Quake 3 At 10240x3072

[greatdevourer]

:eek: I *need* this setup! http://www.plastk.net/

[edesignuk]

I'm not a gamer...




...but (there's always a but)...

HOLY ****ING **** BATMAN!

*geek moment* :o

[2nyRiggz]

Drooling right now...not a fan of doom but damn!


Bless

[After G]

Imagine Mac OS X on that thing ...

[Striderdm1]

LOL! that is some setup there!!! nice post :eek:
Shame it's Quake3 and shame it's Dell, but good all the same! I'd have it if they offered it me for free... ahem.. but only for free! ;)

Strider

edit:
edesignuk - love the icon!! Tittybangbang :D

[blitzkrieg79]

The hell with Quake 3... Warcraft II thats where it's at, in my opinion the best RTS game of all-time (yes this also includes Warcraft 3 which has a much slower tempo of the game than WC2).

[Dagless]

Drooling right now...not a fan of doom but damn!


Bless

Would it help if it was Quake 3 :p ?

Nice. But 15-30fps? Half that resolution (or stick in faster graphics cards) and get that up to 60fps now!

[Striderdm1]

lol i thought the same afterwards, all that hassle and for such low framerates. Maybe a lower screen res next time? :rolleyes:

Strider

[eclipse525]

The hell with Quake 3... Warcraft II thats where it's at, in my opinion the best RTS game of all-time (yes this also includes Warcraft 3 which has a much slower tempo of the game than WC2).

Dude, that's two totally different games and genre's. :eek:

[blitzkrieg79]

Dude, that's two totally different games and genre's. :eek:

Ummmmmmmmmmm, I wasn't comparing Quake 3 to WC2 for gods sake. When you click on the link, on the bottom of the page they are showing WC2 setup which is more interesting to me than Quake 3 because it might be actually useful in game play where you can see the entire map on one screen.

Anyway, Warcraft 2 is like 10 years old, and I still fire it up from time to time and it's as enjoyable as ever before, too bad games these days focus on graphics and special FX instead of enticing gameplay and replay value.

[gammamonk]

I thought the title was quake at 1024 x 3072, and I was thinking, Ultra-tall quake, ooookaaaayy. But, 10240 x 3072? Holy crap!

[DougTheImpaler]

heh, that's pretty awesome. Huge screens like that are always a blast to see; they feel so immersive. I've never seen a game on something that big before, though, and it's too bad it runs at 15-20fps.

I wonder if the resolution is to blame or if it's the network connectoin..they're farming out the game, more or less, to 12 computers...even gigabit ethernet is slow for something that real-time, considering that 125MB/sec is about 1/10 the bandwidth of a crappy video card, like the 1.2GB of a TNT M64.

[Dagless]

heh, that's pretty awesome. Huge screens like that are always a blast to see; they feel so immersive. I've never seen a game on something that big before, though, and it's too bad it runs at 15-20fps.

I wonder if the resolution is to blame or if it's the network connectoin..they're farming out the game, more or less, to 12 computers...even gigabit ethernet is slow for something that real-time, considering that 125MB/sec is about 1/10 the bandwidth of a crappy video card, like the 1.2GB of a TNT M64.

I'd think the edges of the monitors are severely going to reduce the immersion. perhaps.

[DougTheImpaler]

I'd think the edges of the monitors are severely going to reduce the immersion. perhaps.
It depends, though for some people you're probably right. if you get really focused on the content, the obstacles tend to go away, though.

[Lord Blackadder]

Wow. :eek: Considering the number of pixels being pushed around (and having to get the boxes working together) that is pretty good performance.

It makes me wonder what it would be like playing an FPS on an IMAX screen...:eek:

[DougTheImpaler]

Wow. :eek: Considering the number of pixels being pushed around (and having to get the boxes working together) that is pretty good performance.

It makes me wonder what it would be like playing an FPS on an IMAX screen...:eek:
That's a good point. If my math is correct, the frame buffer is 1.757GB, so at 15fps that's 26GB of memory bandwidth needed just for the frame buffer. That's also going to each of the 12 machines to have a 256MB memory card, in order to just have enough VRAM to draw a single frame (since it's roughly 150MB of VRAM per machine to draw its part of the frame at 32bit color depth).

[Anonymous Freak]

The really bad thing is that my first thought is what could they do if they used a same-size grid of Viewsonic's VP2290b (http://www.viewsonic.com/support/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/proseries/vp2290b/)...

Let's see... A 8x3 grid of 3840x2400 monitors...... That's.... 30,720x7200 in 153.8" of video goodness.

[Laslo Panaflex]

Umm, why not just use a really nice projector, you can get even larger sizes, with out any breaks between monitors:confused: But, cool work none the less, just not very practical.

[greatdevourer]

Umm, why not just use a really nice projector, you can get even larger sizes, with out any breaks between monitors:confused: But, cool work none the less, just not very practical. Larger sizes, but far lower resolution (find me a 10240x3072 projector!)

[yellow]

Just imagine surfing for pr0n on THAT thing.

[greatdevourer]

Just imagine surfing for pr0n on THAT thing. Howabout... no

[yellow]

Howabout... no

OK, then let's imagine this guy spending all that cash on something constructive?

I guess it's a lab, so probably grant money. My taxes at work.

[Patmian212]

Just imagine surfing for pr0n on THAT thing.
SCORE! Now I gotta start saving up!!!!!

Greatdevourer, your just a ray of sunshine today arent you ;)

[Thomas Harte]

That's a good point. If my math is correct, the frame buffer is 1.757GB, so at 15fps that's 26GB of memory bandwidth needed just for the frame buffer.
But there is no need to propagate the framebuffer. Why does one machine care what a portion of the display it isn't rendering is displaying?

I'm not really that interested in games, especially FPSs, so I tend not to follow the chronology correctly but assuming Quake3 is sufficiently new to take advantage of Vertex Buffer Objects (which became an ARB standard on February 12, 2003 and will have been around for a while before that as an EXT and/or NV or ATI extension) then it will be optimised to communicate geometry to the driver very infrequently and spend most frames just manipulating the matrix stack (= telling the cards whereabouts in space and at what orientation the geometry appears). The average work done per frame probably requires very little data being sent out.

I would be surprised if the network wasn't the bottleneck though. Network stacks cost time, and a system like this probably needs to be quite certain about synchronisation to avoid a slightly sickening "not quite sychronised" feel across the screens.

It is a shame that they didn't have time to do this as a specialist Quake project, which would allow them to use the existing multiplayer networking stuff rather than a network aware GL driver. If you think about it, any multiplayer game of Quake with at least 24 participants is already doing a 24 screen display of the world. Just a little co-ordination of viewpoints could easily produce the same display, and without being tied to Linux either. And I'm sure most Quake people would have thrown their arms up in despair by now if they couldn't play at 100fps or whatever they expect in network games. They certainly wouldn't be so fussed about those high end mice.

[Maxwell Smart]

*droooooool* oh man I'd KILL for that setup :D