From: Jeff Weeks <pweeks AT execulink DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: "Are Allegro's routines fast enough to write Quake-like games?" - No. HUH?
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:05:52 -0400
Organization: Code X Software
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <33A3F6C0.305A8DFF@execulink.com>
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>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp5.mercury.execulink.com
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

>     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)

As far as I know, Descent really wasn't 3D.  It uses (pretty much) the
same ol' tricks that Doom did to create pseudo 3D worlds.  You'll also
notice that in descent, the characters are actually 2D sprites.

In Quake everything is totally 3D (except the fire) and has dynamic
light source shading.  This takes up a large ammount of processor time
because of all the calculations that must be done to render one scene. 
And the characters in Quake are totally 3D too, which means even more
polys to render.

Jeff

--------------------------------------------
            - Code X Software -
       Programming to a Higher Power
  
  email: mailto:pweeks AT execulink DOT com
  web:	 http://www.execulink.com/~pweeks/
--------------------------------------------