The 3D Engine (Re: Doom.Bas - a legend etc etc)
William Jones
Peter Cooper wrote:
>
> People,
> About a month ago I posted a pretty rough 3d raycasting engine
> up here which some people played about with a bit, well since then I
> have been thinking over, designing and working a new 3d engine system,
> how do these specs sound so far:
>
> - non-othogonal walls (ie.. walls dont have to be right angled)
> this means that walls have to be specified as vectors like as
> in the doom levels with sectors etc
> - 256 color walls etc (with shading..)
> - texture mapping (?!?!?!?)
>
> --
> Peter Cooper
Were you thinking of doing this in QBASIC? Being that DOOM.BAS is very
slow under the interpreted invironment, it seems the only way to get top
speed for an even MORE complex program would be to use integers for
everything, even the tables. If you were considering compiling it under
QuickBASIC or in a Borland IDE, then That would make more sense.
William Jones
James Eibisch
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:12:11 -0500, William Jones <wtj...@cswnet.com>
wrote:
>Were you thinking of doing this in QBASIC? Being that DOOM.BAS is very
>slow under the interpreted invironment, it seems the only way to get top
>speed for an even MORE complex program would be to use integers for
>everything, even the tables. If you were considering compiling it under
>QuickBASIC or in a Borland IDE, then That would make more sense.
I think the point of this exercise is in the coding, not the production
of a commercial-speed engine. For sheer coding enjoyment (and for us
spectators, learning how to code this kind of stuff), speed is not
particularly relevant.
--
_
James Eibisch ('v') N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A
Reading, U.K. (,_,) http://www.revolver.demon.co.uk/
=======
Peter Cooper
In article <32501B...@cswnet.com>, another programmer (maybe)
writes:
>Peter Cooper wrote:
>>
>> People,
>> About a month ago I posted a pretty rough 3d raycasting engine
>> up here which some people played about with a bit, well since then I
>> have been thinking over, designing and working a new 3d engine system,
>> how do these specs sound so far:
>>
>> - non-othogonal walls (ie.. walls dont have to be right angled)
>> this means that walls have to be specified as vectors like as
>> in the doom levels with sectors etc
>> - 256 color walls etc (with shading..)
>> - texture mapping (?!?!?!?)
>>
>> --
>> Peter Cooper
>
>slow under the interpreted invironment, it seems the only way to get top
>speed for an even MORE complex program would be to use integers for
>everything, even the tables.
DOOM.BAS is a heavily edited version of my original (I think - didnt
check too deeply), besides the new algorithm I came up with a few days
ago is MUCH less complex and FAR faster than doom.bas. Instead of doing
a sin AND cos for every angle (there were 60 of them)
That's 120 sin and cos's! Not fast. But.. my new algorithm means that in
a small level such as the one that came with my original program, only
20-30 tans are used! and of course this would all be in tables! But I'm
not going to tell you about that theory right here because I am not too
keen on it and am working on a better algorithm. I might write something
about it sometime though.
> If you were considering compiling it under
>QuickBASIC or in a Borland IDE, then That would make more sense.
Oh yeh, it would be compiled in the end but I want people to be able to
keep track of progress no matter who they are, and this means QBasic
code here, but yep, programs are faster when compiled. :)
>William Jones
Cheers,
--
Peter Cooper - pe...@trenham.demon.co.uk - [[[[Peter At Trenham]]]]
3d, Project UV1, ASM, BASIC, PASCAL, MIDI, composing, writing, C&C
Indycar, Formula 1, SE England, IRCer, Web Designer, Cycling, Fun!
-------------- http://www.trenham.demon.co.uk/ --------------
Steele
James Eibisch wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:12:11 -0500, William Jones <wtj...@cswnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >slow under the interpreted invironment, it seems the only way to get top
> >speed for an even MORE complex program would be to use integers for
> >QuickBASIC or in a Borland IDE, then That would make more sense.
>
produce an .exe.
James Eibisch
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:21:01 -0700, Steele <progra...@geocities.com>
wrote:
I didn't write that - it's a misquote (accidental, I'm sure).
J. Tse
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Steele wrote:
> Actualy, QBasic DOES NOT interpret. It compiles. QBasic just doesn't
> produce an .exe.
But why do QBASIC programs run slower than QuickBASIC ones? What makes
QBASIC slower? Just curious ...
Thanks for any help.
J.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Tse E-mail : jye...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca
``Life is too short to be taken seriously.''
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jesam lud? A?
J. Tse (jye...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Steele wrote:
: > Actualy, QBasic DOES NOT interpret. It compiles. QBasic just doesn't
: > produce an .exe.
: But why do QBASIC programs run slower than QuickBASIC ones? What makes
: QBASIC slower? Just curious ...
: Thanks for any help.
Khm? I'm bit confused...
Aren't QBASIC ans QuickBASIC same things? Could anyone explain me the
difference?
Mike
--
Ovo je moj signacur fajl...
Steele
QBasic is included with ms-dos 5.0 or higher. I really wonder why
Microsoft put a Q in front of Basic and also named their commercial
version QuickBasic. It causes so much confusion. Most people think the Q
stands for Quick when it actually doesn't. You may hear people say that
their programs run faster compiled, in which case they generally mean in
.exe form.
QuickBasic has many more features than QBasic. For example:
*compiling to an .exe
*more menu features including Dos shell which is very helpful
*libraries, which if you heard of them available for downloading you
need QB (QuickBasic) to make us of them
*quicker running even when not in .exe form (I have no clue why)
*provides more memory
and more!
--
================================================================
Send e-mail to:
progra...@geocities.com
Visit the QBasic Games web page:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/2503/
================================================================
Micheal
In article <326302...@geocities.com>, progra...@geocities.com
says...
>
>Jesam lud? A? wrote:
>Actually, they aren't. Quickasic is the commercial version of QBasic.
>QBasic is included with ms-dos 5.0 or higher. I really wonder why
>Microsoft put a Q in front of Basic and also named their commercial
>version QuickBasic. It causes so much confusion. Most people think the Q
>stands for Quick when it actually doesn't. You may hear people say that
>their programs run faster compiled, in which case they generally mean in
>.exe form.
What -does- the Q stand for then?? I'm confused. Is it something
Microsoft threw in just to confise us?? Sounds likely..
\|||/
<@ @>
---------OOo--(_)--oOO-----------
Micheal Glennon
dgle...@indigo.ie
http://aoife.indigo.ie/~dglennon/
Jesse Dorland
Micheal wrote:
>
> In article <326302...@geocities.com>, progra...@geocities.com
> says...
> >
> >Jesam lud? A? wrote:
> >Actually, they aren't. Quickasic is the commercial version of QBasic.
> >QBasic is included with ms-dos 5.0 or higher. I really wonder why
> >Microsoft put a Q in front of Basic and also named their commercial
> >version QuickBasic. It causes so much confusion. Most people think the Q
> >stands for Quick when it actually doesn't. You may hear people say that
> >their programs run faster compiled, in which case they generally mean in
> >.exe form.
>
> What -does- the Q stand for then?? I'm confused. Is it something
> Microsoft threw in just to confise us?? Sounds likely..
>
Well, I don't work for MS, but I believe it is because QBasic is a subset
of QuickBASIC. The little 'Q' there I guess means it's like a "Mini
QuickBASIC". Hey! "MiniBASIC!" That's a lot better than QBasic....
-Jesse
> \|||/
> <@ @>
> ---------OOo--(_)--oOO-----------
> Micheal Glennon
> dgle...@indigo.ie
> http://aoife.indigo.ie/~dglennon/
--
====================================
Very funny Scotty!
Now beam down my clothes!
====================================
Tyler Barnes
MS>: > Actualy, QBasic DOES NOT interpret. It compiles. QBasic just doesn't
MS>: > produce an .exe.
Which is basically interpreting.
MS>: But why do QBASIC programs run slower than QuickBASIC ones? What makes
MS>: QBASIC slower? Just curious ...
It is because QBASIC is interpreted, and QuickBasic can compile the
code. With compiled code, you don't need all the extra debugger stuff
that interpreted code needs to keep track of.
MS>Aren't QBASIC ans QuickBASIC same things? Could anyone explain me the
MS>difference?
QBASIC is free with MSDOS. The current version is 1.1. QBASIC is a basic
interpreter meaning it can run basic programs, but only from within the
programming environment. It can NOT produce a compiled .EXE. QuickBasic,
you have to pay for. The current version is 4.5. It can run programs
from inside the programming environment, and can also compile .BAS
programs into .EXE's.
Mario Splivalo
On 14 Oct 1996, Micheal wrote:
> In article <326302...@geocities.com>, progra...@geocities.com
> says...
> >
> >Jesam lud? A? wrote:
> >Actually, they aren't. Quickasic is the commercial version of QBasic.
> >QBasic is included with ms-dos 5.0 or higher. I really wonder why
> >Microsoft put a Q in front of Basic and also named their commercial
> >version QuickBasic. It causes so much confusion. Most people think the Q
> >stands for Quick when it actually doesn't. You may hear people say that
> >their programs run faster compiled, in which case they generally mean in
> >.exe form.
>
> What -does- the Q stand for then?? I'm confused. Is it something
> Microsoft threw in just to confise us?? Sounds likely..
I just checked up. QBasic is version 1.0 (included with MSDOS 5.0...).
But, QB 4.5 is telling about QB 1.0 like it's called QuickBasic 1.0, and
says that it was included with MS DOS 5.0.
Mike
Cyrek
On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, Steele wrote:
> QuickBasic has many more features than QBasic. For example:
>
> *compiling to an .exe
Grrr... :)
> *more menu features including Dos shell which is very helpful
Press F6 'til you get to the "Immediate" window & type SHELL <Return>
> *libraries, which if you heard of them available for downloading you
> need QB (QuickBasic) to make us of them
Ok, but we still have subroutines...
> *quicker running even when not in .exe form (I have no clue why)
I'm guessing here, but I have a feeling that (both) the interpreter(s)
tokenize / p-code the code before interpreting it. Hence a large increase
in speed, and all syntactic errors checked before runtime.
> *provides more memory
Write your own swap cache! :)
> and more!
But it costs money :( :)
--
,--. , , , -,- / / /
/ , ,,__ __ /__ /_ /_ __ / / / __ __ .__ __ / - Living up to the name
\__)(_// (_~/ \ (_ / /(_~ _/_ / / (_/(_//(_ (_(/
(_/ (_/
San...@taf.idn.nl
Hello Jesam,
On 14 Oct 96, at 11:29, Jesam lud? A? wrote:
JlA> Aren't QBASIC ans QuickBASIC same things?
JlA> Could anyone explain me the difference?
It's so simple.. QBasic can't compile .BAS to .EXE, QuickBasic can...
QBasic is delivered with MSDos, QuickBasic isn't.
Keep In Touch With The Dutch!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHiZDoM ^ DBR -<> D i G i T a L <>- Infinity System
(Sander Smeenk) -<> B r A i N <>- +31-33-494-3146
SAN...@TAF.IDN.NL -<> R a V e R Z <>- 24 HRz - 33600 BPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Love comes for you, and you follow.
SEEN-BY: 100/0 100 400 402 450 200/100
--
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Steele
Tyler Barnes wrote:
>
> MS>: > Actualy, QBasic DOES NOT interpret. It compiles. QBasic just doesn't
> MS>: > produce an .exe.
>
> Which is basically interpreting.
Actally, the differences amount to a lot. For example, with
interpreters, such as GW-BASIC and error on comes up for that line once
it is about to be used. With compilers, a syntax error is found at the
start of a program, no matter if it's come across or not. The exact
reason why QBasic programs would run faster than the GW-BASIC programs
(not because of the minute differences in code) is that the program is
compiled into machine code first, then run directly in the machine code
instead of slowly converting line by line:)
>
> MS>: But why do QBASIC programs run slower than QuickBASIC ones? What makes
> MS>: QBASIC slower? Just curious ...
>
> It is because QBASIC is interpreted, and QuickBasic can compile the
> code. With compiled code, you don't need all the extra debugger stuff
> that interpreted code needs to keep track of.
>
> MS>Aren't QBASIC ans QuickBASIC same things? Could anyone explain me the
> MS>difference?
>
> QBASIC is free with MSDOS. The current version is 1.1. QBASIC is a basic
> interpreter meaning it can run basic programs, but only from within the
> programming environment. It can NOT produce a compiled .EXE. QuickBasic,
> you have to pay for. The current version is 4.5. It can run programs
> from inside the programming environment, and can also compile .BAS
> programs into .EXE's.
--
================================================================
Send e-mail to:
progra...@geocities.com
================================================================