Why would i play quake III at 30fps?

I thought they could get 60fps with the Q2 version. Presumably, the tech would improve.

Ye they can get that with a flagship gpu in q2. How soon will they get 250fps in q3 on a reasonably priced gpu?

Well, supposedly the polygon count is not a major factor with the technique used in q2vkpt. It has more to do with the number of light sources, which I don't think is much higher in Q3. A solid 125fps would be enough to begin with since that was fine in QL for most of its life.

what about on space maps?

In X years you will play at 125 fps with affordable cards

My initial thought was not playing but making frag movies with the ray tracing.

i think you may be getting overhyped for nothing.

Look at the views. Those RTX revivals get more views than fucking QC let alone QL.

Views are not players. There’s literally nothing to gain and hold players here. Graphics aren’t going to save quake community when most are on potatoes.

One quick look at q2s server list and I see exactly the same dead game.

Again

you need to let go. q3 is over and it's never coming back.

Q3 still grows, and it has more servers than players in QC. Couple bearded faggots from Besthesda mean nothing.

r_vertexlight 1;r_picmip 6
vid_restart

----- CL_Shutdown -----
RE_Shutdown( 1 )
Shutting down OpenGL subsystem
...wglMakeCurrent( NULL, NULL ): success
...deleting GL context: success
...releasing DC: success
...destroying window
...shutting down QGL
...unloading OpenGL DLL
-----------------------
GL_CheckErrors: GL_USER_DOES_NOT_RESPECT_THE_TIM

These ray tracing demos of old games are kinda funny, they still look poor compared to what they would look like if you used a modern engine for the conversion because the animation, poly count, textures yadda yadda does absolutely nothing when all you're really doing is throwing more rays at it.

GPU and CPU vendors love them because they require huge amounts processing power.

yeah its cool from a tech pov and I get all that stuff, but I would rather play an UE4 conversion of half life 2 right now than a ray traced version of it injected into the old engine.

Spot on. Those old games still look like crap (by modern standards, i love the old graphics style) even with all the light effects in the world.

And yes, marketers are pushing this useless shit because it melts gpus and requires people to upgrade. Again, for nothing because similar results are obtainable with effects that requires a tenth of the computational power.

But hey, those fancy 1.000.000 RGB colors gpu cards ain't gonna sell themselves, are they? Especially since the crypto bubble deflated, we need something new to keep prices and demand high!

The old games might still look crap, but they are improved a lot by it in terms of realism, and that's without having to put in heaps of work into the art---basically done by one guy. Of course, 320x200 and 256 colours has its own special aesthetic, too, with its own appeal.

New games will eventually use path tracing as well, as it gets incorporated into the engines. An old open-source game just provides a good test bed for research projects.

Proper ray traced lighting will always look more realistic and make the engine simpler than having to use a thousand different hacks to mimic the same effect. Devs are then free to focus on something else.

If this does become mainstream, then prices will come down anyway, and as always, there will be a mid level card that is affordable and good enough for running the majority of games.

If this doesn't become mainstream, then you won't have to worry about buying any fancy graphics card---except of course to run the new games that, despite using conventional rendering techniques, still demand more horsepower.

Except that the whole point is that it doesn't make it look realistic at all.

It's like putting realistic reflections in a cubist painting. It only makes it weirder looking.

Show the video above to any sub 20 years old gamer. He won't be impressed by anything in the video, the light effects will barely be noticed if at all.

To me, it looks more realistic than it originally did. Still not very realistic, but it is an improvement. It just needs some art direction. Some people say it is too bright now, which is a fair point.

But anyway, the technique can be used with modern games as well, in which case the limitations of using a 20+ year old game will not apply. The lack of realism is coming from using an old game as a base, not from the ray tracing technique itself, which I should add is the technique used in the rendering of all big budget movies, and people seem to think they are realistic enough.

I don't think ray tracing is going to help, the cheap and dirty effects they use to simulate a lot of what ray tracing would take of would be better off remaining in place and the extra power could be used for other primary things which would be a better use of resources.

If you had 100k for buying a car of your dreams, it would be like spending 80k on a gold gear knob and 20k on the car.
Buy a ferrari for 99k, then buy gold plated gear knob for 1000. Not the other way around.
You could spend that money in much better areas.
A dev team will say the same thing.

I get all the indie ways on why this is cool, but ultimately,its like a HD remix of an old game.

I think its better to just remember the original for what it was in its time when it blew your mind. But each to their own.

The primary purpose of a graphics card is rendering graphics, no?

I don't see a problem with the bulk of its available resources going toward that purpose. Mainly you want a scene rendered, and the path tracing method seems to do that with a high level of realism. The vast majority of the graphics card's power has always been used for rendering, so that won't change.

What would the card be doing instead? Mining bitcoins? :D

Okay seriously, yeah, you're missing out on higher frame rates or higher resolutions, so it will depend on how the technology progresses. If it progresses at the same rate graphics tech has in the past, then soon we should be getting more than enough frames. Of course, there is always the possibility it will progress slowly. I can't say. If it doesn't take off, then we've really lost nothing.

Those "cheap and dirty" effects are dirty, but they're not really cheap. All those various hacks to mimic what path tracing can achieve naturally require a lot of development effort and complicate the code, which can lead to more bugs and make changes more difficult to make.

If you don't have access to an existing monolithic engine, this should help you achieve more realistic graphics more simply.

Yeah, Q2 RTX is exactly like an HD remix of an old game, and maybe that's not your thing. That doesn't mean the technology can't be a win for us if it progresses and gets applied in modern titles. There's nothing to lose because we'd probably be buying new cards anyway for other reasons.

Graphics power rendering can be used for many things, that power could for example be used to create advanced physics effects.

Destructible environments, or particles where you smash things and the water flows out into the level creating amazing game play would be 10 times more impressive than what ray tracing can do.

There's still so much that needs to be done in game worlds to make them realistic, ray tracing is going to come into its own in the distant future when everything else is top end, until then, the masses will always use the resources for better things.

Like I said, if you had 100k to spend on a car, you wouldn't spend most of it on a gold gear knob and buy a POS car.

You might spend that money on a gear nob IF<<<< you already had the car to do it justice. Atm games engines are like a civic type r, nice sporty, not bad, but nowhere near what is possible to achieve in automotive design when you see what Mclaren, Ferrari, etc.

In 5 years time you wont be playing mainstream developed ray traced games which look any better than the equiv which are not.

You might see it limited to small scenes or sections of levels where you can see the game world reflecting in the water or windows, but that shit makes up less than 1% of what people view in a game world and people have been very good at faking this stuff for a long time.

It's a fair point, and it's true that graphics cards can be used for other sorts of computation, and I had considered that, but they're not general purpose computers; that's why we need CPUs. They're specialized for certain types of computation; however, I can't really say what the limit of their application is.

To date, game developers do not seem to be doing much with the immense power of the graphics card other than graphics. If the purpose of a graphics card is to do graphics, then I don't see improving the way it does graphics as similar to buying an expensive gear knob on a car.

If the purpose of a car is transport, then it would be like improving the way the car does transport.

As I suggested in my other comment, the addition of 68 RT cores in the 2080ti is probably not taking away from the traditional processing power of the card, considering that it still has 4,352 CUDA cores. Is it really taking away resources?

My thinking is that the main computational expense of path tracing is the tracing of rays, and that is the function of the RT core. It's also a very parallelizable task, so one would expect that adding more RT cores would speed it up effectively.

I could be mistaken, but maybe when we have cards with a thousand RT cores, no one will be concerned about the processing power used by the path tracing component, especially since people have for decades now been quite happy for almost the entirety of their graphics card's power to go into graphics.

When devs don't have to worry about implementing all those light effects one by one with special purpose code, they'll be free to work on stuff like physics, destructible environments, etc. The graphics rendering part can be something they think about much less.

If I'm understanding things correctly, the new RTX cards have added RT cores (for ray tracing) and Tensor cores (for their AI stuff) on top of the usual CUDA cores.

1080ti has none of the new core types while the 2080ti has more CUDA cores than the 1080ti.

So it would seem that using the new RT cores for ray tracing wouldn't completely take away from the traditional rendering performance of the card. It should still be possible to do the usual shader effects in combination with it and make a hybrid. Can't be sure though.

Minecraft raytraced somehow looks fricking awesome.

quake 3 rtx and making quake live free at the same time would be useful

also officially discontinuing updates for quake champions

this is why i think opensource is the only way forward for quake games, there is no way developers would be ever as smart as the whole quake community when it comes to making the game better.

Quake is open source? Unless you mean QL or QC

i think i got to the bottom of this and i think i know why id and many other developers don't support modders and opensource anymore and it is kinda sad. i think kids shouldn't be allowed to play mature violent games and mods make it part of the problem because mods are free and openly available and that can be detrimental to young psyche. it's part of the gun control problem and kids playing too many violent games and than have psychological problems that may lead to violent behavior.

imagine buying a $1000 GPU that requires spyware-riddled drivers to play a proprietary build of an open-sourced, 20+ year old videogame at silky-smooth 30fps.

better yet, not buy that stupid piece of hardware and just get a breath of fresh air outside, it has all the graphics you need.

I love this!

Even if I never actively played Q2 (went straight to Q3 from Q1), it's still real Quake with an awesome community along with it.
This is not the new mongo "Quake" shit ruined by complete retards and their discord 'pro'" minions, it's the good old thing.

This release (also on Linux btw!) has a new engine what many of us hoped for in other Quake versions as well, and if you ask me, it's a very good thing,
It will not change the state of anything but it is still a celebration and appreciation of the modding community and our loved genre by general.

All the bitter people who are unable to get excited about anything good anymore can go and play Tim Champions 24/7 with all the devs and their twitch shills, it's your loss.

I'm grateful to all the people who made this happen and looking forward where this will go on the long run.

I hope you played q2 singleplayer at least. SP was awesome. I couldnt enjoy q2 MP at the time due 33,6k modem and horrible online costs.

Edit: I had a 56k modem which wasnt much better

No, I don't think I ever played a good SP game from id/Bethesda, (maybe Wolf3d was an exception in its own time, because of the new "3d" graphics experience). The multiplayers were a different thing , I loved all (doom, rtcw, quake)
Quake 2 was just bad timing for me, as all my friends were in Q1 and the slower pace of Q2 was not appealing enough to make the switch.

i played Q2 SP back in software mode, 320x200 or so on my old pentium 1 when I was like 11, total insanity. good times

Yes and you can still do it and it is still amazing esp with yo wife and kids.

whats a higher resolution polygon

Since when does better graphics enhance the gameplay aspect of the game?

It won't, except some rare moments when proper reflections or shadows could reveal an enemy ambush or change the meta in similar new ways.

Graphics fidelity never made a game good, only aesthetic can do something like that, and this rtx Quake is no exception, it won't matter to people who did not play Quake 2 back in the days.
However, it can matter to the fans, because it could open up new possiblities (better graphics on new hardver: high res VR versions for example, where decades old graphics could be a dealbreaker when viewed with headsets)