would it be possible to use this to make a 3d racing game?

onefastfiveoh

"The engine itself supplies the complete "world-rendering" part at an actually
speed of somewhere between 350 and 600 frames per second (on a HW2 TI89)."

Is this a typo? Would that really be 35 to 60 frames per second?

Of course, thats a typo, it should read "per minute".

Some deathmatch type game (with 2 calc multiplayer and few bots) would ROCK on 89!
Yeah, it'll keep many people busy and happy! (and battery manufacturing companies too :) )

~zkostik

350-600 frames a minute works out to at MOST 1 frame per second :-<

That's a bit slow for a doom 89.

If you could like heavily ASM optimize it or something.....but having multiple ppl and loading animations of guns going off and and all that's required for a doom 89 or wolfenstein 89 would just totally bog down the speed!

Good luck working on it,
red40gamma

Sorry, it works out to 5.8 to 10 frames per second. I can't test it on a real calc, but on VTI, it does not seem nearly that fast, maybe 1/5 that speed.

Ah, sorry.
I feel real sheepish now.
The decimal was moved over a place.
But even if you DID go to a max of 10 frames a second, that's just the world rendering. You'd have to account for other players in the level, animations of your gun going off or whatever, and so forth. It'd bog it down.

But thanks for correcting me, it's not so bad as I thought (by a factor of 10) but it's not gonna be a perfect Quake III clone, that's for sure.

Thanks,
red40gamma

hey red40gamma,i cant wait for FOTR to be released either!!! Tolkien was a genius!!

Oh YEAH!!!
Dec. 19 is gonna be the best day of my life so far!!!!
I can not wait for it to come!!!!

<excessive drooling off chin to the point where I go to fetch a napkin from the men's room to avoid public embarrasment>

--red40gamma

The problem is the "8 pixels per byte". A view which is rotated by 30 degrees can be rendered at arround 30 frames per second.
Nevertheless there is some optimization potential left in the engine. Yesterday I have examined again the source code of Wolfenstein and found that it uses extremely much space for lookup tables and dynamically generated code. I think not even Wolfenstein is possible on the calc with maps as large as the maps of Wolfenstein (from the available memory point of view).

Well, I don't mean a PORT of wolfenstein, just a clone. The maps don't hafta be so big. Just made to fit the calc, you know.
And why is the FAT demo so slow?

It seems to render kinda slow, but I dunno maybe my calc or I am messed up.

red40gamma

If you let it render one minute without touching a key, what does the frame counter tell you after that minute? If you are still in the starting position it should read arround 500-600. What's your number?

if I just start up the FAT Demo and don't touch anything and time it for exactly one minute, then number off to the side (I'm assuming it's the frame rate) reads 430.

Which equals 7.16 fps.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, this answers my question. It seems you have a HW1 calc which is slower than a HW2.

And you think this is slow for a first not really optimized version?

Click on the link above (bellow my name) and try the new (intermediate) demo. It will give you 620-640 frames per minute on a HW1 calc and the VTI and 800 (!!!) frames on a HW2.

13.33 fps on my HW2 TI89 - personally I haven't expected that it would be possible.

Additionally the frame rate is now constant even if the average strip height is large (96 or larger). I wonder how much the frame rate will drop again when I add transparent textures and sprites on the weekend.

Again, Thomas, I am in awe... damn, i'm learning the wrong things at my course...

Fat masking demo rocks!
Also, it makes 850 fpm on my HW2 calc with AMS 2.03.

yeah, I have a HW1 calc.

Well, not TOO slow.
Don't take it personally.
I'm just used to playing Q3 Team Arena all the time and so my expectations are just a little high.

Just look up "Raycaster" or "Raycsting" on the Ticalc search engine, and it will turn up a few raycasters. You think that not even Wolfenstein is not possible fo the 89?? HAH! Defiance rivals Wolfenstien in it's engine, and it's for the 82!!!!!
You cannot believe the actual power of the Ti calc. In order for it to be fast, code in assembly, not C, although it will be much harder, it is actually faster. I know that Wolfenstein or even Doom can eventually have a port on the calculator. Doom is a bit advanced because it uses advanced raycasting techniques instead of matrix raycasting. The calc was designed for math. All you need to do is find the intersection of the line of the wall and the player's ray, etc.... Read some tutorial, there are plenty of them.

Another wiseacre! You have no idea how the engine works internally and think you know everthing better. To you know even programming? I don't believe it. Have you examined raycasting sourcecode like Wolfenstein3D? Why always flaming on the idiotically topic C versus Assembler? If you would know how to program professionally you wouldn't touch your keyboard to type these words. Actually the FAT-Engine consists of 80 percent assembler code and 20 percent C code, but the real "brain" part is done in C. Intermixing both of them give you the best of both worlds. Almost each top game (from the past) on the PC goes this way of mixing assembler with C. Just three words: MAKE IT BETTER!

But, remember that the 3D part would take up most of the processing time in a game, so if the engine itself ran at, say, 15 fps on average, then the whole game should run >= 10fps if you code it right, and that wouldn't be so bad. I mean, we're not gonna have all these fancy effects like it's Quake III or smething, but a Wolf3d clone would certainly be possible.

What'd you expect? 50-100 fps? It's only a calculator (if you can really call an 89 one). That's still very fast and the screenshots look awesome.

Well, not THAT good, but I kinda expected better than 13 fps. BUT my expectations are little high after all becuase of my excessive Q3 Team Arena use on some 600 MHz comps at my school.

And yes, it does look very promising! I can't wait!

dude you gotta check out the latest sdk - i swear, it's gotta be going faster than 13fps

Oh yeah, and on VTI it IS slower.

Try it out on your calc, it's much faster.