UE4Arch, a company dedicated to creating and pushing forward hyper-realistic virtual creations that can be experienced in virtual reality, has shared two images, showing the first Quake being recreated in Unreal Engine 4.
For what is worth, we don’t know whether UE4Arch will release to the public such a project. This is a fan-made project and not an official one. Still, we believe this is something that will put a smile on all old-school fans’ faces, so go ahead and enjoy the screenshots.
Oh, and it appears that Quake will get an unofficial Vulkan port. id Software’s Engine programmer Axel Gneiting has shared the source code of his Vulkan Quake 1 Port. This is still experimental code, however those familiar with it can compile it and enjoy Quake running in Vulkan.
You can get the code for Vulkan Quake 1 from here.
Have fun!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Quake in unreal engine?
Oh gosh, this feels so wrong. xD
Ironic, but it actually feels SO RIGHT!!!
I’m dieing to see more of this likeIWANTITNAAAUUU!!!!
Unreal Engine 4 is good choice – full support of DX12, good lighting, and its nearly free
It’s about principles. It’s unthinkable for an id Software IP to be made on an engine other than idTech.
Why? I thing that Unreal Engine is superior to idTech Engine. If you check last 10 years there are at lest 10-20x more games on Unreal Engine than idTech Engine. Most developers choose UE
BTW: UE4, Unity 5.4 and CryEngine 5 are free or nearly free. ID Software idTech is not free – I believe you need have agreement with ZeniMax to use idTech (owner of ID Software).
After Doom and the release of Vulkan support I think the opposite is true.
I don’t think so. For example idTech 6 dosn’t support DX12 on PC or Xbox. I read on Wikipedia that Doom use old DX11 on Xbox One. Strange. Unreal Engine 4 have way superior support of consoles with full DX12 support on Xbox One and PC.
And UE4 is nearly free for everyone. IDTech 6 is available only for games published by ZeniMax (parent company of ID Software) so its very expensive. You can’t create indie fan-game on idTech 6 without publishing agreement with ZeniMax Media
I can’t seem to find a source for that (DOOM running on DX11 on Xbox One), but regardless, if that is actually true, we have nobody to blame but Microsoft, I’d say.
After all, short of Microsoft refusing to support Vulkan on the Xbox one SDK, I see no other reason why id Software would have gone with DirectX 11 instead.
“I can’t seem to find a source for that (DOOM running on DX11”
Open wikipedia page about idTech 6 engine:
“Rendering API – PS4 GNM/GNMX, Xbox Direct3D 11”
Unreal Engine 4 is superior with full suport of DX12 instead DX11. I hope that every developer will use UE4, CryEngine 5, Unity 5.4 instead of idTech because only idTech doesn’t support DX12.
It says “Direct3D 11?” Note the “?” at the end. It’s unconfirmed.
Regardless, as I said – blame Microsoft, they’re most likely the ones being childish with this, & no, Unreal 4 would be superior, if DirectX 12 were the superior API, but since its not, Unreal 4 isn’t “superior” because of “full DX12 support.”
Besides that, I seriously hope less people adopt Unreal 4 in 2016 & 2017 for the simple reason that I’m tired of lazy idiots making things that look exactly the same. Seriously, it’s ridiculous how similar all the Unreal 4 games look.
Of course they don’t support DX12, IDTech has been OpenGL forever. Irrelevant point. Doom 3 only supported OpenGL, not DX11. Even Jhn Carmack said that on Twitter.
UE4 costs money when using it to make real games and sell them:
“Royalty Payment and Tracking
Once you’ve begun collecting money for your product, you’ll need to track gross revenue and pay a 5% royalty on that amount after the first $3000 per game per calendar quarter.”
Given how amazing and efficient ID Tech 6 is I can understand why they only allow the companies under the umbrella to use it.
id Software hasn’t been licensing out id Tech Engines ever since id Tech 5 (2010) in the first place, so that argument is automatically mute, as there can be no true comparison between the two in that regard.
The only people who have been exempted from this rule & have actually had a choice in regards to licensing id Tech 5/6 outside of id Software are people who’ve been willing to sign their game up for ZeniMax-Bethesda publishing (ex. Human Head Studios – Prey 2). Though with a requirement like that, I can easily see id Software foregoing any currency payment in exchange for permission to use id Tech, which would technically make it both the cheapest (read: completely free), & the most expensive Engine of the lot you mentioned (assuming you view working with ZeniMax-Bethesda as a very heavy cost).
Features-wise, id Tech 4 had, at DOOM 3’s launch, excellent visuals (in terms of lighting, textures, etc.), & it’s aged extremely well ever since over the years, with DOOM 3 having some really, really stunning visual Mods even today. id Tech 5 (RAGE), also had excellent features, but the RAGE version suffered from several major problems which they only fixed afterwards.
id Tech 6 in turn appears to be an excellent, cutting-edge engine (with some exceptions, again, SVO-whatever-I), but I can’t seem to note anything major that Unreal 4 has & id Tech 6 lacks, except maybe DX12, but they do have Vulkan, by comparison.
The new iDTech 6 that was used in DOOM is brilliant!
Unreal 4’s lighting is “good” yes, but not the best.
Still no SVOGI/SVOTI/SVO-whatever-I.
Actually, UE4 can make use of VXGI. If you use it correctly, it can look similar to SVOTI, and depending on the way you do lighting, better than just slapping on SVOTI.
*rolls eyes*
You don’t happen to be related to Drax, do you?
I know right! That was my 1st thought.
Actually lol. You are right 😛
Finally Radeon owners will be able to play Quake at good speeds,
wtf because the couldn’t in the past ?
Dude, it’s a sarcastic joke at expenses of Quake being an old game that runs at 1,000fps in any machine these days.
Oh okay i thought it was about some ati problem back in the days
Was anyone even using ATI/Radeon cards when FPS in Quake was still an issue?
All I remember is Voodoo……
Normally I feel the same way, grain of salt, roll of the eye and click!. This time I give them a fighting chance though, Quake is pretty old so its not a giant amount of data they are looking at, and there have been tons of mods and graphical upgrades applied to the original game already so they at least have a good base to work off of.
” For example idTech 6 dosn’t support DX12 on PC or Xbox”
No they have something better called support for windows 7 8.1 and windows 10. That is what so positive about it.
And don’t come up the answer like: Oh but according to steam survey people have
moved on to Windows 10 and there are now more Windows 10 users than 7
and 8.1 combined.
Steam doesn’t portray the whole PC community
there are still more PC’s in the world operating on Windows 7 and 8.1
combined than there are on windows 10. And another thing since Windows
10 was a free upgrade there wasn’t much to people not upgrading to the
newest OS not to mention the forced windows 10 upgrades when people
didn’t want that.
So it’s most likely that the big increase of the
amount of PC running on Windows 10 will stop to grow rapidly when the
free upgrade ends very soon.
“For example idTech 6 dosn’t support DX12 on PC or Xbox No they have something better called support for windows 7 8.1”
Very few gamers still use old version of Windows. On Steam there are more DX12 gamers than DX11 gamers. Check stats from last month
I literally pointed out the 0.71% difference between the two numbers to you days ago, but you’re still shilling out that very same claim. Nice.
“Very few.”
Lol’d.
“Steam doesn’t portray the whole PC community”
You’re right. On EA Origin there are more DX12 players than on Steam. Two months ago lead developer of Frostbite Engine (Battlefield 1) said that:
First off both of the surveys for Origin and Steam are both OPTIONAL so they can’t be a judge for all pc hardware on steam and origin because some people aren’t going to participate at all I would know because I did not take part in the origin survey.If it was mandatory then ya sure it would a judge of pc hardware on steam and origin but its not.
And again Origin and Steam do not portray the all the PC users.
There are more businesses out there that have nothing to do with gaming and still don’t use Windows 10.
Also don’t forget people that buy laptops and pre-build PC’s already have the most recent OS on them so most people don’t bother with installing the one they like. Like it’s been said these surveys you show are all optional you can just skip so not very accurate.
Here are some statistics that show the usage of different Operating Systems and not only focus gaming PC’s:
And it clearly shows that the majority still doesn’t have Windows 10. Now it has to be said that these statistics are never 100% accurate, but it’s more accurate than your Origin or Steam survey.
“And again Origin and Steam do not portray the all the PC users”
Yes, they portray all PC gamers, not users but all gamers
Ridiculous. There’s a massive overlap between the Steam & Origin Communities, guaranteed. At best, total, combined, the two services together amount to maybe ~72% of the entire PC Gaming Community.
Steam (alone) portrays about ~70% of the entire PC Gaming Community, worldwide. The other ~30% are people who either don’t use Steam in favour of DRM-free services such as GOG Galaxy (not Origin, since that’s also technically a DRM service), or just don’t use Digital Distribution at all, preferring to stick to physical, offline copies because of whatever reason.
You’d be amazed how many people still have data caps, limited bandwidth, travel a lot, etc. which makes them prefer such “cord-less” options.
I’m not going to lie, I was expecting this to look like total butts, but it looks like a really faithful rendition. Those details on the floor textures are sick af. Nice, accurate materials, good use of lighting. I’m feeling it.
Why would anyone want to run Quake in Vulkan? So that their async compute enabled graphics card can finally reach 60 FPS? I don’t think so.
Someone should finally start blocking IPs of some Macrohard’s employees infesting DSOG discussions with copious amounts of fresh bullsheet.
So, you’re saying I should blame Vulkan’s late release date for Xbox One’s DOOM not having Vulkan, even today?
Ok, I’ll keep that in mind for when the next Vulkan game (with Vulkan at launch) doesn’t have Vulkan on its Xbox One version.
Hope you don’t mind if I come back here at that point in time & defunct your argument completely, totally, utterly, fully, & wholly, while at the same time reinstating mine, you poor, poor shill.
Do you not understand the very words (read: English) you’re using to reply to me, or is this all just part of your troll act?
“trying to jam the game into a new render engine on a console post-release would be a pretty horrific technical exercise with little to no benefit, given the limited resources available on current consoles.”
I.E. – Vulkan wasn’t added onto the Xbox One version of DOOM, because “too much effort required”, basically.
Or, rather, if you prefer; Vulkan wasn’t added onto the Xbox One version of DOOM, because “too much effort” & “no such precedent, so f*ck it.”
I hope my translating to English for you from Moronese didn’t offend your obviously highly delicate & extremely sensitive sensibilities? 🙁
Actually I’ve been aware of the cost associated with patching (the “Certification Process”, or whatever you want to call it) for years, as well as its history – it stems back to the 80’s video game market crash which resulted from dumb, greedy-as-f*ck publishers pumping out broken games over & over, which resulted in the crash, & Nintendo implementing the “Nintendo Seal of Approval” (or whatever) process to guarantee quality in the pre-Internet Patching era.
I’ve actually pointed it out on several occasions to other people as well (feel free to check my posting history, as I doubt you’ll just take my word for it), & even further back, before DSOG, on other sites, to people who’ve been wondering why even though a developer says the PC patch is ready, “it’s not out yet, because Consoles” (I believe the PS3/X360’s approval process took about 2 weeks or so).
Honestly I’m amazed they’re still using this absurdly outdated “time-honoured” tradition of dragging every-single update through the mud for weeks, even after it’s done, “because” (considering how developers can fix anything eminently obvious in an afternoon now, what with the Internet), but that’s a separate argument entirely.
Your wall-of-text anti-Vulkan argument seems to come down to “console users don’t want to fiddle” (not sure what that has to do with anything, but sure, whatever, agreed), & “the gains would be marginal, so it’s not particularly cost-effective, even.”
Since you keep talking about gains; you do realise most PS4/XONE games run at 30 FPS, sub-1080p, right? I mean, I do so hate to slap you in the face with the obvious (yeah, not really) but that was the major incentive of DX12 on the XBONE – a little extra power to work with, a few more FPS, another few pixels. A little more power, on an extremely power-constrained machine.
Vulkan is the exact same thing, so claiming (in your own words) “that the current console hardware doesn’t have all that much to gain from” it, basically means the Xbox One doesn’t have all that much to gain from DX12 either. Technically, that’s actually something I can agree with you on (based on DX12 comparisons from the PC), as so far we’ve only seen a minor FPS gain with it on DX12, which of course doesn’t mean much for a PC user already at 70+ FPS, but for consoles, every single inch counts, regardless of if that inch comes from Vulkan or DX12, & if that inch is 3, 5, 7, or 15 FPS.
Granted, that would be for non-DOOM cases primarily, as id Software actually managed to get DOOM to run at 1080p, 60 FPS on consoles anyway, but even they in turn have to use “dynamic resolution” to keep the FPS stable, & even then, FPS drops have been documented, so, again, while the benefit would be overall “marginal,” there is a benefit to having Vulkan or DX12 (on a game-per-game basis) on the XBONE.
P.S. Loving the personal attack btw, they’re just oozing with maturity, making you look real professional, & not at all like an arrogant pr*ck.
As such, here’s a hint for next time; grow up a little, toss out the condescension, the personal attacks, the ego stroking, the epeen swinging, & just try something like this, from the start, then;
“Or, you know, how about the fact that Vulkan is still by far in its infancy, & consoles aren’t particularly known for adopting experimental, unstable software. Or yeah, we could just blame Microsoft being anti-competitive for the lack of Vulkan support on the Xbone version of DOOM, I suppose.”
Carries your point across rather more clearly than “you sad pathetic sh*t, bla bla bla, bla bla bla, go jump off a building before you have kids, bla bla bla, bla bla.”