»

[Legerdemain]

So is the existing 68k port of Quake2 no good then?

I don't know, since I haven't tried them out. That's the reason for me just theorising, not claiming anything...

[motorollin]

Arrrr I'm confused now. I have a Blizzard 060/50 with 128MB, and a Voodoo graphics card on my Mediator 1200SX. Is there a demo of Quake I can try to see what performance is like before I buy it?

--
moto

[Legerdemain]

Arrrr I'm confused now. I have a Blizzard 060/50 with 128MB, and a Voodoo graphics card on my Mediator 1200SX. Is there a demo of Quake I can try to see what performance is like before I buy it?

I don't think there exists any ClickBoom Quake demo, but there is a QuakePlayer that you can download from Aminet which shows the performance... how accurate it is, I don't know.

[Matt_H]

motorollin wrote:
Arrrr I'm confused now. I have a Blizzard 060/50 with 128MB, and a Voodoo graphics card on my Mediator 1200SX. Is there a demo of Quake I can try to see what performance is like before I buy it?

Download any of the open source Amiga Quake ports (BlitzQuake, Frank Wille's port, etc) and use pak0.pak from the PC shareware version.

[leirbag28]

Hmmm, what the heck are you people talking about?

DOOM runs pretty darn good on my CD32/SX32 pro 68030 @50mhz

Im using DOOM Attack. Runs fast and smooth in full screen..........maybe its the Akiko chip? I dunno......but its prety palyable and enjoyable.

EDIT: Just Tested it for fun. its good on low detail with the status bar showing and 2 levels down from full screen....funny thing.......it hardly shows any differens in slowness when I put it in full screen. But its definitely quite playable in full screen low detail. even in High detail its not bad. Not smooth, but not bad.

[Legerdemain]

Hmmm, what the heck are you people talking about? DOOM runs pretty darn good on my CD32/SX32 pro 68030 @50mhz

I'm just realising I'm answering your post without really having toughroughly read throud the thread, but I was about to say that it's Quake that runs slow... not the Doom ports, and that I thought that that was what people were mainly discussing (OT, though).

[Lemmink]

You see the defenition if something is playable or not is quite subjective.
I think Qukae ist quite playable on an 060 (yes, at about 10 FPS) Maybe my impression is byased by the fact that I played through the game on an 1240 @ 40 MHz (at about 5 FPS)

[Legerdemain]

You see the defenition if something is playable or not is quite subjective.

Well, in most cases I don't believe people can be objective. By that, I do not mean that my points are not valid... rather, they reflect MY views on the specific matter in question.

But... 8-12 FPS is not much. I can understand why people, if they have no other option, decide to play through Quake on their 68k Amigas. But, the framerate IS low, and a 68k Amiga CAN'T do the game justice (or rather, the versions that exist today for the 68k Amiga don't do the game justice). That is not me being subjective, that is a fact. Of course, then it is up to the people playing the game to decide if they find it playable or not. But no one can claim it to be playing WELL, because it isn't. 10 FPS was not what Quake was designed to run in.

So, yes, I might be subjective on the "playable" matter, but if someone considers the game is done justice on a 68k Amiga, please step up and explain why that is (for any other reason than the one that it is Quake on the Amiga and that it is great that it can be, and has been, done).

[doctorq]

But, the framerate IS low, and a 68k Amiga CAN'T do the game justice (or rather, the versions that exist today for the 68k Amiga don't do the game justice). That is not me being subjective, that is a fact.

How is this not you being subjective? I would like to see the page which says this is fact.

So, yes, I might be subjective on the "playable" matter, but if someone considers the game is done justice on a 68k Amiga, please step up and explain why that is (for any other reason than the one that it is Quake on the Amiga and that it is great that it can be, and has been, done).

Why not turn it the other way around? Your only argument seems to be that the FPS rate is to low, but that would be obvious if compared to the game running on a PC, running the same screensize, etc.

As I see it, playability can't be determined by FPS, only by the person playing.

[Legerdemain]

How is this not you being subjective? I would like to see the page which says this is fact.

Well, then, what's your FPS? Do you reach an FPS above 8-12 FPS and which resolution are you running under when reaching higher FPS? I have never heard of anyone reaching higher FPS? Here's a nice benchmark page which shows how well GLQuake performs on PPC-equiped Amigas, and at least we can know for sure that the ClickBoom 68k port doesn't perform BETTER. Like me, the author of the page seems to consider that everything below 15 FPS is bad performance.

http://www.amigaspeed.de.vu/

Why not turn it the other way around? Your only argument seems to be that the FPS rate is to low, but that would be obvious if compared to the game running on a PC, running the same screensize, etc. As I see it, playability can't be determined by FPS, only by the person playing.

Didn't you just read what I wrote? I said that, yes, playability is up to each and one to decide! What I don't think is subjective to say is that the game doesn't play WELL (in other words: like it originally was intended to be played and NOT how what each and one thinks about the playability) on any 68k Amiga.

Of course the Amiga ports of the game can, without having to be questioned over and over again, be compared with how well the original performs on the PC because it was written FOR the PC's from the beginning. Or, would you consider a film playing at 10 FPS instead of its original 24 FPS would be playing WELL (no matter if one thinks it is watchable or not)?

[AmigaMance]

Wait, i think i know why you ppl are splitted in half.
The one side talks about the "regular" version of quake that relies on the power of the CPU and the other side about BlitzQuake which make use of the 3D acceleration hardware of some gfx cards and relies more on the power of the GPU than the CPU.
In the first case the performance should be very low on a 68k system, while in the second one the performance should be reasonably good on 68k system with a Voodoo card.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

motorollin wrote:
I can now run Doom at a very respectable speed (yay, I'm only 13 years behind ) Are there any Doom clones that run in a higher resolution than 320x240? DoomAttack will run at higher resolution, but it just makes everything smaller. Is it possible to get higher resolutions to fill the whole screen?

--
moto

Well, on the pc there is jDoom, wich runs with texture-filtering and one can look up and down and so. Maybe some people who ported Doom to the Amiga, will port this one too one day. :-)

[motorollin]

I pride myself on not owning a PC on which to try this :-) I could try to find a Mac version, but I'd prefer to play it on my Amiga. I hope somebody will port it.

--
moto

[JLF65]

jDoom is pretty awesome. I play it in linux. On my Amiga, I usually play ADoomPPC. It allows resolutions up to 1600x1200 and runs rather fast. It even gets better than 20 FPS in AGA. A video card is recommended though. :-D

I don't know if the improvements in ADoomPPC were ever back-ported to ADoom for 68K. jDoom would be nice on the Amiga, but it would need hardware 3D.

[delshay]

overclocked blizzard ppc & bvision timedemo test: both screens 800x600

herectic II 12.8 fps

quake II 10.9 fps


with ahi / prelude enable i lose 1 fps..