Quake 3 in 10240x3072
by Jennie Lees 
{ Mar 10th 2006 at 8:00PM }
This setup might be enough to make any hardened gamer weep with envy. Especially hardened gamers who've just splashed out on a new monitor themselves (we're not bitter). Running Quake 3 at a resolution of 10240x3072, this custom multi-panel display consists of 24 monitors powered by 12 Linux servers, created as part of a wall-based user interface research project. Warcraft II has also made it big, but at 3840x2160 it looks positively tiny next to the Quake 3 setup.
[Via Opposable Thumbs]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
refinedsugar @ Mar 10th 2006 8:16PM
I guess I'm supposed to look at that and be impressed, but I'm not. I definitely wouldn't wanna play a game on that setup.
Patrick @ Mar 10th 2006 8:40PM
I have a 61" plasma screen for my computer and game systems so the size doesn't really impress me. I do like the fact that they curved the setup so it looks like the image surrounds you kinda get a 180 view of the game.
weaszel @ Mar 10th 2006 8:42PM
Haha, that sucker's playing an FPS on a Gyration mouse? The lag on those things is just awful.
Afroloop @ Mar 10th 2006 8:43PM
Well I just ordered the Dell 30 inch display; I think that is about as high rez as I will be going...
Nushio @ Mar 10th 2006 8:51PM
Well, the resolution is amazing, but it doesnt look that good with all the divisions from each tv :/
GangWay @ Mar 10th 2006 9:19PM
Wow talk about PC snobs!"I guess I'm supposed to look at that and be impressed, but I'm not." That is a killer set up, it just goes to show that most PC gamers are lil stuck up snobs that cant give credit where it is deserved.
DOC @ Mar 10th 2006 9:20PM
c'mon joystiq... Gamer weep with envy? Not me, thats not even a proof of concept. Thats... Just a total waste of money.
I would rather play Quake 4 on an apple cinema OR, if huge is what u want, on an real HIGH END DLP projector than to play an outdated game on such a high res setup
Its like trying to hook up an ATARI 2600 on HDTV! :]
aZm @ Mar 10th 2006 9:25PM
Why not just use stereoscpoic 3-D?
It looks 10 X better.
Especially with a visor which covers the whole range of vision.
Todd @ Mar 10th 2006 10:33PM
Uh, no. I'm not watching a movie from the first row and I'm not playing any games on this thing.
refinedsugar @ Mar 10th 2006 11:06PM
GangWay, you're a douche. That's not a killer setup. I agree with what Nushio and Todd have said. Where each monitor starts and ends look horrible and could you realistically see yourself playing on that thing looking up from your keyboard? Seriously. You couldn't even see or tell what the hell you were doing... and good luck not having your neck break off in ten minutes of staring up at it.
GangWAY @ Mar 11th 2006 12:20AM
refinedsuger, ummm....lets see where to start. Gee, your right it looks "horrilbe". Your right, your neck would "break off". You feel better? Ive heard people same the the thing about playing games on a 50" 10 years ago. But just like in real life your focused on the center of the screen. Everything else is in the peripheral field. That set up is killer because it would make you more immersed and the resolution is incredible. So maby its too much for you, but I think its cool.
Patrick @ Mar 11th 2006 12:35AM
I have been thinking, they have 24 monitors plus the computer cluster this thing would cost a heck of a lot. Why do something like this? Seems like a waste of money to me. You could get a real nice large LCD screen for like a tenth the price and there would be no borders every 12 inches.
Leitzge @ Mar 11th 2006 1:54AM
Well, I can't really see myself playing a game on that. The edges of the screens would be annoying. It would be like seeing a huge tile of the game. I guess if you sit further back it would be okay. Anyway, awesome idea!
NaviePoo @ Mar 11th 2006 2:23AM
Man, you guys are bitchy!
Steve @ Mar 11th 2006 3:26AM
*sigh* I realise this may be a daft question but does anyone actually read the linked story before bitching? This setup already existed in the lab, it's just been modified to run Quake 3. Little, or more likely no, money was spent to do this. Instead we seem to be dealing with an old-school geek who sees a setup like this and thinks "what if". To be honest I wish there were more of 'em around, seem to be a dying breed these days... And for those complaining about the gaps between screens you've kinda missed the point. The display technology is, more or less, irrelevant. The impressive feat from a technical point of view is bringing 12 Linux servers together to not just pump out an image at 10240x3072 but to do so with a playable game.
robert @ Mar 11th 2006 2:28PM
bunch of haters here. read the story and stop your bitchin'.
Garrett @ Mar 12th 2006 5:27AM
I must say I'm impressed.
And as to those saying "zomg it not teh sexi quake 4!1!"... HELLO, graphics aren't everything. Q4 is infinitely more complicated, running it a multi-server setup would be a painful project (and no doubt require faster/more servers). Q3 is simpler tech-wise.
As for comparing an HDTV to this I'd say this would be superior if the game were actually set up to render the display with a sort of fish-eye effect (so you're actually seeing to left and right, instead of staring at what's essentially a widescreen monitor that only *implies* peripheral vision). As it is the current setup really isn't taking advantage of the peripheries.
But even so it's an amazing achievement, and the fact that it's *playable* even moreso.
Warcraft 2 running at such a high res is also great, brings back fond memories. In fact I'd say that's an even better application of a multi-monitor setup. You'd be surveying almost the entire map at a glance, single-monitor opponents wouldn't stand a chance of sneaking troops up on you, let alone the sometimes unfair AIs. Awesome stuff.
jonli @ Mar 13th 2006 2:14PM
OK, so if you can't afford a big screen DLP projector or a 65" plasma screen, and just happen to have 24 LCD monitors and 12 PC's lying around, then I guess this would be something cool to do. But personally, I'm much rather play this on the DLP or Plasma screen.
The wrapping of the screens is pointless because you don't actually get to see more. And what you do see is spacially inaccurate. What would make this truly innovative would be showing what is actually on the right in the right monitor, what is behind you in a monitor behind you, etc. There was a flight-sim setup that used 7 monitors and that actually showed MORE than what you would normally see.
I'm not a hater, but I just don't think it's that impressive.
Glenn @ Mar 13th 2006 2:32PM
As it's been said before, the screens are not that impressive, the resolution + multiple Linux servers is what is. No one is trying to sell this to you, it's just an expirement.