Date:	Thu, 05 Jun 1997 11:57:17 -0700
From:	Bill Currie <billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz>
Subject:	Re: "Are Allegro's routines fast enough to write Quake-like games?" -
	No. HUH?
To:	Roberto Henriquez Laurent <shl24634 AT alumnos DOT inf-cr DOT uclm DOT es>
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Reply-to:	billc AT blackmagic DOT tait DOT co DOT nz
Message-id:	<33970C0D.23A6@blackmagic.tait.co.nz>
Organization:	Tait Electronics NZ
MIME-version:	1.0
References:	<199705232152 DOT QAA08574 AT rrnet DOT com> <33875EFC DOT 2306 AT imag DOT net>
	<5m8o7e$mo6 AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca> <338b7ff5 DOT 3171460 AT news DOT cybermax DOT net>
	<5n24bf$ert AT nr1 DOT toronto DOT istar DOT net> <33953049 DOT 82D8D021 AT alumnos DOT inf-cr DOT uclm DOT es>

Roberto Henriquez Laurent wrote:
>     Another question: I know the Quake engine is good. But, what are the
> big differences between Quake's and Descent's engines? Because Descent
> gave real 3D just as Quake does, but at a decent speed in my 486... Why
> is Quake's engine so superior? (that would explain the CPU time it
> costs)

One word: scale.

Descent's world was all tunnels and closed spaces, thus relativly easy
to render.

Quake's world is a lot of open spaces (there are some places that allow
you to see right across the level, which can't be done in Descent.

That is the biggest difference.  Also, Quake's entities and rooms are
much more detailed than Descent's.

Bill
-- 
Leave others their otherness.

- Raw text -