Message-ID: <199808020018420230.00492DC4@pogwizd.tcs.uni.wroc.pl>
In-Reply-To: <000b01bdbd6d$c1d6b2c0$ad4e08c3@arthur>
References: <000b01bdbd6d$c1d6b2c0$ad4e08c3 AT arthur>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 00:18:42 +0200
From: "Pawel Kowalski" <pk AT tcs DOT uni DOT wroc DOT pl>
To: arfa AT clara DOT net, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: RE: DJ+Allegro & employment?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 98-08-01, at 19:36, Arthur wrote: 

>> I think that most 3D API's have everything needed to write a good 3d game.
>> However I may be wrong... :)
>
>YOU WHAT?! Call yourself a programmer?
>
>Other things that are needed include talant, and a brain. These are things that about
>half the modern day 3D programmers are without.

What I wrote concerned only graphics. It's obvious that a game must be based on
a really good idea, programmer must be good at maths, physics, etc.
I realize it's not very ambitious.

>Trouble about APIs is that the more powerful they are, the less you have to program.
>If you can do 3D in software, not using any APIs *then* you're a programmer. And a
>game does NOT have to be 3D to be good.

Writing a win32 game (that uses 3D hardware) without any standard 3D API is like writing
DJGPP DOS program without libc.
Have you ever seen a game (that uses 3D hardware) which doesn't use 3D API? (like DirectX, Glide,
OpenGL) I haven't. And I'm sure there will ever be no such game. Besides, it's almost impossible
to write a faster 3D API than OpenGL, DirectX, Glide.

Pawel Kowalski