Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Quake's lightning gun bug explained [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 218 posts

Re: Quake's lightning gun bug explained [video]

#201

Post by sillysaurusx »

Solvency wrote: post #199
baal80spam wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, this link is something else - you can track what problems he tackled and what he worked on DAILY.

Guessing you're on the younger side? I used to read these voraciously as a 11 year old. Felt like a magic window into the game industry.

Hello fellow I-was-once-11-and-fascinated-by-.plan! I wasn't sure if I was the only one. St Louis in 2000 made it seem like there were only a handful of people interested in programming at all.

Hmm... 11 would put me at 19999, so I must've been more like 12 or 13. I remember that's when I started taking gamedev seriously.

Re: Quake's lightning gun bug explained [video]

#202

Post by nailer »

cubefox wrote: post #170
nailer wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who made DLSS? Using ML to denoise ray tracing is massive.

I think DLSS doesn't do denoising. DLSS uses an ML algorithm to upscale frames using additional information like z buffer and motion vectors. Denoising is used to drastically reduce the number of required rays for ray tracing. I would guess denoising is done first, using a non-ML algorithm, and DLSS is done afterwards.

DLSS does the denoising since DLSS 1.0 see the DLSS announcement https://www.youtube.com/live/4_g_Y0W1Xn8?feature=share (pardon the crappy gaming channel, it looks like Nvidia weren’t running their own YouTube the time)

It adds frames since I think 3.0.

Re: Quake's lightning gun bug explained [video]

#203

Post by squeek502 »

kipi wrote: post #17
eps wrote: post #10

I don't follow. This code is not C or C++, so it's not actually from Quake. So what's with "this is how this was coded" and "here are the bugs, but it's only my guess"? The code is avaialble, why guess at all?

Hello, video creator here. This is indeed the actual code, and it is written in QuakeC, a language created specifically for the game logic in Quake. The part I'm not sure about is why the creators wanted to add in extra side beams at all.

I wrote a breakdown of a different Quake engine quirk (rampsliding) that might be a fun topic for a video if you're looking for new topics:

https://www.ryanliptak.com/blog/rampsliding-quake-engine-qui...

Re: Quake's lightning gun bug explained [video]

#204

Post by cubefox »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #120
cubefox wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closest guy to Carmack today seems to be Brian Caris, who developed virtualized geometry[1], a rasterization based rendering technique where the geometric detail of static objects is adjusted to the screen resolution in real time. There is another talk (can't find it right now) where he mentions Carmack as an inspiration. I wonder what Carmack would be working on today if he was still in the game engine business.…

He was a little bit. I wonder what he was up at meta before switching to agi

VR headsets.

Re: Quake's lightning gun bug explained [video]

#205

Post by cubefox »

nailer wrote: post #202
cubefox wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think DLSS doesn't do denoising. DLSS uses an ML algorithm to upscale frames using additional information like z buffer and motion vectors. Denoising is used to drastically reduce the number of required rays for ray tracing. I would guess denoising is done first, using a non-ML algorithm, and DLSS is done afterwards.

DLSS does the denoising since DLSS 1.0 see the DLSS announcement https://www.youtube.com/live/4_g_Y0W1Xn8?feature=share (pardon the crappy gaming channel, it looks like Nvidia weren’t running their own YouTube the time) It adds frames since I think 3.0.

That's odd, since you can use ray tracing without DLSS. I'm very sure it uses denoising even then.

Re: Quake's lightning gun bug explained [video]

#206

Post by nailer »

cubefox wrote: post #205
nailer wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DLSS does the denoising since DLSS 1.0 see the DLSS announcement https://www.youtube.com/live/4_g_Y0W1Xn8?feature=share (pardon the crappy gaming channel, it looks like Nvidia weren’t running their own YouTube the time) It adds frames since I think 3.0.

That's odd, since you can use ray tracing without DLSS. I'm very sure it uses denoising even then.

There may be some confusion between upscaling and denoising. You might notice I keep editing my comment because it’s really really hard to find old Nvidia release announcements.

Update: https://youtu.be/6O2B9BZiZjQ looks good around 3:54 Nvidia refer to “deep learning for image denoising” which to me seems like DLSS.

Ray tracing without DLSS might be a different denoising technique. Is it really slow when you turn it on ?

Re: Quake's lightning gun bug explained [video]

#207

Post by silisili »

Xenoamorphous wrote: post #33
cammikebrown wrote: post #14

Quake was the first PC game I played and still in my top 10 favorite games of all time. The movement STILL feels fresh!

When it came out I didn't quite like it. I was like, what's the advantage of 3D when it all looks so polygon-y? Duke Nukem "3D" looks better! The atmosphere was brilliant though.

At the time, going from quake to glquake felt like a huge leap in technology. How could graphics even get any better? I guess every generation goes through something like that.

Re: Quake's lightning gun bug explained [video]

#209

Post by NovaDudely »

cubefox wrote: post #78
Rodeoclash wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite curious to see what Quake would look like given a similar treatment as the new Doom games got. That is, distilled down to a pure essence of what the original was trying to achieve.

The new Doom games have little to do with the original Doom gameplay, perhaps because it wasn't that good in retrospect. For Quake there would be more potential for something like a remake.

I would say that Doom (1993) is one of the few games of that era still kind of holds up today, the gameplay hasn't aged poorly. Can't say the same about Wolf 3D.

Doom 2016 however made the right move. It wasn't out to replicate the old games but take the essence of it and re-imagine it in newer faster terms. It is not a sequel but something that stands next to the original. The focus is almost entirely on the fights but they are stacked that you actually have to plan your attack (figure out which enemy tier is most problematic) while in the middle of near absolute chaos. I get why people didn't like it but I thought it was such a brilliant homage to the original. The sequel, I wasn't too keen on.

Re: Quake's lightning gun bug explained [video]

#210

Post by Agentlien »

Eisenstein wrote: post #196
Agentlien wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loved the video, I love this type of analysis of bugs and glitches. This comment, however, just makes me nervous. It's like my innermost worry. I spend so much time trying to do a good job which I can be proud of and yet I always know there are bugs and I just hope not too many players notice and get annoyed by them. And here we are, pointing out poorly written code in practically ancient software and attributing i…

I found this looking through Carmack's .plan files. Perhaps you will appreciate it. Snippet: I want bug free software. I also want software that runs at infinite speed, takes no bandwidth, is flexible enough to do anything, and was finished yesterday. Every day I make decisions to let something stand and move on, rather than continuing until it is "perfect". Often, I really WANT to keep working on it, but other thing…

I feel the same way, all the time. The more time I spend improving and tweaking a solution, the longer the list of remaining improvements I wish I could do.

That's why pieces I publish about my work usually contain a fairly long section about potential further improvements.

Post reply on HN