Winquake Help

[Frenzy]

For some reason, on this system at my cousins, when I load up WinQuake, it only shows me the top half of the screen. The entire bottom half is black, seriously, like somebody's just holding a sheet of paper over 1/2 or 3/4 the screen.

GLQuake runs fine, but I hate it. I'm a much weaker player without my WQ. Anybody know why the fuck this is happening?

[Baker]

Anybody know why the fuck this is happening?

You might try adding -dibonly to the command line and it might work right. (or might not).

[Frenzy]

Yes! Worked! You are the shit Thanks

[Fuzznut]

You might try adding -dibonly to the command line and it might work right. (or might not).

Whats dibonly? I can't remember what that is.

[JohnRocker]

finger u timbar. miffnawf fiddle tuna.

[PapaSmurf]

Whats dibonly? I can't remember what that is.

According to this site, dibonly enables windowed video modes only.

Edit: I'm not sure if that site is correct, I just tried it out, and I can still do fullscreen modes. I'm thinking now that -dibonly does the same thing as using both -nodirectdraw and -nowindirect. I've always used -nodirectdraw and -nowindirect (mainly because it's faster). Baker, do you know if it is indeed the same as using -dibonly? Looking at the vid_describemodes, the two methods result in the same type of video modes, ie, fullscreen DIB. Using none of those command line parameters result in video modes of the type fullscreen DDRAW8.DRV. Doing timedemo tests, one can see that the DIB video modes are faster than the DDRAW8 video modes.

[Baker]

Yes! Worked! You are the shit Thanks

That was a major wild ass guess, honestly.

Glad it worked.

I'm thinking now that -dibonly does the same thing as using both -nodirectdraw and -nowindirect. I've always used -nodirectdraw and -nowindirect (mainly because it's faster). Baker, do you know if it is indeed the same as using -dibonly?

I can look into it the next I'm looking at that. Really, I'm not an expert or even knowledgeable about the command line you mention above, mostly because I don't use them.

[PapaSmurf]

I originally got my command line parameters from WQ.bat (it comes with the original winquake zip file).

Here is what is contained within WQ.bat:

@echo off
if x%1==xfast goto fast
if x%1==xsafe goto safe
if x%1==xverysafe goto verysafe
if x%1==xfastvid goto fastvid
if x%1==xfastsnd goto fastsnd
if x%1==xmax goto max

echo -------------------------------------------------------------------
echo Options for running WinQuake:
echo wq max: all features on, but doesn't work on all systems
echo wq fast: maximum speed, but doesn't work on all systems
echo wq fastvid: maximum video speed, but safer, probably slower sound
echo wq fastsnd: maximum sound speed, but safer, probably slower video
echo wq safe: very likely to run, but may be slower
echo wq verysafe: almost sure to run, but probably slower, and no sound
echo -------------------------------------------------------------------
goto done

:max
winquake -dinput %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
goto done

:fast
winquake %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
goto done

:fastvid
winquake -wavonly %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
goto done

:fastsnd
winquake -nodirectdraw -nowindirect %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
goto done

:safe
winquake -nodirectdraw -nowindirect -wavonly %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
goto done

:verysafe
winquake -dibonly -nosound -nojoy %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
:done


I simply used the "safe" mode, as it seemed to yield the best framerate in timedemo demo1. I didn't even notice the dibonly parameter.

I just did some timedemo tests and it seems there's no difference, performance (framerate) wise between -nodirectdraw and -dibonly. I'm not sure if -nowindirect has any effect; I think it might have had some effect when I was using my old pentium 200mhz. Also note, that -dinput and -wavonly give you framerate boosts in timedemos.

[PapaSmurf]

Baker, I'm also noticing that wqpro395 and wqpro397 are slower than wqpro (3.50) and winquake. In wqpro and winquake i can get 490 fps in timedemo demo1, but with wqpro395 and wqpro397 I'm only getting 300 fps.

[Baker]

Baker, I'm also noticing that wqpro395 and wqpro397 are slower than wqpro (3.50) and winquake. In wqpro and winquake i can get 490 fps in timedemo demo1, but with wqpro395 and wqpro397 I'm only getting 300 fps.

Using -dibonly, I get 20% less frames per second with wqpro397 than wqpro (3.50).

There isn't a good reason for this (wqpro almost has no new features). See the ProQuake 3.95 thread; I need to benchmark each incremental release since 3.80 and check the results to ensure maximum speed.

[Fuzznut]

Using -dibonly, I get 20% less frames per second with wqpro397 than wqpro (3.50).

There isn't a good reason for this (wqpro almost has no new features). See the ProQuake 3.95 thread; I need to benchmark each incremental release since 3.80 and check the results to ensure maximum speed.

If I remember right, -dibonly puts WinQuake into a barebones safe mode that doesn't use any Vesa VBE stuff. I use to have to run WinQuake in -dibonly mode because the crappy ATI drivers couldn't handle anything more high performance. Then I found out about the SciTech display Dr. which was recommended by id software if your gfx card couldn't handle any advanced WinQuake stuff. So after installing the SciTech in my old system I was able to run WinQuake balls out.