From: Dean Kusler <doughb0y AT juno DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: "Are Allegro's routines fast enough to write Quake-like games?" - No.
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 21:08:07 -0600
Organization: DigiPhone Corporation, Bryan/College Station Texas 409-693-8885
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <3474FB16.ECE3FA21@juno.com>
References: <199705232152 DOT QAA08574 AT rrnet DOT com> <5mqqq0$ld6$1 AT mack DOT rt66 DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: usr01s8.myriad.net
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

> >I'm sorry, but I'd have to say no on this one...  Allegro has rather
> slow
> >3D routines if you ask me...  Now, if you look at something like
> Plush3D
> >by Justin Frankel (http://nullsoft.home.ml.org), that'd probably be
> fast
> >enough.
> >
> >Allegro's routines are decent, but they definitely need
> optimization...  When
> >you look at the 3D routines, they're all in C, probably not a good
> thing :)
>
> >Actually, Plush is all C, Allegro uses asm. But good try.
>

Yeah, bad assembly can be worse than bad compiled code, often much
worse. But good assembly is almost always better than good compiled
code. I guess Allegro just needs to trash it's 3D code and start with a
different algorithm. Implementation is important, but the algorithm more
so.

neurotic insecurity."  - Lazarus Long|
---------------------------------------------------------------------