Best high-res texture pack that works with original, un-f**ked-with QII?

[cotss2012]

I have the original Quake II disc and an operating system that can run it without complaint, as well as the Quake 4 Special DVD Edition that comes with the full version of Quake II and both of its expansions. I'm not interested in source ports or any of that bullsh**. I'm just interested in a texture pack that'll make Quake II look like Quake II RTX but without the raytracing. What are the best high-res texture packs that work with the original, un-f**ked-with Quake II, or with the version that comes on the Quake 4 DVD?

[Fulgrim]

You gonna need a sourceport anyway, for support of modern features, your textures, and the music. I use this, but maybe Quake2xp will fit you more, its less vanilla, more modern, with reworked HUD and new weapon skins, as in Q2RTX (but based on the original ones at least)
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2286921814

[Fulgrim]

Oh, and the best way to play Q2RTX without the ray-tracing would be to do exactly that, play Q2RTX without ray-tracing.

[Blue]

Originally posted by ≠ Bainelf:

Oh, and the best way to play Q2RTX without the ray-tracing would be to do exactly that, play Q2RTX without ray-tracing. :BL3Thumbsup:

This. Just change the Renderer from RTX to Opengl in video options.

[cotss2012]

I gave Quake2xp a try and it was more or less what I was looking for: a bunch of files that I could just blindly dump into a regular official Quake II folder. I'm shocked by the hardware demands. Even with all the bells and whistles turned off, I was still getting under 30 fps on a Geforce 700-series graphics card. And I didn't like the edges of my screen flashing different colors every time I picked up an item, went underwater, farted, etc. And it also crashed as soon as soon as I tried to save my game. Oh well.

Originally posted by Moody_Blue:

Originally posted by ≠ Bainelf:

Oh, and the best way to play Q2RTX without the ray-tracing would be to do exactly that, play Q2RTX without ray-tracing. :BL3Thumbsup:

This. Just change the Renderer from RTX to Opengl in video options.

Not possible. Quake II RTX will refuse to run on a graphics card that can't raytrace, regardless of whether you want to disable raytracing or not.

[Fulgrim]

Originally posted by cotss2012:

I gave Quake2xp a try and it was more or less what I was looking for: a bunch of files that I could just blindly dump into a regular official Quake II folder. I'm shocked by the hardware demands. Even with all the bells and whistles turned off, I was still getting under 30 fps on a Geforce 700-series graphics card. And I didn't like the edges of my screen flashing different colors every time I picked up an item, went underwater, farted, etc. And it also crashed as soon as soon as I tried to save my game. Oh well.

Originally posted by Moody_Blue:

This. Just change the Renderer from RTX to Opengl in video options.

Not possible. Quake II RTX will refuse to run on a graphics card that can't raytrace, regardless of whether you want to disable raytracing or not.

So the sourceport I given you should do the trick.

[alien_tickler]

Originally posted by cotss2012:

I gave Quake2xp a try and it was more or less what I was looking for: a bunch of files that I could just blindly dump into a regular official Quake II folder. I'm shocked by the hardware demands. Even with all the bells and whistles turned off, I was still getting under 30 fps on a Geforce 700-series graphics card. And I didn't like the edges of my screen flashing different colors every time I picked up an item, went underwater, farted, etc. And it also crashed as soon as soon as I tried to save my game. Oh well.

Originally posted by Moody_Blue:

This. Just change the Renderer from RTX to Opengl in video options.

Not possible. Quake II RTX will refuse to run on a graphics card that can't raytrace, regardless of whether you want to disable raytracing or not.

uhh what? works fine for me in opengl, so you don't know what you're talking about. you just change it in the command line before you enter the game.

[Blue]

Yep, if your graphics card can't raytrace, just right click on the game in your Steam library and select Properties, then in the launch options command line, type:- +set vid_rtx 0

[cotss2012]

Originally posted by TERMiNAL:

uhh what? works fine for me in opengl, so you don't know what you're talking about. you just change it in the command line before you enter the game.

"it works if you use this undocumented hack nobody talks about, you idiot"

*rolls eyes*

[UmbralPenumbra]

Originally posted by ≠ Bainelf:

You gonna need a sourceport anyway, for support of modern features

he already said hes' running an OS that can run the original just fine, so presumably he's either on XP or 7

[cotss2012]

Originally posted by Misanthrop:

Originally posted by ≠ Bainelf:

You gonna need a sourceport anyway, for support of modern features

he already said hes' running an OS that can run the original just fine, so presumably he's either on XP or 7

Laptop dual-boots Win7 and Linux. Desktop triple-boots WinXP, Win7, and Linux :)

[Fulgrim]

Originally posted by cotss2012:

Originally posted by Misanthrop:

he already said hes' running an OS that can run the original just fine, so presumably he's either on XP or 7

Laptop dual-boots Win7 and Linux. Desktop triple-boots WinXP, Win7, and Linux :)

But can it run Quake 2 ?

[Fulgrim]

Originally posted by Misanthrop:

Originally posted by cotss2012:

Laptop dual-boots Win7 and Linux. Desktop triple-boots WinXP, Win7, and Linux :)

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux,
is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component
of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell
utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day,
without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU
which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are
not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a
part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system
that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run.
The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself;
it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is
normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system
is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux"
distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

[cotss2012]

Technically neither Linux nor GNU is an operating system. Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. are operating systems that use Linux as their kernel.

The more important question is, how do I get the Windows version of Quake II to run correctly in WINE without the mouse controls getting all f**ked up?

[Fulgrim]

Originally posted by cotss2012:

Technically neither Linux nor GNU is an operating system. Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. are operating systems that use Linux as their kernel.

The more important question is, how do I get the Windows version of Quake II to run correctly in WINE without the mouse controls getting all f**ked up?

Sourceport it to Yamagi.

[UmbralPenumbra]

Originally posted by ≠ Bainelf:

Sourceport it to Yamagi.

Or just make a distro specifically for Quake 2 and call it Yamagi Linux