Resolution used for Quake

[Panix]

During our nightly CTF games, R00k has been trying to get me to up my resolution (and switch to qrack). I'm using ProQuake 3.99 Winquake @ 320x200 and I've always used this. I've wanted to see what all resolutions people prefer and hear the pros and cons of high res vs low res.

Also, I wanted to see if I'm the only dumbass who uses the default Quake res

[Mr.Burns]

Unfortunately I have only a modest hardware set up so I tend have to stick around 640x480 or 800x600 at fov 110-130 for DM play. It's usually considerably higher for producing demos.

Kind regards

Monty

[Paradise]

For higher rezs you must obviously have good hardware muscle - such as newer comp.

Benefits are numerous, perhaps greatest one is that you can see far away clear.

I do not know how you can play like that, since things are very fuzzy and I can barely see down long hallways at 320x200.

*I* believe that that rez should not be used with today's machines simply because they are generally more powerful - that is unless you got older machine and you want to use that low rez for speed rendering reasons.

FYI, I use max allowed by my screen [1280x1024], thing is tho for MP play I reduce my screen to 80 [viewsize] because things get lil dizzy at full screen and full of action.

Hope that helped.
-T.

[Phenom]

I run Qrack at 640x480 without any fancycrap.

My current PC isn't a gamer's pc (GX260 Dell SlimForm) but Qrack runs ok on it, i get around 50 to 100 FPS.

I'd say stick with what feels right for you.

[JohnXmas]

1920x1200 60khz / fov 120 on P3.x SLI7900GTX & MacPro 2x3.2 Quad Xeon 8800GT.
aguirRe's GLQuake, Fitzquake & DP.
Primevil & Moondrunk skins.
Starbuck's textures.
Mindgrid audio
Some skyboxes.
Own custom foggy & iconic tweaks
SP maps only.

[Zop]

1280x960, since my screen is 4:3 ratio

[Panix]

Thanks for the replies so far.

I'm using a P4 3.20 GHz with 2 GB of RAM. ATI Radeon X800GT video card.

I can run higher and I can use glproquake or qrack but I guess I'm just use to 320x200. I always use pov 120. What are the benefits of using a lower pov? Seems like it'd be harder to see what's going on, especially in DM or CTF or even CA when you're trying to figure out where someone is when fighting.

Screen res is 1280x1024 btw.

I've told r00k too that one of my issues with using glquake or qrack is that it doesn't appear the same. I got the config for most of my settings from Nothingman-xUx many years ago for setting things up. I think some of the stuff he included in the config for glquake don't work so that's why things are different for me. Like I like gl_polyblend set where things go red when I'm hit but it made things hard to see in the water in qrack.

I can post or send via a messenger service my config if anyone is interested in seeing how my stuff is setup or want to try and get me converted to a quake client using gl heh.

Does resolution affect shafting accuracy?

[MH]

Fullscreen I always run at whatever the native resolution of my monitor is (depending on which of my machines I'm on at the time); same as the desktop resolution. I tend to use Windowed modes more than fullscreen modes though, as I develop more than I play, and then I just pick a good large 4:3 mode which fills the screen sufficiently to be able to see everything clearly enough.

I don't know how anyone can run at 320 x 200; even 640 x 480 is very fuzzy and indistinct to these eyes.

[Disco]

1920x1200 Qrack. @ more FPS than 5 of you combined.

[R00k]

I think the bottom line here is, use the highest resolution for clarity, but one that can run > your default refreshrate. If you can run Quake at 640x480 at 100fps then go for it. I started playing Quake on a "Rendition Verite" chip based p.o.s. back in the day and had to use 512x384 in glQuake to get any performance, then later switched to 640x480. Even though, I could get higher resolutions, I stayed at 640x480 for about 5 years! But now for my TFT monitor i use the 'native mode' and for my crt I just use 1024x768. My point is that as u prefer an exaggerated FOV to see more, upping your screen resolution will benifit x10 once u get used to it.

[meatwad]

1680x1050, Widescreen. Fov 115

[Samus_Aran]

Wow, I can't believe anybody plays Quake at 320x200 in 2009. In the late-90s when I started playing Quake I immediately upped the resolution to the maximum the DOS version natively allowed, which I think was something like 360x240 or 400x300, which was a huge improvement. Years later I started using WinQuake at 800x600.

Higher resolution is uncomparably better. You can see every detail at long range, and close up you can use high res texture packs for amazing clarity. Today I use 1920x1080 @ 60Hz with a 16:9 large-screen flat-panel TV at a FOV of 120, on the Dark Places engine with Rygel's 900MB texture pack and transparent water. Amazing quality! I can't imagine not using Rygel's pack, or using anything less than 1280x960 for Q1. *cringe*.

My low end computer in 2000 was able to do WinQuake at 800x600. With any 3D card you can use a OpenGL client to do 1280x960+ with no slowdowns anywhere. Why are you using 320x200? Even the original DOS Quake let you use higher han that. 320x200 was intended for 486s. :-/

[MaraST78]

People prefer different things, there is no objective truth I guess.

For me, it always has to be native res of my (crappy TN) display, which is 1680x1050. But I also like Quake looking as original as possible, so I prefer gl_linear, which as I understand it, doesn't use mipmaps, only bilinear filter on textures. Result is, that it looks incredibly sharp in distance, but with some 'moire' on surfaces in such a distance. So I reduce this effect nicely with 8x aniso, looks great, for me, definitely better than gl_linear_mipmap_linear with same aniso settings. I can also use gl_nearest, but that looks more or less the same, just with non-filtered textures, which I don't like much.

There's also another thing I like. Software rendered quake is never perfectly smooth, there is always something like partial frame skip feeling, smooth, but not perfectly. And it suits Quake very well. If I run it with 120 fps, it's so smooth, that it almost doesn't look natural, so I keep it at 100. My display's refresh in native res is 60hz and that 40hz difference produces very similar effect in terms of smoothness as software Quake, perfect.

[Efess]

1680x1050 on core2 duo, nVidia GTX 260. I get ~1823 fps.

I used to run glquake on a voodoo2 way back when with really good fps, I don't see why you would need a beefy machine to play Quake1 using OpenGL.. Just turn off the nifty effects that have been added since.

[Dreadlorde]

I get ~1823 fps.