> I am really disappointed with Quake. From the past year, everyone has > been awaiting the arrival of Quake, which is supposed to blow away the > competition. After playing the shareware version of Quake, I wasn't too > pleased with it. I have a 486 Dx2/80 with a Diamond Stealth 64 2120 > video card and I get 6.2 fps in the start. While in Duke 3D, I get well > over 30+ fps. Why is Quake so slow compared to Duke 3D? The walls sure > don't any more 3D than Duke's but the lighting effects are superb. Also, > the monsters are 3D. So, the 3D monsters and the lighting effects > dragged down the fps?!? IMHO, Quake should have options in which the > user could turn off the lighting effects (torches, candles) and increase > the speed of the game.
It's the FPU requirement......a 486 FPU just doesn't have the muscle to run quake well....
: I am really disappointed with Quake. From the past year, everyone has : been awaiting the arrival of Quake, which is supposed to blow away the : competition. After playing the shareware version of Quake, I wasn't too : pleased with it. I have a 486 Dx2/80 with a Diamond Stealth 64 2120 : video card and I get 6.2 fps in the start. While in Duke 3D, I get well : over 30+ fps. Why is Quake so slow compared to Duke 3D? The walls sure
...blah blah blah true 3d blah blah 2.5d blah blah Pentium blah blah id are gods blah blah 3d realms suck blah duke has toliets, quake has true 3d blah blah blah blah only id can code games blah blah blah i want to have sex with john carmak blah blah blah upgrade blah blah blah only lamers have 486s blah blah blah blah blah...
Still have 486? Get a Pentium immediately! You remind me of those people who complained that DOOM was slow on their 386 when DOOM came out the first time.
:In article <4sfec5$...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>, smu...@vcn.bc.ca says... :> :> I am really disappointed with Quake. From the past year, everyone has :>been awaiting the arrival of Quake, which is supposed to blow away the :>competition. After playing the shareware version of Quake, I wasn't too :>pleased with it. I have a 486 Dx2/80 with a Diamond Stealth 64 2120 :>video card and I get 6.2 fps in the start. While in Duke 3D, I get well :>over 30+ fps. Why is Quake so slow compared to Duke 3D? The walls sure :>don't any more 3D than Duke's but the lighting effects are superb. Also, :>the monsters are 3D. So, the 3D monsters and the lighting effects :>dragged down the fps?!? IMHO, Quake should have options in which the :>user could turn off the lighting effects (torches, candles) and increase :>the speed of the game. :> :>
> Roch Ripley (smu...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote: > : I am really disappointed with Quake. From the past year, everyone has > : been awaiting the arrival of Quake, which is supposed to blow away the > : competition. After playing the shareware version of Quake, I wasn't too > : pleased with it. I have a 486 Dx2/80 with a Diamond Stealth 64 2120 > : video card and I get 6.2 fps in the start. While in Duke 3D, I get well > : over 30+ fps. Why is Quake so slow compared to Duke 3D? The walls sure
I think running either game on a 486 is an exercise in futility, but that's just me. My 486/50 couldn't begin to run QTest. Strangely enough, my Pentium 100 runs Quake a hell of a lot faster than it runs Duke 3d. I need to run Duke in DOS mode to get anything resembling speed, while Quake runs like a dream in Win 95.
Generally, I like both games, but play Duke more since I actually have the whole game...I killed the shareware already, and can't get Quake Shareware's TCP/IP to work at all, but that's a subject for another thread (see my "Q95.bat won't work" post). -Marc
: I am really disappointed with Quake. From the past year, everyone has : been awaiting the arrival of Quake, which is supposed to blow away the : competition. After playing the shareware version of Quake, I wasn't too : pleased with it. I have a 486 Dx2/80 with a Diamond Stealth 64 2120 : video card and I get 6.2 fps in the start. While in Duke 3D, I get well : over 30+ fps. Why is Quake so slow compared to Duke 3D? The walls sure : don't any more 3D than Duke's but the lighting effects are superb. Also, : the monsters are 3D. So, the 3D monsters and the lighting effects : dragged down the fps?!? IMHO, Quake should have options in which the : user could turn off the lighting effects (torches, candles) and increase : the speed of the game.
The /levels/ are actually 3-d too, unlike duke. Duke does a much better job of simulating 3dthan doom... doom and most clones have an overhead map with just changing floor/deiling heights where Duke is capable of linking more than one such map to enable rooms over rooms - you just move from one mao to another, in a psudo-teleport fashon. However, Quake is made up of blocks - there is no map, just lots of bricks of baried shapes that are arranged together. Actually look at the way levels are made, the rafters, the secrets, bridges, etc. and compare it to Duke. Much more flexability, if less variety apparent in the shareware. Actually i was never really clear on exactly how the duke engine worked. The most apparent demonstration of this, imo, is looking up/down. Am I the only person who just can't /stand/ things like heretic/duke's look up/down? The way duke's engine works, there is no other way to do it though.
(Gee, serious responces seem so out-of-place around here, don't they?) -Gopher
smu...@vcn.bc.ca (Roch Ripley) wrote: > I am really disappointed with Quake. From the past year, everyone has >been awaiting the arrival of Quake, which is supposed to blow away the >competition. After playing the shareware version of Quake, I wasn't too >pleased with it. I have a 486 Dx2/80 with a Diamond Stealth 64 2120 >video card and I get 6.2 fps in the start. While in Duke 3D, I get well >over 30+ fps. Why is Quake so slow compared to Duke 3D? The walls sure
Well over 30+ fps at start of Duke3d ? Thats top DX4-100 speed. Actually I haven't seen a DX4-100 that tops 28. After rocket blows and everything becomes silent.
>don't any more 3D than Duke's but the lighting effects are superb. Also, >the monsters are 3D. So, the 3D monsters and the lighting effects >dragged down the fps?!? IMHO, Quake should have options in which the >user could turn off the lighting effects (torches, candles) and increase >the speed of the game.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just stick to Duke as normal people do.
hrai...@cloud9.net wrote: >Roch Ripley (smu...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote: >: I am really disappointed with Quake. From the past year, everyone has >: been awaiting the arrival of Quake, which is supposed to blow away the >: competition. After playing the shareware version of Quake, I wasn't too >: pleased with it. I have a 486 Dx2/80 with a Diamond Stealth 64 2120 >: video card and I get 6.2 fps in the start. While in Duke 3D, I get well >: over 30+ fps. Why is Quake so slow compared to Duke 3D? The walls sure > ...blah blah blah true 3d blah blah 2.5d blah blah Pentium blah blah id >are gods blah blah 3d realms suck blah duke has toliets, quake has true 3d >blah blah blah blah only id can code games blah blah blah i want to have sex >with john carmak blah blah blah upgrade blah blah blah only lamers have 486s >blah blah blah blah blah...
blah blah blah sell your Pentium, then earn money yourself and buy it blah blah blah blah rich parents lblah blah blah stupid kids blah blah
> I am really disappointed with Quake. From the past year, everyone has > been awaiting the arrival of Quake, which is supposed to blow away the > competition. After playing the shareware version of Quake, I wasn't > too pleased with it. I have a 486 Dx2/80 with a Diamond Stealth 64 > 2120 video card and I get 6.2 fps in the start. While in Duke 3D, I > get well over 30+ fps. Why is Quake so slow compared to Duke 3D? The > walls sure don't any more 3D than Duke's but the lighting effects are > superb. Also, the monsters are 3D. So, the 3D monsters and the > lighting effects dragged down the fps?!? IMHO, Quake should have > options in which the user could turn off the lighting effects (torches, > candles) and increase the speed of the game.
OK, I'll start by solving your problem... There's an option, r_fullbright (1/0) which turns off all lighting effects and speeds up the FPS tremendously. There's also r_drawflat (1/0) which is incredibly ugly, but turns off all wall textures... Thus making it runnable on a 486. And as for your comments, "3d monsters and lighting effects dragged ddown the FPS", no. They're not the main reason. The actual thing is that Quake is an actual 3D game. Everything in the game needs three coordinates to locate, an x-value, a y-value, and a z-value. Duke 3D uses a method of tricking you into seeing 3D when it's actually a 2D map projected into 3D. Doom used the same technique, I beleive it's called "raycasting", but I may be mistaken. Now, the thing is - to all those technically inclined, Quake is an incredible leap over Duke 3D, almost as id promised - makes it "seem like Pong". But as for what the average gamer sees, there may not be too much of a difference. But trust me, it's there. A MAJOR factor for the immersiveness of Quake is having the proper system to run it. I've seen it run on a 486 - trust me, don't even bother. Wait till you can play it on a Pentium system and appreciate it. I'd reccomend 16 megs of RAM, too - though that's not quite as important. The major difference is that when you, for example, jump in or out of the water in Duke, it's not as seamless as it seems. it's a transporter, moving you to another location on the map. It may seem as though the water is right there, and that you can jump in, and you'll be right there - it's an illusion. This makes it very hard for level makers to make beleivable levels, as many people complain. Quake is relatively simple, for all of it's complexities. You build a room as you'd think of it, how it is in real life, with height, width and depth. That's the difference.
|
