Re: What do you do with an Apple //?

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article nobody@REPLAY.COM (Scott G.) writes...

>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote,
>>    If you want want to compare frame-rates (which is also important to
>>consider), Wolfenstein 3-D running on a PC is much smoother than the GS
>>port, especially when you play full-screen. Also remember the GS port
>>uses larger scaled bitmaps than the PC version, you'll notice textures
>>have a more blocky/chunky appearence (which was done to speed things
>>up, but unfortunately sacrifies smoothness and image appearence). Even
>>with my 15 MHz GS, I find the frame-rate unacceptable at full-screen,
>>so I shrink it down a few sizes (it's very playable full-screen, but
>>I wouldn't really call it smooth or flowing). The PC is also moving
>>around 256 colors while the GS is only moving 16.
>
>I think that you are forgetting one thing: my PC only does 16shades of
>gray.

    Color depth is has little affect on speed here, especially when
comparing 4-bit with 8-bit (if this were an 8-bit display versus a
24-bit display, _then_ it would be noticable). That last little bit 
in my argument was a trivial point, and more trying to point out the
nicer color in the PC version than anything else. :)

>Wolf for the PC (and I only have the evaluation version with
>six levels...yes Nate, I didn't buy the full program, because I tend
>to get tired of shallow shoot-em-up blood and guts games) configures
>itself for your display.  My PC was certainly _not_ moving around
>256 colors.

    Like the IIgs version, it runs in 320x200 resolution and no higher.
Notice though, to increase speed it lets you resize the display window;
there is no option to change color depth which wouldn't noticably help
anyway.

>I'm only relating what I see: that GS Wolf keeps up with PC Wolf
>on my systems.

    You weren't listening to what I said, even putting aside speed,
the PC version scales bitmap images smoother than the IIgs version
because it was _written_ that way. Each bitmap is scaled larger as
you approach it than compared with the PC version (things look more
chunky from the same distance comparing the two). It's almost like
it is skipping frames to move things around faster. If you re-did
the Apple IIgs version to have the same smooth frame system I don't
think it would run as it does now.

>Your systems have a much wider performance gap (>100MHz Pentium vs.
>15MHz GS) than mine (25MHz 486 without any >hardware graphics
>accelerator vs. 13.75MHz GS).

    I only have an AMD 5x86-133, which is functionally a 486 chip
compatible running at roughly the speeds of a 75 MHz Pentium. Wolf
3D easily maxes out its frame rate on that (actually so does DOOM),
but the same is true of a 486DX2-66. In fact, I recall my brother's
old 486DX-33 machine from years ago was able to run Wolf 3D's frame-
rate near its limit.

    While Wolfenstein 3-D may have been a ground breaking game,
it is not all that complex. Think about it: There are no light
sources, there is no floor or ceiling (notice it is all one solid
color), everything is on level ground (there is no concept of up
or down). Also your character's hand and weapon remains completely
static while your moving, not too mention there is no glide when
you move, it moves in an artifical and rigid fashion: "go - stop,
go - stop". It is a game that works well on a 386, and even on
a 286 if you shrink the screen, but has trouble on an Apple IIgs.
I'm not putting down the IIgs port or the machine itself, but I
agree with Nathan about a 486 (or even a 386 in some cases) having 
more horse power for writing complex game software.

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca