Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/03/09/09:28:26
"D. Huizenga" <skis AT concentric DOT net> wrote:
>
> I have been using Allegro for graphics programming in the game that
> I am currently working on. While it does get around 200 FPS (It
> actually updates the video ram faster than the monitor scans the
> screen), I wonder if Allegro is the fastest. The reason I wonder
> is that I want my game to run well on slow computers as well, such
> as a 486/33, or a 486/66 (DX2). Does anybody have speed comparisons?
That depends on what you use of Allegro and how much flexibility do you need.
Allegro used just to blit a screen created with your own routines is just as
faster as any library you can create. These routines are simple and fast.
Now, if you use more things like drawing routines, perhaps you can get a
faster library than Allegro, but it won't be as flexible as Allegro. Allegro
provides great flexibility (a lot of video modes and functionallities) at a
very good speed.
Of course you can make a faster library to support just some modes.
SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013
- Raw text -