From: Vic <tudor AT cam DOT org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: "Are Allegro's routines fast enough to write Quake-like games?" - No.
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 16:26:54 -0400
Organization: Communications Accesibles Montreal
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <338B438E.4222@cam.org>
References: <199705232152 DOT QAA08574 AT rrnet DOT com> <338A0E4E DOT 5540 AT tc DOT umn DOT edu>
Reply-To: tudor AT cam DOT org
NNTP-Posting-Host: dynppp-78.hip.cam.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Jawed Karim wrote:
> I'd have to say that Allegro is quite decent, but not the best in speed.
> No offense, but Allegro's 3d capabilities are a little disappointing.
> Plush is definitely far better for 3D. Plush by the way is also all in
> C, that doesn't mean it's slow though.
Is plush3D free? Anyways, IF you would optimize the Allegro source code
with a little ASM, would it get fast enough? 
(We should also consider the fact that the 3D routines are rather new to
allegro).
What about the other routines? (graphics)
-- 
http://www.cam.org/~tudor
"I INSERTED THE DISK INTO THE COMPUTER, AND TURNED IT ON. LET THERE BE
DOS,I SAID! AND THERE WAS DOS." -- Bill Gates, 1977