/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.3671104]

If I want to emulate the quake experience, what was the max resolution in 1996? Also what is quakes native res? Quakespasm defaults to 800x600.

Also is there a site where I can look up the recommended display resolution for 90s retro games, like for example rayman 2, doom, tomb raider, etc?

I found this: http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Rayman_2:_The_Great_Escape it says 3Dfx Voodoo2 recommended, so according to wikipedia
> Resolution up to 800 × 600 and higher resolution through SLI, (Scan Line Interleave) up to 1024 × 768
Quake: VESA 2.0/3.0-compliant video card
> up to 1280×1024 ?
Tomb Raider
>640x480

[Anonymous No.3671123]

standard resolution people played quake in was 320x200 by 1996

[Anonymous No.3671125]

>>3671123
Learn to read. I didn't ask for average resolution, but recommended resolution.
>ITT: How the developers intended

[Anonymous No.3671135]

>>3671125

Not him but didn't u answer your own questions in the op?

[Anonymous No.3671140]

>>3671135
yes, but is it correct? isn't 1280x1024 beyond the limits of DOS, even if the card is capable of those resolution? I don't really know.

[Anonymous No.3671159]

320 x 200 (stretched to 4:3), 256 colors

Software renderer.

Cap it to ~25 fps if you really want to feel "authentic" - that's the experience your average Joe would have gotten with a ~$1000, two year old PC when Quake launched.

"Max" resolution would be ~640x480 @ 20 fps if you want the 1996 rich kid experience. By 1998 or 1999 the rich kid probably finally got to 640x480 @ 60.

Nearly all games pre-quake would have run natively at 320x200. From Half-Life onwards (1998) dedicated graphics cards got more common, you're looking at a default of 640x480, 256 colors. Most games would just run at that as the standard, with later games giving options to run at "hi-res" 640x480@16/32bpp, 800x600@16/32bpp, 1024x768@16/32bpp.

They've had full-HD and HDish monitors for a long time, see the famous "carmack" SGI monitor from 1995. Affordable graphics hardware at the time could really only handle 480p and up for drawing simple 2d shit like the window manager.

I owned an 800x600 monitor back in like 1995, but I don't think I actually played a 640x480 game until another generation or two of hardware around ~2000 when I started getting into Starcraft (1998) and Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II (1997).

Remember that people generally didn't buy a $3000 PC for gaming in those days, so the real-world upgrade curve is going to be a couple years behind what you might think from just looking at Intel paper launches.

[Anonymous No.3671164]

iirc id release GLQuake ~6 months after the game initially went on sale. that enabled higher framerates, resolutions and better texture filtering. pretty sure the game supported 1024 x 768 back then if you could run it. Think I was more at 800 x 600.

[Anonymous No.3671171]

>>3671164
Actually scratch that I definitely played WinQuake. And I imagine 90% of players did. That had high res support too.

[Anonymous No.3671182]

>>3671159
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.3671184]

>>3671125
640x480 800x600 1024x768 was pretty much standard for that time.

[Anonymous No.3671361]

[Anonymous No.3672391]

>>3671104
>what was the max resolution in 1996?
Off the top of my head I do not remember. But you'd play in the default 320x200 if you wanted anything more than a slideshow and that is that. Along came GLQuake and 640x480 became the new thing, but out of the box in DOS Quake, minimum resolution was all you'd realisitcally use unless you were the richest of poofs, or just liked slideshows.

If you planned to play multiplayer over TCP/IP (which meant running under Windows 95, hope you have 16 megs of ram, cunt), you'd likely want to use use r_drawflat 1 for good frames too. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.3672446]

>>3671123
Nope!!
>>3671104
Ahhh, I happen to remember this quite well!

With 640x400 being much too CPU intensive, Q1 could be squeezed a bit beyond regular VGA, and for this it supported a bunch of modeX resolutions.

So it should have been able to step up to 360x280 relatively commonly. That seems like the most normal kinda resolution for it. I'd say that looked quite alright back then. But it gave you the option to bump up further to 360x350, not sure if that's a typo, as it's 360x360 that was a standard modeX resolution, so that was an option, and somewhat distorted and unbalanced, but not all that much, not as skewed as other games using a resolution like 320x400.

[Anonymous No.3672461]

>>3671159
>"Max" resolution would be ~640x480 @ 20 fps if you want the 1996 rich kid experience

More like 10 fps with a Pentium 200 see >>3671361

[Anonymous No.3673959]

>>3671361
>not at least benching 320x400 as well
>not including a nexgen 586 or rise mp6 in the running

[Anonymous No.3674362]

>>3671104
That sounds like it should amount to a non question. To faithfully emulate the original quake experience, you'd need a CRT, and it would likely be your limiting factor, at least if it's a TV, especially if you were using raspberry pi with it.

[Anonymous No.3674364]

>>3671140
> isn't 1280x1024 beyond the limits of DOS
You're overestimating DOS's capability of being an operating system. It had very little to none involvement in setting up and working with graphical modes.

[Anonymous No.3674853]

>>3674362
but crts also do 1280x1024. i don't want ur fag 31khz scan line mario crt

[Anonymous No.3674859]

>>3674853

The entire criteria set out from OPs post onwards suggests you are in no position to throw the term "fag" around in any capacity.

This guy:

>>3671184

Says all that needs to be said. Try it at each of those resolutions and see what works for you. Fag.

[Anonymous No.3674931]

>>3671140
I believe it's correct, 1280 x 1024 is the max res. on my retro rig.

[Anonymous No.3674938]

>>3671164
Don't forget VQuake for the Rendition Verite cards.

[Anonymous No.3675006]

>>3671104
Quake was originally developed for rigid res of 320x200, but as engine developed, it was switched to non-rigid resolution, which can be literally any. You can still see this in some textures and objects on the levels being squished (like red circle in the center of on e1m3) for non-square pixels, to be later "unsquished" on CRTs, while other stuff is perfectly square/circular.

You could go to 1600x1200 at least, with the use of the command line parameters. However that would result in something like 5-7 FPS due to software renderer spending exponentially increasing time to render the frame (I actually tried it back then).

320x200 (or 240) was common, people with better pentiums could comfortable play it on 640x480 and 800x600 however.

Most games back then were looking best at 640x480, and in rare cases at 800x600.

[Anonymous No.3675010]

>>3671361
This shit chart is incorrect and does not prove anything

I played quake on P 133 at 640x480, with sound at ~40 fps.

[Anonymous No.3675016]

>>3675010
not with software renderer. Probably glquake

[Anonymous No.3675039]

>>3671104
> being this autistic
Just play your resolution retard, it won't change anything except make the game look better.

Better question would be: how do you make vertical and horizontal mouse speed EQUAL? There's only one speed in the menu, but they are different by default.

[Anonymous No.3675051]

>>3675016
With software.

1)GLQuake was not released back then
2)I had no accelerator until late '98, when Unreal prompted me to get Riva TNT.

[Anonymous No.3675059]

>>3675010
>This shit chart is incorrect and does not prove anything

Right. It's actual evidence by a person who benchmarked Quake.

http://thandor.net/benchmark/33

Who are we to believe? A person that actually compiled quantitative data or some anonymous idiot with 20 year old anecdotes?

You might have used VQuake since it came out before GLQuake but definitely not the software renderer.

[Anonymous No.3675072]

>>3675010
I definitely played Quake at 60fps in 320x200 on a P133 back in school.

The celeron 400 machines in the other lab could play it in 640x480 perfectly smooth. I think it also worked in 800x600 or 1024x768, but I didn't like how small the GUI became in that resolution.

[Anonymous No.3675078]

>>3675072
>I definitely played Quake at 60fps in 320x200 on a P133 back in school.

if you didn't have a 3D card this is just faulty memories - red rosed glasses

[Anonymous No.3675121]

>>3675072
>60fps in 320x200 on a P133
Your memory is wrong. It was not as smooth as you think it was. Source: I had a Pentium 133. 35fps on a good day with no monsters on screen, maybe staring at a wall.

>>3675010
> P 133 at 640x480 at ~40 fps.
Utter bollocks.

[Anonymous No.3675152]

I had a OC 486 at 160 MHz that ran quake at ~20 fps. 40 fps for a p133 should be possible

[Anonymous No.3675172]

>>3671104
Play in 320x200 DOS software mode on a Pentium 75, WITH the CD in your drive so you can experience the awesome Nine Inch Nails soundtrack. This is the only way.

No joke, most Quake ports don't even do the physics or graphical effects of the original software Quake properly. They just base it all on fucking QuakeWorld or GLQuake because those are what became popular in 1997. QW is a multiplayer-tailored engine with altered physics, while GL has different graphical effects since they couldn't figure out how to translate all the software effects to the 3D cards of the time.

I guess you *could* use WinQuake, but good luck figuring out how to use the music with that. If someone knows how to get the original graphical effects and music without running in fucking DosBox, I'd love to know.

[Anonymous No.3675218]

>>3675121
yes, the readme that comes with the game says 20fps is typical and expected/playable. carmack wrote that readme.

[Anonymous No.3675425]

>>3675039
Interesting contribution. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.3675427]

>>3675172
i have quakespasm on linux with the pak files from the offical cd (i have the cd). is the soundtrack included?

[Anonymous No.3675442]

>>3675172
Bitchhh I'm this guy >>3675427
I just looked it up and it looks good
> QuakeSpasm is a modern, cross-platform Quake 1 engine based on FitzQuake.
> It includes support for 64 bit CPUs and custom music playback, a new sound driver, some graphical niceities, and numerous bug-fixes and other improvements.

> Fitzquake is a modified glquake based on the source code released by id Software. My primary focus is fixing a lot of the rendering bugs which made glquake inferior to the software renderer.

[Anonymous No.3675518]

>>3671140
Blood supports 1280x1024 natively

[Anonymous No.3675532]

What was max res of quake when it came out? Or what was the max resolution in 1996? Cause i had a 1600x1200 monitor in 96, but i sure wasnt playing quake at that when it came out.

The package i got quale from says vga and svga supported, so there are two resolution there. I dont remember if the options went any higher (i doubt it, at least until the 3d patches came out), but it would be pretty damn easy to find out. Just get yourself a release copy and install it.

[Anonymous No.3675606]

>>3671182
No need to live a nostalgia you never experienced.

[Anonymous No.3675624]

>>3675606
you sound bitter, like a singleton that doesn't want to share and/or possibly a hipster

[Anonymous No.3676472]

>>3675072
If it could even run at a blistering 60fps, *why* did you not bump the resolution up past the grainy ancient low res at all?

>>3675010
Nope! I had a P166mmx, and I played it at the aforementioned 360x280 modeX setting. Your opinionated recollections are awfully unmeaningful when it has already been pointed out that Q1 needed those tight-rope-ish compromise resolutions to put its best face forward.

[Anonymous No.3676781]

>>3675532
This is Quake 1.06, the original commercial version was 1.01, I think. I expect the resolution options are the same.

None of these resolutions mattered. They were there to future proof the game, you could never comfortably play on anything but 320x200 with 1996 hardware.