From:	Roberto Henriquez Laurent <shl24634 AT alumnos DOT inf-cr DOT uclm DOT es>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: "Are Allegro's routines fast enough to write Quake-like games?" - No. HUH?
Date:	Wed, 04 Jun 1997 11:07:22 +0200
Organization:	Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Lines:	30
Message-ID:	<33953049.82D8D021@alumnos.inf-cr.uclm.es>
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>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	est271.mag-cr.uclm.es
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Jeffrey Drake wrote:

> being that the previous message was about Quake, has anybody gotten
> quake
> to work on 486DX2/66 w/16Meg ram? I have, but haven't found anyone
> else who
> has.
>
    I have too (shareware versions 1.01-1.06). But when I upgraded to a
GUS-supporting version it became impossible to play. (It almost was,
already). Even the FX where played sluggishly :-(    However I didn't
need any boot-disk.

    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)

        Thanks...

> Allegros routines would be depending on the processor and speed.
> --
>
> Jeffrey Drake
> jdrake AT lonet DOT ca
> www.lonet.ca/res/jdrake

- Raw text -