Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'PC Gaming & Hardware' started by eclypse, May 27, 2019.
That is what the blaster is for. Acts like a flare gun.
So true. Was easy to spot one trick ponies that relied on the rail and it's instant hit line of sight nature. Predictable movements. I was also pretty good with the super shotgun. Hide in wait listening for audible queues, then pop out and blast 'em at close range. The was a couple spots in map "The Edge" where I could drop a grenade in a shallow bit of water (now unseen) while being chased. Opponent would step on it - boom. Both of those techniques made some so pissed they'd cry cheat because they were so used to playing against other rail whores - lol - all part of the game.
Yeah. That is some serious delay. Not sure if you're joking here or really believe that is typical.
Back on track ... shame this RTX mod is not an option with my RX 480. Makes me want to start up a classic Q2 comp weapons server again.
they added a flare launcher
I see. But it needs ammo to fire. Looks like it uses precious grenades for ammo. The Blaster has unlimited ammo.
It ran at a glorious 12fps on my gtx 1080, haha
Was running 20-30 FPS for me at 4K and 100% scaling. Taking the scaling down to 80% makes it mostly playable. 70% give a consistent framerate, but image quality takes a noticeable hit.
Oh, and if you're an inverted gamer like me you want to enter the command m_pitch -0.022 in the console since there is no option to do it in the menus. You could set it as a launch option or put it in your autoexec.cfg so you don't need to set it every time.
Looks like I a word.
Everything maxed out (100% scaling, global illumination @ high, etc.)
4k: 30-40 fps
1440p: 80-90 fps
1080p: 130+ fps
It's about the same playing the game, and not just the time demo, but it's been so long since I've played Quake 2, I didn't remember how to actually record demos.
4k is playable, but I prefer 60+ fps, which requires lowering the global illumination a bit, as well as the scaling. 1440p and 1080p though are fine.
You guys might mention which GPU when throwing out FPS numbers.
I didn't mention it because it's in my signature. And judging by the resolution of the video Nytegard posted so did he .
Unfortunately sigs don't display when reading the forum on mobile browser. :/
How dare you. Don't you know everything?
I posted my specs in the video itself.
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950x
64 GB RAM
Samsung 970 Pro
Intel will obviously run a bit faster on this. And it does use multi-GPU, but that only gives like a 20% performance boost.
Quake though is definitely a game which I feel proves most people are completely off when they talk about frame rate. A consistent 60+ fps feels perfectly smooth, and even 30 doesn't seem that choppy.
Sadly, the game seems to be missing the music.
2080 Ti FE
Installed on a WD Black 7200RPM HDD
Yeah no music on this version? I've read the GOG version has the original music. Or you can Google for it and download original music - but no way to enable it in to this steam version?
Thanks for sharing that. Interesting to see the differences from playing Q2 on my Win98/Voodoo4 rig last night.
Excessive Quake. The best spammer mod.
Wasn't that a Q3 mod? I had switched over to UT by that point.
I have slept since then.... But I think you may be right. Yep...
There's a hack for music. Or you can use the original Quake 2 CD (as the music is off the CD). I tried both, but Quake RTX is still silent.
The Steam version of Quake II never had the music. Archive.org has an image of the Quake II CD that should work if you mount it. If you have the original game you can also just stick the CD in your CD drive. Your CD drive needs to be assigned to D: or E: for it to work, if I'm not mistaken.
Perhaps why it doesn't work for me? My CD drive is Drive I.
RTX in current implementation status is nothing exciting.
I'm late to the party, but just fired up the RTX demo and Quake 2 for the first time tonight. My system is a EVGA 2080, with a EVGA precision autotune O/C on a Intel I7 6850K at 4.3Ghz O/C
1000 FPS (capped) with RTX Off at 3440x1440
33FPS with RTX ON at 3440x1440
What a joke.
But at least, unlike Metro 2033, you can tell when RTX is on...
Color me...not impressed with any single thing I've seen yet using RTX.
If realtime Ray Tracing can't run a 1997 game at more than 60FPS in 2019 - why even bother releasing it in it's current capability...seriously. They should have held Ray Tracing release hardware until it could actually be impressive.
I couldn't help hoping for something amazing with an older game -- like what S3TC brought to the picture on Unreal in 1999 with the Diamond Viper 2000 card.
S3TC Off (Unreal's retail texture look)
S3TC On (introducing texture compression - yes - this was a big step up from 3dfx glide at the time)
at the same time.... they got your money for a 2080.
You do realize the tech behind Quake II RTX is not from 1997 right?
It still needs some help obviously but man does it look a LOT better.
Were heading in the right direction. I'm glad they made these available now, it's fun to see it all happen.
And it's not even how it 'looks', it's that it works at all. It's a tech demo for a reason; putting ray tracing effectively into games is going to be a rough, piecemeal process due to the need to support fully rasterized rendering paths simultaneously.
If you watched the video in the Metro thread, the developer speaking talks to using the RTX path to better inform their raster path with baked-in lighting. They're actually working to make them look as similar as possible as their goal is to sell the game, not sell RTX cards.
Gosh, how can people be so short sighted?
Who will create content for you if there is no hardware that can run it at all? Quake2RTX with shader-only based ray-tracing doesn't run even remotely close to playable framerates. No developer would bother implementing ray tracing if there was no hardware acceleration and having developers work on this tech is the key of making it come to games. RTX emulation for Pascal/cheap-Turing is for developers mainly but even then it is interresting because there are cards which can run this rendering method fairly well.
Hardware will get better and even now it is pretty awesome achievement for what it is. RT cores take about 15% of core space. Up this to 30% and do some hardware optimizations and you have 60fps on your fairly high resolution monitor.
Do you think it would be okay to take more die space this time around?
They probably could make much better RT hardware but at expense of rasterization or by making even bigger chips driving costs like crazy but that would be pretty stupid move, especially at 12nm. And people would still complain it RTX ON worse than without it and complain even more for die space taken.
It’s half baked.
Tesla didn’t mass produce and release an electric car with a 10 mile range first and promise the technology will get better, because that would be worthless implementation to anyone.
That would have been shortsighted.
Instead they waited on the first Tesla production release until the technology was capable of expected performance and range.
A 22 year old game at 30FPS is not that point.
I played it a little bit with RTX On at 30FPS and RTX Off at 1000 FPS.
I’ll give you one guess which way I preferred to play Quake 2...
I have a 24 person LAN coming up at my house in two weeks. Let’s expand that question to 24 gamers for LAN play. I’d wager big that all of them would pick the 1000FPS game experience over the way RTX is currently implemented in this 22 year old game.
That is a RTX fail...
I’m not saying the tech doesn’t have future merit.
I’m just saying the current examples of implementation I’ve seen so far are poor.
I don’t buy the whole we had do start somewhere routine either. That’s true of EVERY single product, but the hardware isn’t strong enough to support the tech yet — so they should have held off RTX hardware release until it was. Maybe it’d take another generation of two of internal revision. That would have been fine, we’d be no worse off as consumers - since the current implementation/capability is not game changing in any headline worthy way.
I watched the Nvidia press release for RTX and Turing where it was promoted that RTX was like the second coming...
That’s simply not true...yet.
If you are comparing this to cars then compare it to hybrid cars with normal combustion engine for long range drive and electric engine for daily commute.
Tesla-like RTX card would be packed full with RTX cores and run rasterized games poorly and with that it would be simply poor product for general usage when >99% software uses rasterization and making RT software takes time.
RTX enables developers to work on game engines and already have good enough performance to be used in games.
Your 30fps is 78fps at 1080p which is pretty good for fully path traced game, doesn't matter if it was originally released two decades ago.
so they should have held off RTX hardware release until it was. Maybe it’d take another generation of two of internal revision. That would have been fine, we’d be no worse off as consumers - since the current implementation/capability is not game changing in any headline worthy way.[/quote]
What consumers? Those who are already complaining about lack of RT enabled games? We need hardware with features to be available and in people PC's for game developers to take this tech seriously not to mention to be able to actually program game engines to support it.Besides this tech is being actively adopted by 3d rendering industry and when it is it provides incredible speed improvements, better than any increase of CUDA core count in its place would give: https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/inter...com/219/files/20192/RTX Supporting Quotes.pdf
Oh, and monitor resolution is steadily increasing. Today people complain about 4K and tomorrow they would complain as much if not more about 8K...
What do you loose with RT cores being added in this generation?
As I see it this tech works and is fullfilling its intended purpose. In another generation or two we will have pretty decent software support and because of that Nvidia (but also AMD and Intel) will have actual incentive to put more hardware to make it run well. RT cores if this tech was ready at the time could be added in any of previous generation cards eg. GTX780 and if it did we would have much better software support today.
Seeing subpar performance in your silly games on your silly PC and basing your whole ranting on it is exactly what I call technological short-sightedness...[/COLOR][/FONT][/LEFT]
4K and ultrawides and IPS and GSYNC are all fails as well then because everyone who cares about 1000fps is going to be running on a 1080p, 16:9, 1ms TN, 240hz with adaptive sync off.
The thing is, that's obviously not how things play out. Sure, there are people who do that. But then there are people who are happy with 60 fps at 4k with a 4ms IPS, and there are people that will happily play at 144hz on a 1440p with IPS delay screen, and there are people that will go along at 100hz on an ultrawide... because they prefer it.
I'm happy if I get 50 - 60 fps on my 40" 4k.
I don't have a 2080 yet, but this quake to RTX demo does sound interesting so I know the graphics are completely dated but do the lighting effects make it seem like a Disney Pixar movie and that regard was true real life lighting type style?
The only thing that is joke here is your hate for RTX and your constant whining about it...even ignoring what developers say about their games...lala-land indeed.
You confuse hate, with frank, candid honesty.
I don't hate it. But I'm calling out it's dismal implementation and performance in current iteration. If that helps somebody else on the forum make an educated/balanced decision on whether to upgrade from a pascal card or hold off -- then I'm good with that.
Direct3D 12 DXR API might soon get another feature level (Looking at the Win 10 SDK preview):
Possibilities for improvements over DXR 1_0 :
- Traversal shaders
- Hierarchial tiled Z-buffers
- Z-buffer compression
- Resource-view-ordered rasterization
- Faster search via more efficient BVH
- Shader indexing with wider resource tables
- Additional entry points to run color / geometry shaders
- ExecuteIndirect() improvements
The ball is rolling, if you don't like Raytracing...your gaming future looks bleak.
And you still need your eyesight checked btw...inbetween ignoring what the developers state...busy schedule.
I actually just wanted to play a better looking version of quake 2lol, only runs on RTX cards though, meh =(
It's not 100% going to look like real life lighting. But it's miles better than anything that's come before. If you watched the Digital Foundry video on it, it stated that previously, the Quake modes would add fake lights to give the impression of light bouncing off objects onto other objects. These would have to be hand placed previously.
I hooked up a 1080P monitor and having a riot. 2070RTX.
You can play it on Pascal cards, you're just not going to have a great experience. Pascal owners have to turn off global illumination to get decent framerates, while global illumination is one of the most important features to have with ray tracing.
The dynamic time-of-day option is pretty awesome. I'm glad they included it.
When I launched the game it said no RTX card detected and didn't load up.
A few more...
Funny, I've been saying the exact opposite for 20+ years. Quake is exactly the game where you need those frames. I simply do not tolerate playing Quake below 120 fps.
Quake 2 RTX looks very cool and I want to play it in the sense that I want to fool around looking at the pretty lights. Would't call that gaming. That's just being a graphics whore and is not meant as an insult.