Reply-To: <arfa AT clara DOT net>
From: "Arthur" <arfa AT clara DOT net>
To: "DJGPP Mailing List" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>, "Dalvemg" <dalvemg AT mweb DOT co DOT za>
Subject: RE: Allegro 3, and speed ?
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:47:31 +0100
Message-ID: <000201bde804$ee62af80$784e08c3@arthur>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <360aae75.0@news1.mweb.co.za>
Precedence: bulk

> I am making a decent 3d thing, and was wondering about speed and allegro.
> Just how does it rank? It isn't very difficult to make my own
> graphics stuff
> and optimize it with inline assembler but it might be pointless if allegro
> is already really fast! Anyone tested it ?

IMO, Allegro's polygon routines could be optimised a little further, and you
could speed upi the routines by using dot and cross products yourself
instead of calling the relevant functions.

Generally, people use Allegro's 3D routines (which are pretty basic) until
they work out how to do it all themselves. The 3D math functions are useful,
but since they are standard maths algorithms used in practically all 3D
engines, most people re-write them to be more suited to the task in hand.
This is, of course, what I have gathered from what several programmers have
said to me in the past. I'm sure someone will prove me wrong, though.

James Arthur
jaa AT arfa DOT clara DOT net
ICQ#15054819