrights and animation interpolation when it does

yes there's lots of inaccuracies, and also why is he using a mobile integrated chipset for a laptop to judge engines with

tha'ts like using a s3 card and 'officially judging' engines with. If any video card he should really use a Radeon 9500/9700 PRO since it has a good balance of features (full OpenGL 2.0 support) with a good framerate that's not too overly fast to not compare speeds with, plus the added bonus of driver compatibility (Nvidia really fails in that department).

tomazquake supports animation interpolation and centerprint logging.

Darkplaces can have faithful particles.

FTEQW needs to be on the list too. It does a lot of these things

frag.machine · Post by **frag.machine** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:21 am

leileilol wrote:
Labman wrote:He has QMB as not supporting fullbrights and animation interpolation when it does
yes there's lots of inaccuracies, and also why is he using a mobile integrated chipset for a laptop to judge engines with

Why not ? For a long time all I had to test and develop Q2K4 was my Toshiba notebook equipped with the cream top of crapiness, a Trident chipset. It barely supports OpenGL 1.2 (multitexture is borked, no driver updates anymore), but I managed to port a lot of features from other engines and it even could run faster than TomazQuake.

Quake is a 12-year old game. It's natural if casual joe gamer with ancient hardware may want to give a try on new engines. Unless explicitly told in contrary, it's fair to expect most of them run big maps with decent speed.

Urre · Post by **Urre** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:18 am

I'll have to agree with frag here a bit. Even though I don't think you should judge an engine based on your old crappy hardware, I'd say it's safe to judge when other games/engines run fine on your hardware. In this case it's Quake running custom maps, which is a rather old game. It's not like someone with a setup like in those tests would try to run any modern games, they'd basicly just know it won't run very well. On the other hand, I would also not care so much about some of the more modern engines running slow on his setup or whatever, since the authors of those should be more clear on the intentions of the engine, of it being a more modern port than anything, and as such older hardware will suffer, and instead point to some other engine. However if the author keeps insisting on his engine being able to run very well on all ranges of hardware, he better back it up too.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:45 pm

It sure might be that some engines support more features. As I added later: If an engine had a "classic" mode I used it. I did NOT play around with cvars or anything like that. Doing that would have multiplied the time waste by about 523. And I do not think that Average Joe will play around with them either.

Why I tested on my crappy laptop? Well, the graphics chip is good enough to run those engines. I tried the ones that crashed on my PC (P-M1.2GHz, GeForce 6600GT, 2GB Ram) and they still crashed. That confirmed my thought that my laptop would be fine for testing. I did not judge the engines based on their performance on my laptop.

If there are more inaccuracies feel free to tell me (either here or by mail). If enabling a standard means one has to change a cvar then I might add it as "kinda, r_fullbrights 1" in yellow or something. But be explicit and exact please.

frag.machine: Is there a cvar to disable the "improved aiming/hitbox" in q2k4? That was the sole reason why I did not include it.

Post by **Tomaz** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:20 pm

Im quite sure TQ has animation interpolation on by default, i could be wrong tho.

[edit1]
What I wonder is, did you "restore" a "clean" config.cfg between each engine run? Because if engine A had animation_interpolation defaulted to 0, then it might save that to your config file, so when engine B was started it might have animation_interpolation default to 1, but since it says 0 in the config its off in engine B aswell.

[edit2]
What a minute! WTF! How can your list say TQ has no animation interpolation? TQ doesnt even have an option to TURN IT OFF! The entire non-interpolated path is removed.

Urre · Post by **Urre** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:25 pm

Interesting point.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:30 pm

Tomaz wrote:What I wonder is, did you "restore" a "clean" config.cfg between each engine run?

I simply deleted it.

Tomaz wrote:What a minute! WTF! How can your list say TQ has no animation interpolation? TQ doesnt even have an option to TURN IT OFF! The entire non-interpolated path is removed.

Hm, I was using a "slow-motion" host_framerate (0.005) to have an easy way to see if there was interpolation. Seems like that was a bad idea and also my eyes fooled me (as at least Telejano would get a "no" that way). I was using aguirRe's glquake and Darkplaces as reference.

Why are you guys so unfriendly and offensive? :?

Post by **scar3crow** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:55 pm

Thats just Tomaz =) and leileilol as well, its kind of their style.

However I will say that changing particle style in DP is easy (yay for tab completion), as I use Quake style particles, and you can make it even more faithful from there using GLQuake's particle font. I recall on irc yesterday, leileilol did just that, and then loaded Marcher and was getting 35 fps, with classic particles.

Spirit · Post by **Spirit** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:22 pm

Yes, I used that ("Fancy particles: yes, optional").
I was using the latest stable build, as written in the most top listing. Newer builds run better. However marcher is still very slow, it gets about 30fps for me too but "jitters" when moving the mouse feeling like 15fps.

Post by **Tomaz** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:35 pm

Spirit wrote: Why are you guys so unfriendly and offensive? :?

Sorry, didnt mean to be unfriendly, Im just born that way.

I tested TQ with 0.005 and yes, something is broken regarding interpolation in slowmo, try it with slowmo 0.1 and you can clearly see that it interpolates. Maybe ill look into the issue of that inporlation some day, i think its more a bug in the slowmo code than in the interpolation.

frag.machine · Post by **frag.machine** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:08 am

Spirit wrote:frag.machine: Is there a cvar to disable the "improved aiming/hitbox" in q2k4? That was the sole reason why I did not include it.

sv_perpoly_collision (0 disables)

EDIT: Wow, it took me a bit to remember a cvar name that I choose by myself...

Post by **FrikaC** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:17 am

"All your engines are slow, broken or missing features!"

Yeah who could get mad at that?