Compileable version of Alien Breed 3D II - The Killing Grounds

[Karlos]

So does it fail on reloading the same files?

The engine shouldn't misbehave because either file is missing on a first run. if the Prefs is missing you should just have all default controls. If the stats is missing you won't have any progress info.

I'll have to see if I can reproduce it tomorrow. Something definitely sounds off here.

[abu_the_monkey]

no. seems to start and work fine every time now. very odd

[abu_the_monkey]

@Karlos

there seems to be an issue with the asm version being run first then quitting and then running tkgc.

if I do it in this order it results the previously reported 'death at the first door' for me at least.

after deleting the 'game.stats' and 'game.prefs' tkgc works fine.

hope this helps.

[abu_the_monkey]

as much as it pains me, maybe its time to park the assembler only version?

[DanyPPC]

Originally Posted by Karlos

Do you have the original game?

The C2P routines used for 030 have changed from the ones optimised for 040/060 to the one optimised for 030. The guidance for the 040/060 routines indicate they do not work as well on 030.

I tested this new version, both tkg and tkgc executable on my Blizzard 1230mkIV (OS 3.2.2.1 exec in 32bit ram)
The framerate is between 6 and 10 fps, obviously not full screen.

On A1200/030 I think ADoom runs better, but I know these are different games.

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by abu_the_monkey

as much as it pains me, maybe its time to park the assembler only version?

Yeah, you're probably right about that. It's lagging quite far behind feature wise too.

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by DanyPPC

I tested this new version, both tkg and tkgc executable on my Blizzard 1230mkIV (OS 3.2.2.1 exec in 32bit ram)
The framerate is between 6 and 10 fps, obviously not full screen.

On A1200/030 I think ADoom runs better, but I know these are different games.

The 030 optimised routines are only used in fullscreen 1x1 at the moment. In 2/3 size a more general rectangle routine is still used that's still optimised for 040+. I need to look into what is necessary to change that. It depends on a couple of factors, and ideally I don't want to make any unnecessary changes to the C2P routine as it's very carefully tuned.

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by abu_the_monkey

@Karlos

there seems to be an issue with the asm version being run first then quitting and then running tkgc.

if I do it in this order it results the previously reported 'death at the first door' for me at least.

after deleting the 'game.stats' and 'game.prefs' tkgc works fine.

hope this helps.

This suggests the assembler version saves an incompatible file. Quite possible given that it has incomplete features. A quick way to avoid confusion here might be to change the save name from the assembler builds until both versions are at feature parity.

[coachman]

Considering that the current TKG version runs full screen AGA at 12-15 FPS on 68060@80 Mhz hardware, I am afraid that any full screen optimizations for 68020/68030 are meaningless. The game is way too slow in full screen on 68030 configurations - it's literally a slide show; it would remain unplayable even if it ran two times faster after optimizations.


Effectively, the minimum configuration for full screen TKG is 68040@40 MHz. To be honest, even on 68060@80 Mhz I often use 2/3 view to enjoy fluent gameplay not dropping below 25 FPS.


Maybe a bit off-topic: I tried to compare TKG with the speed of some 3D engines ported to Amiga, running real hardware AGA 68060. Quake (Amiquake version with no particles) is comparable but still a bit slower than TKG. Original Quake port from Clickboom is even slower. Both Quake and TKG are better to play using a reduced screen size. Duke Nukem 3D (jfduke3d) is faster than TKG and comfortably playable on full screen. Unsurprisingly, Doom (DoomAttack) is way faster than the others.

[Karlos]

Just because they are meaningless, doesn't mean they aren't fun to do. However the main reason was to introduce the 030 optimised routines for 030 machines, and specifically to add it to the 2/3 mode. I want to make sure the routines work as advertised first and fullscreen is way simpler.

Everyone that plays at 25+ FPS seems to assume that nobody else can enjoy a lower framerate, but that's not true. I finished the team 17 release on a 25MHz 040 in 2/3 size (switching to to fullscreen occasionally just to improve distance vision). I build the first version of my mod on that same config and it runs even slower than the original.

What I don't want is for anyone actually playing on an 030 to be specifically disadvantaged because a key per frame operation takes any more time than strictly needed on their hardware. The same is true for 68060 users, which is why there is a specific 68060 build now that uses the code written by paraj and saimo for the floor and wall optimisations, but these are not used in the generic build.

[Angus]

I totally agree, Karlos and appreciate your attitude. I've got 2 options, Pistorm or 060, but I don't see that as a reason to get snobbish about hardware and framerates. The fun I had on my A500 with, CyberCon III was real. It still is. The same goes for Elite on the C64. Quality endures, fashion doesn't. If this was just about higher framerates and 2024 expectations, we wouldn't even be discussing this - or admiring you guys at the coalface.

[Karlos]

I'm all for higher frame rates, but for everyone

But you're right, of course. My interests in boosting the speed is secondary. My main motivation is to make a better game, the game that I feel it could/should have been. I know that some people prefer the nostalgia of the game exactly as it was and I'm all for that too, which is partially why adding new things takes longer. Every new feature added to support my motivation has to gracefully fall back to continue to run the original game without breaking.

[coachman]

Karlos, I didn't want to be snobbish or discourage you from doing anything you like. I really appreciate your work. Just wanted to be realistic. TKG will never run full screen on 68030, and it will suffer even at 2/3. The performance gap between 68030 and 68040 is much wider than between 68040 and 68060. But for testing purposes it makes sense, I understand.


The battles in TKG are quite difficult, and low FPS makes them even harder. I cannot aim correctly when the game runs at low FPS - maybe I am just too clumsy :-) But in the end, your experience is similar: using 2/3 on 68040 is reasonable.



When I find more time I will check the specific 68060 code if it makes a significant difference in performance over 68040. For example, with jfduke3d it did, while with Clickboom's Quake I didn't notice any difference.

[Karlos]

Don't worry, I didn't interpret it as snobbery. I think it's just easy to dismiss how subjective the experience is. I know people that can't play games if they aren't getting 240fps. It makes zero sense to me, given the persistence of vision but again, it's subjective.

We didn't have an FPS count in the original game but if be shocked if I was even averaging 10 on that 040. It didn't stop me though

[pipper]

Originally Posted by Karlos

I'm all for higher frame rates, but for everyone

But you're right, of course. My interests in boosting the speed is secondary. My main motivation is to make a better game, the game that I feel it could/should have been. I know that some people prefer the nostalgia of the game exactly as it was and I'm all for that too, which is partially why adding new things takes longer. Every new feature added to support my motivation has to gracefully fall back to continue to run the original game without breaking.

That.
For me keeping a 030 as viable target is also exploring “what could have been back then in ‘96; when all I had was a Blizzard 1230”

[Dunny]

Heh. I played the original on my Blizzard 1230/IV and loved every minute of the four levels I could get to.

Nobody can take that away. Though apparently my enjoying low framerates back in the 90s resulted in Commodore killing the Amiga. Who knew?

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by Dunny

Heh. I played the original on my Blizzard 1230/IV and loved every minute of the four levels I could get to.

Nobody can take that away. Though apparently my enjoying low framerates back in the 90s resulted in Commodore killing the Amiga. Who knew?

Nah, the 1230/IV was a great accelerator. I was all set to buy one, then the Apollo 1240 came out of nowhere and the Amiga Shopper roundup convinced me that was what I wanted. I have no doubt the 1230 was more compatible and stable, certainly than the early revision I had, with it's socketed ROM that kept coming out. It took quite a few patches before it worked as it should, various libraries and the VBR were in chip ram. Once all that was sorted and kickstart remapped, it was like greased lightning.

[pixie]

The day I got a blizzard 040 it probably the biggest speed jump I had experienced on a single leap

[Dunny]

I spent a very long time researching before I purchased - prior to that, my 360MB HDD had cost me more than three months wages, and the Blizzard was looking to be similar to that but was probably the best reviewed accelerator for my price range.

Having a very young family meant that any expenditure on a low income job had to be planned well in advance, but fortunately my partner has always been a very understanding person

Mind you, my jaw still hit the floor when I got the pistorm. I mean, damn.

[coachman]

Originally Posted by pixie

The day I got a blizzard 040 it probably the biggest speed jump I had experienced on a single leap

I can sign it.