Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From:	Elliott Oti <oti AT phys DOT uu DOT nl>
Subject:	Re: Allegro 3, and speed ?
Sender:	usenet AT phys DOT uu DOT nl (News system Tijgertje)
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.4.03.9809251001010.15066-100000@ruunf0.phys.uu.nl>
In-Reply-To:	<360aae75.0@news1.mweb.co.za>
Date:	Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:23:49 GMT
References:	<360aae75 DOT 0 AT news1 DOT mweb DOT co DOT za>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Organization:	Physics and Astronomy, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Lines:	29
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Dalvemg wrote:

> I am making a decent 3d thing, and was wondering about speed and allegro.
> Just how does it rank? It isn't very difficult to make my own graphics stuff
> and optimize it with inline assembler but it might be pointless if allegro
> is already really fast! Anyone tested it ?

Depending on what you want to do, and what your target CPU is, Allegro
might be fast, fast enough or too slow.

For a 6-DOF dungeon type game with lots of polygon detail, Allegro's
polygon routines are probably unsuitable, not really because they are
slow, but because you are limited to the Painter's algorithm for rendering
images, and the overdraw will kill your framerate, fast polygon renderer
or not.

For Wing Commander-like space shooters Allegro's 3d routines should be
fast enough, unless you get very ambitious and include heavily detailed
models, planet surfaces and the like.  

My advice is, just use the Allegro functions as-is. Should it turn out
when your program is tested on "real" models, that the speed doesn't cut
it, you can always rewrite the functions for more speed. It enables you to
concentrate on the essentials of your program, instead of worrying about
the details.

  Elliott Oti
  http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~oti

- Raw text -