Default Quake screen size showed two HUDs:
1) Armor / Health / Ammo etc
2) All ammo / Mutliplayer leaderboard (top four, frags/player color only)
All weapons / Keys / Powerups / Runes
I tried using both, but quickly found the top HUD to be superfluous, especially given how cramped it made my screen feel.
How did you play?
They're called status bars.
I originally played with both as i'd like to be aware of my ammo and I wasn't big on the weapon cycling key, and it didn't hurt to lose a vit of vertical view from the top for more performance.
I mostly play glQuake, not the original software rendered version. Status bars take up less space at higher resolutions.
I kinda prefer the original layout though.
I have always preferred fullscreen.
The status bar in Quake was not as appeaing as Doom's because the player's face had very minimalist "implementation" and assets when compared to former.
I do not know what speedup minimizing the screenspace yields in Quake, but in Doom it seemed quite noticeable.
wrote:They're called status bars.
Regardless of the etymology of HUD and what these things were were originally called, it's common gamer parlance for HUD to mean any graphic overlay of important info, whether in bar form or not.
wrote:I mostly play glQuake, not the original software rendered version. Status bars take up less space at higher resolutions.
...
Quite true, but I'm more interested in what you ran when the game first came out (assuming you were around). GLQuake didn't arrive for another six months, and most people were probably playing at three-hundred something by two-hundred something before then. 😎 Even my period-correct 1997 monster with a PII 300 beast only does 15 FPS @ 640x480 via software.
wrote:I do not know what speedup minimizing the screenspace yields in Quake, but in Doom it seemed quite noticeable.
This is actually why I started this thread; I'm trying to decide whether to benchmark Quake with the default screen size or not. I'd prefer to benchmark the way most people actually played the game. On the aforementioned rig, the single-HUD config runs about 5.5% slower @ 320x240 than with the default screen size.
In 1996 (I had this game at launch) I played in 320x200 with the full status bar, as shrinking the rendering size of the game gave (or felt like it gave) a bit more performance. This was on a Pentium P54C 100mhz with no 3d acceleration. I believe P54CS pentiums (133-200mhz) had just come out right when Quake did, so I would venture that what I had was relatively high end for a launch day quake machine. I would benchmark it with the full status bar.
Today I play it in 640x480 or 800x600 with just the main bar.
Sup. I like computers. Are you a computer?
i use 110% viewsize, thats single line of status bar.
100% viewsize is double lines of status bar, and 120% is fullscreen without status bar.
I've decided to benchmark with the default screen size (full HUD). This is also how many review sites benched the game upon release.
wrote:I mostly play glQuake, not the original software rendered version. Status bars take up less space at higher resolutions.
image
I forgot to mention, if you're indeed playing a 16:9 LCD, your image is definitely elongated from what it should look like.
