🚀 go-pugleaf

arn...@arnulf.dialup.fu-berlin.de (& Guenther) writes:

>Origin should license the Quake engine and make an CRPG out
>of it. Just dreaming...

Don't give up hope. Given iD's selective and probably quite lucrative
(my guess, okay? :^) licensing of the DOOM! engine, they'll probably
license out Quake too.

I'm not sure just how codeable it will be, but if it's really 
flexible, you'll probably see some 'net RPG servers about, oh,
four days after we get our grubby paws on it... 

Nick

p.s. I saw the Quake code fragment, it looks like those iD guys spend
too much time doing C++. Lisp would be the way to go!

-- 
 +------------------------------------+                                        
 | Nick Vargish, BBN Planet (SURAnet) |  Adrian's dead -- it's every man       
 |   var...@sura.net  301/489-8134   |  for himself.                          
 |    http://www.sura.net/~vargish    |                     [Liquid Sky]      

   Uhhh, WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET THOSE PIC'S (drooooool) !!!!!

	(sorry for the caps) <G> 

//// Interested in buying used pc     o     \   o     Ian M. Panaszewicz /
/// entertainment software and        0\,____`%/O>     inks...@crl.com //
// classic video game system          |\`      /|       Solavou Dragon ///
/ cartriges. You got any ?        ___/__|_____/__\___    --=(UDIC)==- ////

& Guenther (arn...@arnulf.dialup.fu-berlin.de) wrote:
: I've seen the screen shots. I WANT that game... badly!
: I wish they would make it an CRPG.  The pictures alone set
: the mood right.  Just imagine those pix moving!
: I can't wait.

: Origin should license the Quake engine and make an CRPG out
: of it.

: Just dreaming...

: -Arnulf
: --
: Arnulf H.-P. Guenther (reg.: 2396354992D<<6708098<9705283<<<<<<6)

: Invisible Dragon
:   --=(UDIC)=-

Nick Vargish (var...@sura.net) wrote:
: arn...@arnulf.dialup.fu-berlin.de (& Guenther) writes:

: Don't give up hope. Given iD's selective and probably quite lucrative
: (my guess, okay? :^) licensing of the DOOM! engine, they'll probably
: license out Quake too.

Selective?! It's coming out for the SNES soon. And it's on almost every 
platform. I'm still waiting for the gameboy edition. :)

Ian Panaszewicz (inks...@crl.com) wrote:
}    Uhhh, WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET THOSE PIC'S (drooooool) !!!!!

      ftp://{INS site/path HERE}/idstuff/quake/quakepix.zip

where {INS site/path HERE} = any DOOM ftp site, eg. ftp.cdrom.com/pub/idgames
--
Frans P. de Vries | f...@xymph.iaf.nl | Rec.Games.Computer.Doom FAQ maintainer

Nick Vargish <var...@sura.net> wrote:
> p.s. I saw the Quake code fragment,

Could you repost it, or send me a copy, or tell me where I can find it?

> it looks like those iD guys spend
> too much time doing C++. Lisp would be the way to go!

No, actually.  As a new game programmer with Lisp experience, I can
definitively say Lisp has almost no place in a high-performance 3D network
game.  You need every bit of speed you can get in that environment, and C++
is a much better language for writing high-speed programs than Lisp is.

Rob Jellinghaus       ro...@unreal.com        http://www.best.com/~robj

  I wrote:
>> p.s. I saw the Quake code fragment,

  Rob Jellinghaus writes:

>Could you repost it, or send me a copy, or tell me where I can find it?

I had to wade through a very ugly IRC log (redundant, I know), but
here it is... Oh, iddt is Dave Taylor, of iD.

<iddt> here's some code that generates thunder..
<iddt> thunder ()
<iddt> {
<iddt>     local rnd;
<iddt>     rnd = random() * 40 + 10;
<iddt>     sound (self,0,thund);
<iddt>     self->nextthink = time + rnd; 
<iddt>     self->think = thunder;
<iddt> }


  Then, I also said:
>> it looks like those iD guys spend
>> too much time doing C++. Lisp would be the way to go!

  And Rob had the temerity to disagree with my wise words:
>No, actually.  As a new game programmer with Lisp experience, I can
>definitively say Lisp has almost no place in a high-performance 3D network
>game.  You need every bit of speed you can get in that environment, and C++
>is a much better language for writing high-speed programs than Lisp
>is.

Hrm, tell that to the folks at Crack dot Com, whose Abuse game is
"basically, one big Lisp engine" according to Dave Taylor. You might
recognize the name, he's one of the iD guys, as well as wearing the 
Producer hat for Abuse.  They don't seem to have any speed problems 
with using Lisp.

Well, I should expand on this. Your experience is probably with Lisp
interpreters... Though you combined the two activities in one
sentence, have you actually tried to apply your Lisp experience to
game coding? 

Anything interpreted is going to be slower than something that's
already been compiled. I suspect Abuse's engine is not a true Lisp
interpreter, but compiles the Lisp code into machine code as the
source is read from disk. You mostly have to drop the self-modifying
aspect of Lisp, which is not so important in a game environment
(except for AI, okay :^), but you get to keep the nice encapsulating,
definitional features of Lisp.

So, to modify my original claim: A Lisp-like dialect would be better
than a C-like language, because Lispish languages encourage modularity
and extensibility. I would be just as keen on a FORTH-like dialect,
since it shares the definitional charateristics that I find so
appealing in Lisp.

Nick
-- 
 +------------------------------------+  my favorite computer things: Perl     
 | Nick Vargish, BBN Planet (SURAnet) |  Linux, xpilot, Emacs, DOOM, fvwm      
 |   var...@sura.net  301/489-8134   |  the Web, Usenet, nethack, my GUS      
 |    http://www.sura.net/~vargish    |  zsh, fvwm, FORTH.                    

Nick Vargish <var...@sura.net> wrote:

>So, to modify my original claim: A Lisp-like dialect would be better
>than a C-like language, because Lispish languages encourage modularity
>and extensibility. I would be just as keen on a FORTH-like dialect,
>since it shares the definitional charateristics that I find so
>appealing in Lisp.

  I'm a pretty experienced C/C++ programmer, so forgive me if I sound
a little biased  here.  C++ does promote modularity (data
abstraction), as well as extensibility (polymorphism and operator
overloading).  The language is extensible in most ways.  Besides, Lisp
is just a bit too cryptic (and ugly). 

Feel free to correct me, because I do not have too much experience
with Lisp due to the lack of good compilers (try getting one as good
as Borland C++ or Watcom C++) and the lack of motivation (learning
Lisp seems rather pointless, except for AI purposes).

c...@aimnet.com (Lord Soth) writes:

>  I'm a pretty experienced C/C++ programmer, so forgive me if I sound
>a little biased  here.

Yeah, I'm biased too. I've done about equal amounts of programming in
Lisp and in C/C++. I think it boils down to the fact that I like one
paradigm, and you prefer the other...

We could let it be... Abuse will have a Lispish engine, and Quake will
have a C-like engine. Let's just let the two games fight it out. :^)

Nick
-- 
 +------------------------------------+  I met a girl who sang the blues,      
 | Nick Vargish, BBN Planet (SURAnet) |  So I asked her for some happy news    
 |   var...@sura.net  301/489-8134   |  She just smiled and turned away...    
 |    http://www.sura.net/~vargish    |                        [Don McLean]   

ry...@cnct.com (Robert Yung) writes:

>Selective?! It's coming out for the SNES soon. And it's on almost every 
>platform. I'm still waiting for the gameboy edition. :)

Sorry, I really should have said, "initially selective, and
subsequently profitable" when talking about DOOM! engine
licenses. Heretic was Raven, wasn't it (sorry if that's wrong, in any
case, a group known for some quality work)? 

Now, just prior to Quake, is the time to flood the "mass-market"
channels, everything from Sega 32X to 'Tendo Gameboy. Time for the iD
guys who were renting to think about getting into their own
property... :^)

Nick
-- 
 +------------------------------------+  "This house is dark."                 
 | Nick Vargish, BBN Planet (SURAnet) |  "Madman, thou errest: I say, there    
 |   var...@sura.net  301/489-8134   |      is no darkness but ignorance."    
 |    http://www.sura.net/~vargish    |        [Shakespeare, Twelfth Night]   

In article <ARNULF.95...@arnulf.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
arn...@arnulf.dialup.fu-berlin.de (& Guenther) wrote:
> I've seen the screen shots. I WANT that game... badly!
> I wish they would make it an CRPG.  The pictures alone set
> the mood right.  Just imagine those pix moving!
> I can't wait.
>
> Origin should license the Quake engine and make an CRPG out
> of it.
Why? They've System Shock engine, which is best i ever seen.

  Stepan

ka...@law.muni.cz (Stepan Kana) wrote:

>>
>> Origin should license the Quake engine and make an CRPG out
>> of it.
>Why? They've System Shock engine, which is best i ever seen.

And also one of the slowest and ugliest.

In article <LISLws7V...@law.muni.cz> ka...@law.muni.cz "Stepan Kana" writes:

> In article <ARNULF.95...@arnulf.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
> arn...@arnulf.dialup.fu-berlin.de (& Guenther) wrote:
> > I've seen the screen shots. I WANT that game... badly!
> > I wish they would make it an CRPG.  The pictures alone set
> > the mood right.  Just imagine those pix moving!
> > I can't wait.
> >
> > Origin should license the Quake engine and make an CRPG out
> > of it.
> Why? They've System Shock engine, which is best i ever seen.
> 
>   Stepan
> 
Have you seen the Duke Nukem 3D engine (ok, the build engine)? Have you seen
the Quake engine? Have you seen the Abuse engine? Can you get a bit more
informed???
-- 
---

Adam Williamson, D1M - ad...@scss.demon.co.uk
Terminal Velocity and Wolfenstein 3D FAQ writer
for more details on either FAQ, e-mail me
"There's nothing left for you to say,
soon you'll be dead anyway" - Green Day

In article <808301...@scss.demon.co.uk>, Ad...@scss.demon.co.uk says...
>> 
>Have you seen the Duke Nukem 3D engine (ok, the build engine)? Have you seen
>the Quake engine? Have you seen the Abuse engine? Can you get a bit more
>informed???

Abuse is a 2D side scroller, right?  Why are people associating
it with the Duke 3D, DOOM, and QUAKE engines?


-Thomas

  dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue) wrote:

 >>>
 >>> Origin should license the Quake engine and make an CRPG out
 >>> of it.
 >> Why? They've System Shock engine, which is best i ever seen.

 DG> And also one of the slowest

Slowest? It's not particulary fast, but IMHO it's not that bad - especially the
CD version. Hey, it's slower than doom, but it's _true_ 3D!

 DG> and ugliest.

?? How can an engine be 'ugly'? If you don't like the textures, don't blame
engine! And just FYI I liked them, and many others.


  --
  Stepan

  Adam Williamson <Ad...@scss.demon.co.uk> wrote:

 >> > I've seen the screen shots. I WANT that game... badly!
 >> > I wish they would make it an CRPG.  The pictures alone set
 >> > the mood right.  Just imagine those pix moving!
 >> > I can't wait.
 >> >
 >> > Origin should license the Quake engine and make an CRPG out
 >> > of it.
 >> Why? They've System Shock engine, which is best i ever seen.
 >>

 AW> Have you seen the Duke Nukem 3D engine (ok, the build engine)?

It uses ROTT's engine AFAIK.

 AW> Have you seen the Quake engine?

I seen the screenshots.

 AW> Have you seen the Abuse engine?

Neverd heard of this.

 AW> Can you get a bit more informed???

Why? What's incorrect in my sentence? "They've System Shock engine, which is
best _I ever seen_.

  --
  Stepan

Dave Glue (dav...@interlog.com) wrote:
: ka...@law.muni.cz (Stepan Kana) wrote:

: >>
: >> Origin should license the Quake engine and make an CRPG out
: >> of it.
: >Why? They've System Shock engine, which is best i ever seen.

: And also one of the slowest and ugliest.

Considering the complexity it was damn fast, worked fine on full screen mode
on a 486 DX 50 with combat turned up to the hardest level. Didn't look that
bad either, except for the bit mapped monsters.
-- 
Internet: pfle...@scu.edu.au		                | Zendor Dragon
"We're heading down the freeway into the 21st century   | -=(UDIC)=-
 But there's nobody driving yeah there's no one         |
 behind the wheel Uh huh how did we get elected?" - ICEHOUSE 

ka...@law.muni.cz (Stepan Kana) wrote:

>  dav...@interlog.com (Dave Glue) wrote:

> >>>
> >>> Origin should license the Quake engine and make an CRPG out
> >>> of it.
> >> Why? They've System Shock engine, which is best i ever seen.

> DG> And also one of the slowest

>Slowest? It's not particulary fast, but IMHO it's not that bad - especially the
>CD version. Hey, it's slower than doom, but it's _true_ 3D!

It is _incredibly_ slower than Doom.  Far more than can even be
measured in percentages.  I expect it to be slower, but the speed was
so crippling it took a lot of enjoyment out of it on my DX2-66, even
though it isn't highly action-oriented.

> DG> and ugliest.

>?? How can an engine be 'ugly'? If you don't like the textures, don't blame
>engine! And just FYI I liked them, and many others.

The look of the textures does relate to the engine- their coarse look
was likely due to not make the speed even worse than it was.  Hey,
we're dealing with Origin here.

True 3D shouldn't have slowed down System Shock much - Dark Forces and 
Decsent are "true 3D" and both are very fast.

Kyle

Kyle Klukas <klu...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>True 3D shouldn't have slowed down System Shock much - Dark Forces and 
>Decsent are "true 3D" and both are very fast.

While Descent is certainly true 3D, the supposition that Dark Forces
is also true 3D is debatable at best.  Let's compromise and say it's
2.75D.  :)
  -John

ka...@law.muni.cz (Stepan Kana) wrote:


> AW> Have you seen the Duke Nukem 3D engine (ok, the build engine)?

>It uses ROTT's engine AFAIK.

No, it doesn't.  It uses a far more advanced engine called the "build"
engine.


> AW> Have you seen the Abuse engine?

>Neverd heard of this.

Not surprising, seeing as Abuse is a side-scrolling shoot-em-up.  The
original poster is confused.

> AW> Can you get a bit more informed???

>Why? What's incorrect in my sentence? "They've System Shock engine, which is
>best _I ever seen_.

Speed and texture quality also count in the quality of an engine,
therefore I do not consider System Shock the best.

In article <417pv1$q...@steel.interlog.com>
           dav...@interlog.com "Dave Glue" writes:

> ka...@law.muni.cz (Stepan Kana) wrote:
> 
> 
> > AW> Have you seen the Duke Nukem 3D engine (ok, the build engine)?
> 
> >It uses ROTT's engine AFAIK.
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It uses a far more advanced engine called the "build"
> engine.
> 

Yep.

> 
> > AW> Have you seen the Abuse engine?
> 
> >Neverd heard of this.
> 
> Not surprising, seeing as Abuse is a side-scrolling shoot-em-up.  The
> original poster is confused.

I am :). From the blurb i'd read, it appeared that Abuse was a 3D engine
(light sourcing etc - how does this help a 2D shooter?)

> 
> > AW> Can you get a bit more informed???
> 
> >Why? What's incorrect in my sentence? "They've System Shock engine, which is
> >best _I ever seen_.
> 
> Speed and texture quality also count in the quality of an engine,
> therefore I do not consider System Shock the best.
> 
> 
I agree - but texture quality doesn't. Speed does. Texture quality is purely
graphics design - draw some better textures without changing the engine
and it looks better. How well the engine _displays_ the textures, yes, that
does count.
-- 
---

Adam Williamson, D1M - ad...@scss.demon.co.uk
Terminal Velocity and Wolfenstein 3D FAQ writer
for more details on either FAQ, e-mail me
"There's nothing left for you to say,
soon you'll be dead anyway" - Green Day

I must disagree with your opinion regarding the the Build Engine.  It is 
most definately NOT based on the ROTT engine.  ROTT was limited to square 
walls (like Wolf3D), while the Build Engine is much more flexible, with 
angled walls and rooms over rooms (a la Dark Forces).  Check out the 
Witchaven demo (if you have a fast modem - 6+ megs zipped).

Also, from the screen shots I've seen, Abuse is a side-scroller, not a 
Doom clone.

As for System Shock - not sure how good the engine is from a technical 
standpoint, but the game just had too many controlls/mouse actions to be 
very playable (IMHO, of course - I have the same complaint about Descent, 
very hard to control without a $100 multi-function joystick or hands that 
move over the keyboard with the speed of a hyperactive eight-year-old :))

Kyle

In article <416qa0$7...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Kyle Klukas <klu...@students.uiuc.edu> says:
(IMHO, of course - I have the same complaint about Descent, 
>very hard to control without a $100 multi-function joystick 

I disagree...once I figured out my controls, I played quite well with only a keyboard and a
puny two-button joystick...the fact that the controls were configurable
is what saved me, though, and System Shock just had too much to do too
fast in some cases to be enjoyable.

Mike Powers

In article <41813q$5...@nnrp3.primenet.com>,
John D. DeCuir <decu...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Kyle Klukas <klu...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>True 3D shouldn't have slowed down System Shock much - Dark Forces and 
>>Decsent are "true 3D" and both are very fast.
>
>While Descent is certainly true 3D, the supposition that Dark Forces
>is also true 3D is debatable at best.  Let's compromise and say it's
>2.75D.  :)
>  -John
>
Dark Forces:  3D engine and about 4 degrees of freedom for your character.
Descent:  3D engine and 6 degrees of freedom for your character.
Doom, Doom2:  2.5D engine and 3 degrees of freedom for your character.
Heretic:  2.5D engine and 3-4 degrees of freedom for your character.

2.5D engine means simulated z-axis. 

Enough said.

Steven

In <418l3n$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu> sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Steven Gershenfeld) writes:

>Dark Forces:  3D engine and about 4 degrees of freedom for your character.
>Descent:  3D engine and 6 degrees of freedom for your character.
>Doom, Doom2:  2.5D engine and 3 degrees of freedom for your character.
>Heretic:  2.5D engine and 3-4 degrees of freedom for your character.

>2.5D engine means simulated z-axis. 

I don't think those degrees of freedom are correct.  If you say 2.5D means a
simulated z-axis Doom only has 2 DOF.  DF has 4 DOF (the fourth being 
rotation of head on one axis).
To take this thread back to Quake the guys at id have stated 6 DOF and they 
better deliver.

Hordur Kvaran
hor...@rhi.hi.is
*****************************************************
This tag line conTains exactly threee errors.
*****************************************************

>Steven

In article <41acnk$d...@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>,
   hor...@rhi.hi.is (Hordur Kvaran) wrote:
>In <418l3n$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu> sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Steven 
Gershenfeld) writes:
>
>>Dark Forces:  3D engine and about 4 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>Descent:  3D engine and 6 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>Doom, Doom2:  2.5D engine and 3 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>Heretic:  2.5D engine and 3-4 degrees of freedom for your character.
>
>>2.5D engine means simulated z-axis. 
>
>I don't think those degrees of freedom are correct.  If you say 2.5D means a
>simulated z-axis Doom only has 2 DOF.  DF has 4 DOF (the fourth being 
>rotation of head on one axis).
>To take this thread back to Quake the guys at id have stated 6 DOF and they 
>better deliver.
>
>Hordur Kvaran
>hor...@rhi.hi.is
>*****************************************************
>This tag line conTains exactly threee errors.
>*****************************************************
>
>>Steven
>
>
>
If DF was only 4 DOF, then why do you have to duck in some areas and jump over 
others?

Mike Caouette
caou...@hooked.net
mi...@mysoftware.com

In a previous article, klu...@students.uiuc.edu (Kyle Klukas) says:

>I must disagree with your opinion regarding the the Build Engine.  It is 
>most definately NOT based on the ROTT engine.  ROTT was limited to square 
>walls (like Wolf3D), while the Build Engine is much more flexible, with 
>angled walls and rooms over rooms (a la Dark Forces).  Check out the 
>Witchaven demo (if you have a fast modem - 6+ megs zipped).
>
Witchaven real 3D? Gosh, I never noticed it. I also don't see rooms over
rooms anywhere in the demo. It looked very much like the original DOOM-
engine to me (e.g. with a simulated Z-axis). It's nut by far as smooth
and flexible though. 


>Also, from the screen shots I've seen, Abuse is a side-scroller, not a 
>Doom clone.
>
Isn't it weird how every first-person game is automatically called a
'Doom-clone' though? >:)  It says something about the greatness of 
iD's game.

>As for System Shock - not sure how good the engine is from a technical 
>standpoint, but the game just had too many controlls/mouse actions to be 
>very playable (IMHO, of course - I have the same complaint about Descent, 
>very hard to control without a $100 multi-function joystick or hands that 
>move over the keyboard with the speed of a hyperactive eight-year-old :))
>
Hmm.. I play Descent with a mouse and I never had any probs with it. 
I actually think Descent sucks with a joystick... I blow away any
joystick-player anyway >:)  It's all about coordination between the
left and the right hand, I guess.... and I play bass, so... *grin*

As for System Shock: it's not bad. But since it lacks a network-option 
I found it quite boring after a while. Heck, what is the use of a 
3D-engine if I can't shoot my friends to pieces in it? >:) Dark Forces
never became very popular with me for just the same reason. 

I can't wait till Quake comes out. The network-features must be awesome,
even if only half of what ID claims is true.

Greetz,

RS
---
Sigs are waste of bandwith

I had the same reaction to no deathmatch in DF.

By the way, the room over room in Witchaven is demostarted by the spiral 
staicase at the begining of level 2 (I think its level 2, been a while). 
 No too noticeable, but the potential is there for the final release.

Kyle

In article <41d9ss$7...@its.hooked.net>,
Michael Caouette <caou...@hooked.net> wrote:
>In article <41acnk$d...@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>,
>   hor...@rhi.hi.is (Hordur Kvaran) wrote:
>>In <418l3n$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu> sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Steven 
>Gershenfeld) writes:
>>
>>>Dark Forces:  3D engine and about 4 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>>Descent:  3D engine and 6 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>>Doom, Doom2:  2.5D engine and 3 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>>Heretic:  2.5D engine and 3-4 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>
>>>2.5D engine means simulated z-axis. 
>>
>>I don't think those degrees of freedom are correct.  If you say 2.5D means a
>>simulated z-axis Doom only has 2 DOF.  DF has 4 DOF (the fourth being 
>>rotation of head on one axis).

Six degrees of freedom:
Movement in three directions (X,Y,Z) are 3
Rotation along any of the three axes are another 3.

In Doom and Doom2, you can move forward and backward (1), sideways (1),
and turn around along the z-axis (1).  Adds up to 3.
QED.
:-)

>>To take this thread back to Quake the guys at id have stated 6 DOF and they 
>>better deliver.
>>
I agree (if that is what they promised).  Although I don't see the use
of rotating along the x axis too much.

>>Hordur Kvaran
>>hor...@rhi.hi.is
>>*****************************************************
>>This tag line conTains exactly threee errors.
>>*****************************************************
>>
>>>Steven
>>
>>
>>
>If DF was only 4 DOF, then why do you have to duck in some areas and jump over 
>others?

Dark Forces:
movement in three directions (limited to jumping and crouching in z-axis):  3.
turning around along z-axis: 1.

I said "about 4" because you can also claim that looking up and down
is another one, but some people have said that it is not so.

So at least 4, and POSSIBLY 5, depending on how liberal you are with
your definition.  Crouching and Jumping are incorporated into one DOF.

Steven

>
>Mike Caouette
>caou...@hooked.net
>mi...@mysoftware.com

In article <41gri2$n...@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
Steven Gershenfeld <sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
>In article <41d9ss$7...@its.hooked.net>,
>Michael Caouette <caou...@hooked.net> wrote:
>>In article <41acnk$d...@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>,
>>   hor...@rhi.hi.is (Hordur Kvaran) wrote:
>>>In <418l3n$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu> sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Steven 
>>Gershenfeld) writes:
>>>
>>If DF was only 4 DOF, then why do you have to duck in some areas and jump over 
>>others?
>
>Dark Forces:
>movement in three directions (limited to jumping and crouching in z-axis):  3.
>turning around along z-axis: 1.
>
>I said "about 4" because you can also claim that looking up and down
>is another one, but some people have said that it is not so.
>
>So at least 4, and POSSIBLY 5, depending on how liberal you are with
>your definition.  Crouching and Jumping are incorporated into one DOF.

It's 4.  Looking up and down is not accomplished by rotation.  It is
accomplished by a clever hack, which gives the impression of looking up and
down.  All they do when you look up is start drawing at a greater angle, and
stop drawing at lesser angle.  It's difficult to explain, but you can tell
because when you look up as far as it will let you, everything becomes
distorted.  Also, no matter how high your head is pointed, the walls are always
vertical.  If it were rotating the head, then the wall at the bottom of the
screen would be closer than the wall at the top of the screen when you look up.

--Travis Cobbs
  (tco...@ganymede.csd.sgi.com)

In <41d9ss$7...@its.hooked.net> caou...@hooked.net (Michael Caouette) writes:

>In article <41acnk$d...@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>,
>   hor...@rhi.hi.is (Hordur Kvaran) wrote:

>>
>>>Dark Forces:  3D engine and about 4 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>>Descent:  3D engine and 6 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>>Doom, Doom2:  2.5D engine and 3 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>>Heretic:  2.5D engine and 3-4 degrees of freedom for your character.
>>
>>>2.5D engine means simulated z-axis. 
>>
>>I don't think those degrees of freedom are correct.  If you say 2.5D means a
>>simulated z-axis Doom only has 2 DOF.  DF has 4 DOF (the fourth being 
>>rotation of head on one axis).
>>To take this thread back to Quake the guys at id have stated 6 DOF and they 
>>better deliver.
>>
>>
>If DF was only 4 DOF, then why do you have to duck in some areas and jump over 
>others?
I was wrong.  DF has 5 DOF but the extra DOF is that the character can rotate
around his z-axis.  Degrees of freedom are as follows:
1.   Forward/backward (y-axis)
2.   Left/right (x-axis)
3.   Up/down (or jumping/ducking)
4.   Turning character around z-axis.
5.   Rotating head up/down (rotating around x-axis)

If the character had been able too look around corners like in System shock
you would have had 6 DOF.

Hordur Kvaran
hor...@rhi.hi.is
*****************************************************
This tag line conTains exactly threee errors.
*****************************************************

>Mike Caouette
>caou...@hooked.net
>mi...@mysoftware.com

In article <418l3n$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu> sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Steven Gershenfeld) writes:
>From: sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Steven Gershenfeld)
>Subject: Re: Quake, WOW!
>Date: 21 Aug 1995 00:47:51 GMT

>In article <41813q$5...@nnrp3.primenet.com>,
>John D. DeCuir <decu...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Kyle Klukas <klu...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>True 3D shouldn't have slowed down System Shock much - Dark Forces and 
>>>Decsent are "true 3D" and both are very fast.
>>
>>While Descent is certainly true 3D, the supposition that Dark Forces
>>is also true 3D is debatable at best.  Let's compromise and say it's
>>2.75D.  :)
>>  -John
>>
>Dark Forces:  3D engine and about 4 degrees of freedom for your character.

Dark Forces is "NOT" 3D, it just uses a trick for looking up and down 
All walls are always built out of (textured) VERTICAL lines.
Same thing in Heretic, Rott, ...
Bridges, which are not possible in Doom are only objects, which have been 
added later.
So the Engine is pretty much the same as the Doom-engine, they just added a 
few "real 3D-Objects".

>Descent:  3D engine and 6 degrees of freedom for your character.
>Doom, Doom2:  2.5D engine and 3 degrees of freedom for your character.
>Heretic:  2.5D engine and 3-4 degrees of freedom for your character.

>2.5D engine means simulated z-axis. 

>Enough said.

>Steven

Can we get some terms clear here? "3D" means a Doom-like engine with a
PROPER Z-axis that allows floors on top of floors. DOF is Degrees Of Freedom,
which defines in how many directions you can move - Doom has 2, DF has
a debatable amount, 2-4, and Descent has 6. 2.5d is Doom engine-like, with
different heights, but no floors above floors. 2D would be Wolf3d - that
can't even set sector heights. OK?
-- 
---

Adam Williamson, D1M - ad...@scss.demon.co.uk
Terminal Velocity and Wolfenstein 3D FAQ writer
for more details on either FAQ, e-mail me
"There's nothing left for you to say,
soon you'll be dead anyway" - Green Day

In article <e9125261....@stud1.tuwien.ac.at>,
e9125261 <e912...@stud1.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>In article <418l3n$1...@news.acns.nwu.edu> sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Steven Gershenfeld) writes:
>>From: sger...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Steven Gershenfeld)
>>Subject: Re: Quake, WOW!
>>Date: 21 Aug 1995 00:47:51 GMT
>
>>In article <41813q$5...@nnrp3.primenet.com>,
>>John D. DeCuir <decu...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>>Kyle Klukas <klu...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>True 3D shouldn't have slowed down System Shock much - Dark Forces and 
>>>>Decsent are "true 3D" and both are very fast.
>>>
>>>While Descent is certainly true 3D, the supposition that Dark Forces
>>>is also true 3D is debatable at best.  Let's compromise and say it's
>>>2.75D.  :)
>>>  -John
>>>
>>Dark Forces:  3D engine and about 4 degrees of freedom for your character.
>
>Dark Forces is "NOT" 3D, it just uses a trick for looking up and down 
>All walls are always built out of (textured) VERTICAL lines.
>Same thing in Heretic, Rott, ...
>Bridges, which are not possible in Doom are only objects, which have been 
>added later.
>So the Engine is pretty much the same as the Doom-engine, they just added a 
>few "real 3D-Objects".

So if you walk into a SQUARE room in the "real" world, that room is not 3D?
Just because the walls in the room aren't round or sloping, or 
whatever, doesn't make the game ENGINE any less 3D.

Heretic, ROTT are not 3D because you don't have 3 coordinates describing
your character, because two objects can't occupy the same X,Y space even
though their Z coordinate may be different.

You confuse the issue.

Since I can walk under the bridge, and have an enemy exist in the same
X,Y space but different Z coordinate (he is right above me), that seems
to be 3D to me.  The DOOM, Heretic, ROTT engines can't have that happen.

To allow the Dark Forces engine to run on as many systems as possible,
Lucas Arts had to make some sacrifices, one of them being having
only vertical walls.  Descent also makes some sacrifices as well (these
have been discussed) to run on as many machines as possible.

Steven

In article <810242...@scss.demon.co.uk>, Ad...@scss.demon.co.uk wrote:

> Can we get some terms clear here? "3D" means a Doom-like engine with a
> PROPER Z-axis that allows floors on top of floors. DOF is Degrees Of Freedom,
> which defines in how many directions you can move - Doom has 2, DF has
> a debatable amount, 2-4, and Descent has 6. 2.5d is Doom engine-like, with
> different heights, but no floors above floors. 2D would be Wolf3d - that
> can't even set sector heights. OK?
> -- 
Very close...  But Doom has 3 DOF.  You can move forward/back (1), move
left/right (2), and rotate clockwise/counterclockwise around the Z axis
(3).  Even Wolf 3D has 3 DOF.  But everything else you said is correct.

Dan

In article <daniel_kelmenson...@dkelmenson.broder.com> daniel_k...@broder.com (Daniel Kelmenson) writes:
>From: daniel_k...@broder.com (Daniel Kelmenson)
>Subject: Re: Quake, WOW!
>Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 16:25:45 -0700

>In article <810242...@scss.demon.co.uk>, Ad...@scss.demon.co.uk wrote:

>> Can we get some terms clear here? "3D" means a Doom-like engine with a
>> PROPER Z-axis that allows floors on top of floors. DOF is Degrees Of Freedom,
>> which defines in how many directions you can move - Doom has 2, DF has
>> a debatable amount, 2-4, and Descent has 6. 2.5d is Doom engine-like, with
>> different heights, but no floors above floors. 2D would be Wolf3d - that
>> can't even set sector heights. OK?
>> -- 
>Very close...  But Doom has 3 DOF.  You can move forward/back (1), move
>left/right (2), and rotate clockwise/counterclockwise around the Z axis
>(3).  Even Wolf 3D has 3 DOF.  But everything else you said is correct.

>Dan

I've always been fascinated (in a perverse sort of way) with this discussion.  
I'd like to drop back into basic mode, if I may...the "d" in 3d stands for 
dimemsion.  So, what is .5 of a dimension?  Pretty silly, yes?  

Would someone please explain to me why it makes the slightest bit of 
difference?  I mean, my wife is a 38d, and I see how THAT makes a 
difference...definitely more fun there, but 3d/2.756304958d...who gives a rats 
ass...is the game fun for you or not?

And DOF has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

So...why am I not so damn serious about which games REALLY have a 3d engine?  
Probably because of those 38ds waiting for me upstairs...
Later,
S.B.

Steve C. Brown (sbr...@new-orleans.neosoft.com) wrote:
: I've always been fascinated (in a perverse sort of way) with this discussion.  
: I'd like to drop back into basic mode, if I may...the "d" in 3d stands for 
: dimemsion.  So, what is .5 of a dimension?  Pretty silly, yes?  

The problem is that different people are defining 3D games in different
ways.  Being a programmer, I tend to think about internal 3D data modeling
as defining a 3D game.  People who don't give a hoot about programming
tend to think that immersion in a simulated 3D environment should be all
that qualifies.  I went round and round about this in the nintendo
newsgroup, and it got pretty ugly.  So the 2.5-D term was defined to mean
2D internally, but it _looks_ like it's 3D.  Saying "2D with a
first-person perspective" is more accurate, but also a lot more cumbersome.

: Would someone please explain to me why it makes the slightest bit of 
: difference?  I mean, my wife is a 38d, and I see how THAT makes a 
: difference...definitely more fun there, but 3d/2.756304958d...who gives a rats 
: ass...is the game fun for you or not?

: And DOF has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

: So...why am I not so damn serious about which games REALLY have a 3d engine?  
: Probably because of those 38ds waiting for me upstairs...

Hmmm.  Are those 38D's texture-mapped polygons or simply sprites?
-- 
========================================================================
"In sports, it's not who wins or loses;       |  Mike Carmack
 it's how drunk you get."                     |  mcarmack@freenet.
                        - Homer Simpson       |           columbus.oh.us

	Someone know where the 'unreleased quake screen shots are' (ftp 
sight).  I got the 16 some normal ones, their really cool.  The dragon was 
imaged in in that picture im pretty sure, though.  Because they didn't have 
the ai things working then.


===---===---===---===---===
Joseph Betz
be...@bmi.net
===---===---===---===---===