 |
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.misc
From: Scott Lyon <sco...@cyberlynk.com>
Date: 1996/07/16
Subject: Re: Why is Quake SOO SLOW?!?
Roch Ripley wrote: It's the FPU requirement......a 486 FPU just doesn't have the muscle to > I am really disappointed with Quake. From the past year, everyone has run quake well.... -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.misc
From: hrai...@cloud9.net
Date: 1996/07/16
Subject: Re: Why is Quake SOO SLOW?!?
: 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 You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.misc
From: who@where (who)
Date: 1996/07/16
Subject: Re: Why is Quake SOO SLOW?!?
Still have 486? Get a Pentium immediately! :In article <4sfec5$...@milo.vcn.bc.ca>, smu...@vcn.bc.ca says... You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.misc
From: Marc Mielke <sykr...@hula.net>
Date: 1996/07/16
Subject: Re: Why is Quake SOO SLOW?!?
> Roch Ripley (smu...@vcn.bc.ca) wrote: I think running either game on a 486 is an exercise in futility, but > : 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 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 You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.misc
From: mmor...@netcom.com (Gopher)
Date: 1996/07/17
Subject: Re: Why is Quake SOO SLOW?!?
: 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 (Gee, serious responces seem so out-of-place around here, don't they?) You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.misc
From: em...@unknown.com (Bill Hates)
Date: 1996/07/17
Subject: Re: Why is Quake SOO SLOW?!?
smu...@vcn.bc.ca (Roch Ripley) wrote: Well over 30+ fps at start of Duke3d ? Thats top DX4-100 speed. > 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 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, Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just stick to Duke as normal people do. >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. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.misc
From: em...@unknown.com (Bill Hates)
Date: 1996/07/17
Subject: Re: Why is Quake SOO SLOW?!?
hrai...@cloud9.net wrote: blah blah blah sell your Pentium, then earn money yourself and buy it >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 blah rich parents lblah blah blah stupid kids blah blah You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
|
Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.misc
From: Valentino Zanin <ZE...@m5.sprynet.com>
Date: 1996/07/21
Subject: Re: Why is Quake SOO SLOW?!?
> I am really disappointed with Quake. From the past year, everyone has OK, I'll start by solving your problem... There's an option, r_fullbright > 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. (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. Ben -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||
