Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:3258
From: Stephen DOT Piner AT comp DOT vuw DOT ac DOT nz (Stephen Piner)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: QUAKE and DJGPP
Date: 29 Apr 1996 04:25:14 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <4m1gba$ggj@st-james.comp.vuw.ac.nz>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 960415152629 DOT 2810A-100000 AT mozcom2 DOT mozcom DOT com> <4llo8a$ojv AT labrat DOT sedona DOT net> <4lqoo7$4ka AT newsserv DOT grfn DOT org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: majestic.comp.vuw.ac.nz
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <4lqoo7$4ka AT newsserv DOT grfn DOT org>, Nathan Kopp <nkopp AT grfn DOT org> wrote:

: I downloaded the QUAKE test demo about a month ago.  It ran painfully 
: slow on my P75, even in 320x200 mode.  Is this slowness the fault of 
: DJGPP (Descent II using DOS4GW runs much faster) or is it ineffecient 
: programming on the part of ID software.  Maybe they've got an optimized 
: version available now that runs faster (sounds that way...if somebody's 
: running it on a 486).  Comments anyone?

Like somebody else suggested, maybe you've got a slow video card?
I've only ever seen it running on a P-100, so I don't know how well it
runs on the average P-75, but it seems to get about 30ish frames per
second.

Descent and Descent II will run faster than Quake as the Descent
engine has more limitations to the structures that can be created with
it.  If you look around the levels in Quake, you will see that they
are quite detailed - a lot more detailed than Descent, even if the
Descent levels are larger.

I don't think any slowness of either is due to DJGPP being better or
worse than Watcom - you'll probably find that the drawing routines in
both are written in assembler.  :-)

AFAIK, there is only the one (non-486 optimised) qtest available.

Steve
-- 
 ____ ____
/ __//___ \  Steve Piner - spiner AT comp DOT vuw DOT ac DOT nz
\__ \ |  _/---------------------------------------
/___/ |_|