DieHard Wolfers Forum Index DieHard Wolfers
A Wolfenstein 3d Fan Community


  Hosted by: MCS & Areyep.com - Designed by: BrotherTank

Original Yahoo Forum - Die Hard Archives

AReyeP HomepageAreyep Homepage DieHard Wolfenstein BunkerDieHard Wolfenstein Bunker Log inLog in RegisterRegister Banlist FAQFAQ Search ForumsSearch

  Username:    Password:      Remember me       

Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
Page 1 of 1
DieHard Wolfers Forum Index -> Addons/Mods/TC's View Previous TopicRefresh this PageAdd Topic to your Browser FavoritesSearch ForumsPrint this TopicE-mail TopicGoto Page BottomView Next Topic
Post new topicReply to topic
Author Message
Joshua
DieHard Officer
DieHard Officer


Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Last Visit: 17:18 ago.

Topics: 223
Posts: 521

usa.gif

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:41 am
   Subject: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

Is it possible to upgrade the Wolfenstein 3D engine to 4K HD? My PC does not support 4K HD right now. I don't care if this is implemented right now, I wonder how Wolfenstein 3D along with its mods would look in 4K HD.

_________________
My discord server is at https://discord.gg/NKXNPqn and my wiki page is at https://777arts.fandom.com .
Atina
Bring 'em On
Bring 'em On


Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Last Visit: 24 Jun 2019

Topics: 9
Posts: 144

blank.gif

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:22 pm
   Subject: Re: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

connect a 4k TV + wolf4sdl.exe --resf 3840 2160

_________________
"Nexion and Atina are one in the same. Set apart by time and space, but they'll be one again" - WolferCooker (11/10/2010)
AlumiuN
DieHard Wolfer
DieHard Wolfer


Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Last Visit: 3:50 ago.

Topics: 39
Posts: 2611
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
newzealand.gif

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:58 pm
   Subject: Re: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

Pretty much that; you might have trouble with frame rates in mods with floor and ceiling textures at that resolution, as even on my rig at 1920x1080 they start to not quite maintain 70 FPS in some places (largely because of the sheer number of pixels that need to be moved between the CPU/RAM and the GPU each frame; as a result it's more dependent on PCI-E bus speed and less on CPU performance).
quartzdoll
DieHard Guard
DieHard Guard


Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Last Visit: 15 Jul 2019

Topics: 4
Posts: 200

india.gif

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:17 pm
   Subject: Re: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

I didn't check 4k resolution on ecwolf based games but my gpu supports 4k. I always put a game resolution to 1920x1080 as it is my monitor's default resolution ( 24 inch LED). As i am using AMD Ryzen 2400g APU, there is no need to depend on external graphic card or bus speed. Graphics are built-in and run by CPU itself so no lag in games upto 70 FPS. Graphics performance depend on many things - CPU, GPU, memory, bus speed, monitor refresh rate.
doomjedi
DieHard Wolfer
DieHard Wolfer


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Last Visit: 19:18 ago.

Topics: 122
Posts: 3027
Location: Israel
israel.gif

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:48 am
   Subject: Re: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

Raspberry pi 4 + retropie Smile

_________________
https://boa.realm667.com/
Blzut3
DieHard Guard
DieHard Guard


Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Last Visit: 9:03 ago.

Topics: 3
Posts: 203

blank.gif

PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:57 am
   Subject: Re: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

To answer the question of "how good it would look" beyond just saying "try it". Compared to 1080 where you can see about 18 tiles in depth before detail is lost at 4K you can see about 36. It's a linear function with height so once we get to 8K you'll be able to see clear across a Wolf3D map with no detail loss (this occurs at about 6400x3600 which is only a little more than Apple's 6K display).

In practical terms even 1080 is really beyond the point of diminishing returns, but doesn't stop higher resolutions from being cool anyway. Razz
AlumiuN wrote:
(largely because of the sheer number of pixels that need to be moved between the CPU/RAM and the GPU each frame; as a result it's more dependent on PCI-E bus speed and less on CPU performance).

In my experience the limiting factor is absolutely CPU since the texture mapper in Wolf4SDL is very inefficient. 4K@70fps is a little over 2GB/s without doing tricks like 8->32 conversion on the GPU which is possible to push over PCIe 1.0 and still have plenty of bandwidth to spare. My current PC can push GZDoom's software renderer at 5K at 80fps, but ECWolf only gets 34ish fps. At the moment I attribute this to Wolf4SDL/ECWolf doing a lot of per pixel calculations where as the Doom renderer does those same calculations once per plane vastly reducing the amount of data that needs to be hot in cache. Add potential for multi-threading the renderer and there's plenty of room to improve performance if time ever permits.
Tricob
Moderator
<B>Moderator</B>


Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Last Visit: 13:06 ago.

Topics: 167
Posts: 8406
Location: Neo-traditions, Inc.
usa.gif

PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:43 am
   Subject: Re: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

If I'm not mistaken, you can see the vanilla graphics *in* 1920x1080 in the first Windows port - NewWolf. Assuming I remember the name right, it used the GlideGL engine - albeit one that was slow and outdated at the time. All the newer hardware I've seen runs the version quite fluidly, The catch to all this is - the graphics that you get are quite blurry. IMO, this version simply hasn't aged well; most game engines associated with Doom do a much better job at "blurring the edges" with those pixelated images (Chocolate Doom was one of those weird takes on the DOS version; it updated the sound engine, but the enlarged graphics always looked exactly the same no matter what screen resolution you used).
Arno
Can I Play Daddy
Can I Play Daddy


Joined: 26 Oct 2017
Last Visit: 0:35 ago.

Topics: 1
Posts: 46
Location: Netherlands
netherlands.gif

PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:39 pm
   Subject: Re: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

Blzut3 wrote:
To answer the question of "how good it would look" beyond just saying "try it". Compared to 1080 where you can see about 18 tiles in depth before detail is lost at 4K you can see about 36. It's a linear function with height so once we get to 8K you'll be able to see clear across a Wolf3D map with no detail loss (this occurs at about 6400x3600 which is only a little more than Apple's 6K display).

Interesting math!
I assume that "no detail loss" only applies when looking straight at a wall? I can imagine that when looking with a steep angle at a wall, there would still be a theoretical benefit from additional vertical resolution.
Matthew
DieHard Officer
DieHard Officer


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Last Visit: 08 Jul 2019

Topics: 100
Posts: 505

usa.gif

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:50 am
   Subject: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

AlumiuN wrote:
Pretty much that; you might have trouble with frame rates in mods with floor and ceiling textures at that resolution, as even on my rig at 1920x1080 they start to not quite maintain 70 FPS in some places (largely because of the sheer number of pixels that need to be moved between the CPU/RAM and the GPU each frame; as a result it's more dependent on PCI-E bus speed and less on CPU performance).


Blzut3 wrote:
In my experience the limiting factor is absolutely CPU since the texture mapper in Wolf4SDL is very inefficient. 4K@70fps is a little over 2GB/s without doing tricks like 8->32 conversion on the GPU which is possible to push over PCIe 1.0 and still have plenty of bandwidth to spare. My current PC can push GZDoom's software renderer at 5K at 80fps, but ECWolf only gets 34ish fps. At the moment I attribute this to Wolf4SDL/ECWolf doing a lot of per pixel calculations where as the Doom renderer does those same calculations once per plane vastly reducing the amount of data that needs to be hot in cache.


With the computer system I was using before my current one, I was using a graphics card that was modern, but had a PCI, not PCI Express video connection, because that was all the motherboard supported. That drastically slowed Wolf4SDL down; the computer I had been using before that, which had a 4X AGP video connection, ran the game much faster, even though the CPU was slightly slower and the GPU vastly slower.

Because of that, I was planning, at the time, to write an OpenGL 3.3 renderer for Wolf4SDL. But once I got a new computer, that wasn't necessary. (I did add OpenGL 3.3 support, but it only uses it to do post-processing.)

More recently, I have been planning to write a Vulkan renderer for Wolf4SDL.



Tricob wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, you can see the vanilla graphics *in* 1920x1080 in the first Windows port - NewWolf. Assuming I remember the name right, it used the GlideGL engine - albeit one that was slow and outdated at the time. All the newer hardware I've seen runs the version quite fluidly, The catch to all this is - the graphics that you get are quite blurry. IMO, this version simply hasn't aged well; most game engines associated with Doom do a much better job at "blurring the edges" with those pixelated images (Chocolate Doom was one of those weird takes on the DOS version; it updated the sound engine, but the enlarged graphics always looked exactly the same no matter what screen resolution you used).


NewWolf's renderer is basically a raycaster that uses OpenGL to draw visible surfaces.

OpenGL and Vulkan allow textures to be sampled without smoothing; NewWolf just is written that way.

Note how with my modified version of Wolf4SDL, the screen image appears pixelated like in DOS Wolf3D. It uses OpenGL 3.3 unless you include "--noopengl".



Blzut3 wrote:
In practical terms even 1080 is really beyond the point of diminishing returns, but doesn't stop higher resolutions from being cool anyway. Razz


Higher resolutions are useful with VR headsets. VR headsets require much higher resolutions, because they have a much larger field of view.

The next generation of VR headsets will have 4K resolution, which will give a huge improvement in visual quality. Current generation headsets, which have 1080x1080 resolution per eye, feel like looking at a 480x480 screen.
Blzut3
DieHard Guard
DieHard Guard


Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Last Visit: 9:03 ago.

Topics: 3
Posts: 203

blank.gif

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:50 pm
   Subject: Re: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

Arno wrote:
Interesting math!
I assume that "no detail loss" only applies when looking straight at a wall? I can imagine that when looking with a steep angle at a wall, there would still be a theoretical benefit from additional vertical resolution.

I guess caveat on my math is that it's assuming the vanilla levels which I believe E4L2 is the longest distance you ever see. The theoretical max distance you can see in a 64x64 map is almost 88 (ceil(62*sqrt(2))) tiles so would require almost 5300 vertical. The angle at which you look at the wall doesn't matter as this is the distance where the scale factor is always above 1:1 for each column.

One can always argue anti-aliasing, but then that gets into what resolution can your eye physically see which depends on screen size and other factors, but we can say that in terms of actual detail level the vanilla graphics have nothing more to give since at a little above 6K the renderer should never have to skip any texels while playing the original levels (and probably almost all if not all add on levels).

Matthew wrote:
With the computer system I was using before my current one, I was using a graphics card that was modern, but had a PCI, not PCI Express video connection, because that was all the motherboard supported. That drastically slowed Wolf4SDL down; the computer I had been using before that, which had a 4X AGP video connection, ran the game much faster, even though the CPU was slightly slower and the GPU vastly slower.

Absolutely. In terms of pixel pushing conventional PCI, in the form that most people had (technically there was 66MHz PCI but outside of workstations this was never seen), would top out at about 800x600. And that's assuming that the shared bus was not being used for anything else. On such a machine hardware accelerated rendering, native 8-bit frame buffer, or 8->32 shaders would likely be a huge benefit.

AGP 4x being 8x faster than typical PCI (and presumably was a dedicated bus) would have been able to push up to 1440p in theory without tricks.
Matthew wrote:
Because of that, I was planning, at the time, to write an OpenGL 3.3 renderer for Wolf4SDL. But once I got a new computer, that wasn't necessary. (I did add OpenGL 3.3 support, but it only uses it to do post-processing.)

More recently, I have been planning to write a Vulkan renderer for Wolf4SDL.

One thing that I, and probably no one else, think would be cool is the software renderer ported to shader language. There's a Quake port that did this so I know it's theoretically possible. Granted it honestly would just be more work and produce functionally identical images, but I don't know. I think it would be cool to be able to say "ray casting is done on the GPU."
Matthew wrote:
Higher resolutions are useful with VR headsets. VR headsets require much higher resolutions, because they have a much larger field of view.

True, I guess I should also caveat my calculations as being for 4:3 or wider 2D projection.
Matthew
DieHard Officer
DieHard Officer


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Last Visit: 08 Jul 2019

Topics: 100
Posts: 505

usa.gif

PostPosted: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:22 pm
   Subject: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

Blzut3 wrote:
The theoretical max distance you can see in a 64x64 map is almost 88 (ceil(62*sqrt(2))) tiles so would require almost 5300 vertical.


In DOS Wolf3D, you can see farther if you can go outside the level.

If you look across too far a distance, the graphics will be garbled, the game will run slowly, and it will often crash with a "Divide error" message.

When I write a Vulkan renderer for Wolf4SDL, it will allow you to look outside the level without any problems. There will be a black void.

Since it will render the entire level at once, you will even be able to see the level from above or below.



Blzut3 wrote:
One thing that I, and probably no one else, think would be cool is the software renderer ported to shader language. There's a Quake port that did this so I know it's theoretically possible.


I think you're referring to the Quake RTX port. It implements ray tracing with Vulkan using an nVidia extension, which uses specialized hardware. Vulkan doesn't have cross-vendor support for it yet.

It can also be done with compute shaders, but that is very slow.

Ray tracing in Wolf3D would be interesting, if it used lighting, like Wolf3D Lite.
Blzut3
DieHard Guard
DieHard Guard


Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Last Visit: 9:03 ago.

Topics: 3
Posts: 203

blank.gif

PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:20 am
   Subject: Re: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Next PostGoto Bottom of Posts

Matthew wrote:
I think you're referring to the Quake RTX port.

No. Was thinking of Quakeforge which advertises a "GLSL" renderer as looking like the software renderer. Upon looking closer it appears I may have misunderstood what they were doing, but the idea of running a software renderer as a generic GPU program has been one I've been tossing around for awhile even if it makes no sense from a practical or logical stand point.

Edit: Dug a little more into what I thought was a pure shader traditional renderer.


Last edited by Blzut3 on Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Arno
Can I Play Daddy
Can I Play Daddy


Joined: 26 Oct 2017
Last Visit: 0:35 ago.

Topics: 1
Posts: 46
Location: Netherlands
netherlands.gif

PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:22 am
   Subject: Re: Wolfenstein 3D in 4K HD Possible?
   [ IP : Logged ]
Reply with quote
Goto Top of PostsGoto Previous PostGoto Bottom of Posts

Blzut3 wrote:
Arno wrote:
Interesting math!
I assume that "no detail loss" only applies when looking straight at a wall? I can imagine that when looking with a steep angle at a wall, there would still be a theoretical benefit from additional vertical resolution.

I guess caveat on my math is that it's assuming the vanilla levels which I believe E4L2 is the longest distance you ever see. The theoretical max distance you can see in a 64x64 map is almost 88 (ceil(62*sqrt(2))) tiles so would require almost 5300 vertical. The angle at which you look at the wall doesn't matter as this is the distance where the scale factor is always above 1:1 for each column.

You're absolutely right. I just re-read my post and noticed a big mistake on my part. What I meant was: when looking at a wall with a steep angle, there would still be a theoretical benefit from additional HORIZONTAL resolution. So I was thinking of missing texels in the rows of wall textures. Sorry for the confusion.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topicReply to topic Time synchronized with the forum server time
DieHard Wolfers Forum Index -> Addons/Mods/TC's View Previous TopicRefresh this PageAdd Topic to your Browser FavoritesSearch ForumsPrint this TopicE-mail TopicGoto Page TopView Next Topic
Page 1 of 1
Jump to:  

Related topics
 Topics   Replies   Views   Last Post 
No new posts Discussion of Addons & Mods Standards - You be the judge
Author: BrotherTank
28 14613 Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:48 am
Majik Monkee View latest post
No new posts Toughest Battle in a Wolfenstein Mod
Author: Majik Monkee
20 10716 Mon Aug 30, 2004 9:38 am
Majik Monkee View latest post
No new posts New mods
Author: AReyeP
13 6867 Wed Aug 18, 2004 4:54 am
Majik Monkee View latest post
No new posts Wolfenstein Hackers
Author: andy3012
19 7428 Wed Jul 07, 2004 10:12 am
sentenced View latest post
No new posts Wolfenstein Coalition
Author: Guest
6 281 Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:12 am
Majik Monkee View latest post
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
   You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Copyright ©2003-2008 DieHard Wolfers
A Modified subBunker Theme by BrotherTank
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group