Best Winquake Ports

[TempesT]

I have recently discovered how great Quake looks in the software render and I'm curious as to what Winquake Source Ports are out there. I have tried the original Winquake.exe and the Qbism Super 8 source port. I didn't like the Qbism port, because it wasn't a faithful source port. I want it to be vanilla as possible. I did like Winquake a lot though. I just want to be able to use a resolution of 2048x1536. I think Winquake is limited to 1280x1024. So are there any good modern and faithful Winquake ports out there?

[Baker]

Engoo? Engoo - The Worst Quake Engine In Existence

Makaqu? Makaqu

[TempesT]

I just tried out Makaqu, and found it to be quite buggy. Its not that faithful either. But, I also tried Engoo and its great. Does anyone know of any more source ports that are in the vein of vanilla Winquake? I found one called TochriS, but I can't find any download links for it.

[Zop]

I like 26000 or 26001, myself.

Well, someone had to make the joke...

[Amon26]

qbism super8 for the WIN!

[Spirit]

The word "port" is wrong. You mean engine or client or fork or something like that.

Engine - Disenchant.net should be the most faithful one. And it should run in high resolution too, try "-width 2048 -height 1536".

[TempesT]

I like 26000 or 26001, myself.

Well, someone had to make the joke...

LOL, lets see a 26000 run Quake in software mode at 2048x1536.

qbism super8 for the WIN!

Please read my first post about Qbism.

The word "port" is wrong. You mean engine or client or fork or something like that.

Engine - Disenchant.net should be the most faithful one. And it should run in high resolution too, try "-width 2048 -height 1536".

Okay, I'll change the thread title to forks. I have been using the Engoo 2.16 beta, and its the best one I've come by. I also tried ezQuake's software render, but it wasn't faithful enough for me. They changed the original explosion effect, and you can't put it back to the original. There is one effect called "sparks" that is very close to the way the original explosion looked, but its not the exact same as the vanilla explosion effect.

I just tried Disenchant, and it crashes on me. The build seems to be from 2009, so compared to Engoo its kind of dated. If you know of anymore forks besides Disenchant, let me know.

[Baker]

LOL, lets see a 26000 run Quake in software mode at 2048x1536.

Type "port" in the console.

Then you'll no doubt get the joke.

[TempesT]

Oh my, I totally thought 26000 meant something else. What I said made no sense. That's the port Quake uses. Forget what I said before lol.

[Baker]

If you know of anymore forks

Everyone generally calls them "engines" or "clients", like if someone posts a problem someone will say "what client are you using?" or "Which engine?"

There aren't that many software engines. The reasons vary but generally go like this:

1.) Most people want shiny and effects.
2.) The software renderer code is a major blob of unintelligible spaghetti, as Spike alluded to.
3.) Software renderer code is heavily dependent on ASM, like assembly language ... few people are comfortable coding hardly any of that.
4.) Until very recent times, the only option was the ugly scitech mgl stuff which isn't really native Windows API which is probably why pressing ALT-TAB acts funny and all color-ish.
5.) Software renderers generally can't support replacement textures.

Engoo, Makaqu and Qbism super8 are the only actively developed software renderer engines. Although FTEQW had a software renderer that could actually do 24 bit color.

Look for FTEQW 3343 build in Google.

Other than those 4, there are no other software renderers of any significant interest that have "really" been worked in the last 8 years. Even if you could get TyrQuake software renderer going, it is going to be essentially unmodified original WinQuake. It isn't going to have colored lighting support, it isn't going to support translucent water.

JoeQuake has a software renderer, notably it supports contrasts and a Quakeworld style HUD and that's about it and that's 2004 era.

ToChris was maybe the first modified software renderer, I suspect Engoo / Makaque and Super8 have all of its few extra features like skybox support.

Finally there is Enhanced WinQuake:

The Homepage of Bengt Jardrup

Which is largely stock WinQuake except can handle most very large maps and handles too much stuff on the screen slightly better in an appearance (but not performance. Just a high draw cutoff) way. If you aren't running a super-giant map, you wouldn't notice any difference from Enhanced WinQuake versus regular WinQuake.

Only Engoo, super8 and Makaque have done anything "extra" in the rendering department. (And FTE 3343)

[I'm not mentioning the possibility that a software renderer build of DarkPlaces might have been created in very recent times. I don't know one way or the other. I would guess not, but it isn't entirely impossible.]

[TempesT]

Okay, I'll call them clients for now on. The only other decent software client I found was ezQuake's. But that's a QuakeWorld client. I'm currently using Engoo 2.16 beta and haven't found a better client. I think its the best one. I just wish you could make the particles smaller when you play at high resolutions (1920x1440).

[Baker]

Okay, I'll call them clients for now on. The only other decent software client I found was ezQuake's. But that's a QuakeWorld client. I'm currently using Engoo 2.16 beta and haven't found a better client. I think its the best one. I just wish you could make the particles smaller when you play at high resolutions (1920x1440).

I think you said you talked to the author, you might tell him how much you like the engine and also make him aware of this "wish list" idea you have.

The software renderer is mighty tough to work with, such a seemingly simple thing could be mad uber complicated. But letting the author know of a wish list item makes it more likely that it happens.

[TempesT]

I messaged leileilol about the smaller particles at higher resolutions yesterday. I hope he responds back to me.

[Amon26]

>_< Sorry bout that tempest. That's what I get for skimming a post. I agree though, we're the minority.

I like my quake as blocky and crunchy as possible, I also like to see what madness people dare pull of rendering only in software.

It's pretty uncharted territory I think has some wild potential

[damage_inc]

WinQuake is the first "source port", so DOS Quake is vanilla Quake and hence... the game wasn't "designed" for high resolution just like it wasn't designed with blurred(GL) textures!

While I understand your desires, you must realize NOBODY wants to make an exact replica of 1996 Quake... in 2013! You have to make some concessions with what your expectations are for unpaid engine coders that do this for fun and experience. Almost 20 years after original was released!

Also, I never really agreed with your "art" analogy cause first and foremost a game is "entertainment", pure and simple! Now, sometimes something comes along and we feel it is worthy enough to be considered art due to the epicness of the game but still... it started as entertainment! And also a way to make MONEY!

True art on the other hand is much different.

Yesterday, I played the Hexen 2 Demo in a web browser(FireFox 16) using Java to run jDosBox in LINUX! My heads still spinning from that, LOL! I'm sure the way to play vanilla Quake is to play vanilla Quake(Dos version). It can be done today!

In the end, if you have something that fits most of your requirements, call it a day and enjoy Quake