Best 3d Game Engines For Being Creative With?

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by Karlos

If you can't defeat AB3D2 levels at 10-15 FPS, you should just not play it. You are dealing with fundamentally slow enemies and projectiles

I completed TKG back in the day so its not impossible obviously, but what is needed to feel enjoyable instead of sluggish and borderline frustrating.

[Karlos]

Today's frame rates are also driven by today's gameplay which is very different. Fast play against other actual players, often with realistic (or aiming for realistic) physics and ballistics.

AB3D games are closer to survival horror, much slower paced.

To that end, you'll notice that I keep the frame rate to 25fps in my captures. I think the game needs significant overhaul for 50fps as a target.

[Karlos]

Back on topic, I think AB3D2 engine could be used for very different settings. I did think about something Wolfenstein esque, escape from a big old Nazi castle type thing.

Maybe there's a good use for that cobblestone texture...

[Tsak]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

Yes, but there are limits connected to gameplay. Its hard to aim fast if fps is in single digits.
I was probably pretty happy with 12 fps on a crt.

Today ppl play CS2 at 180 fps and have 140Hz screens and still complain ;-)

Originally Posted by Karlos

If you can't defeat AB3D2 levels at 10-15 FPS, you should just not play it. You are dealing with fundamentally slow enemies and projectiles

I think I understand what @eXeler0 means (and agree to some extend). The lower the fps gets, the more difficult it is to aim, position and respond correctly. Which raises the overall difficulty. I am learning this now the hard way as I'm doing work on Grind and having to playtest the same levels extensively across different configurations (with vastly different performance).

On the other hand I also agree that the pace itself plays a significant role. When all stuff move slowly on screen by default and most enemies are not very energetic and the action never becomes frantic, difficulty is not affected as much.

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by Tsak

I think I understand what @eXeler0 means (and agree to some extend). The lower the fps gets, the more difficult it is to aim, position and respond correctly. Which raises the overall difficulty. I am learning this now the hard way as I'm doing work on Grind and having to playtest the same levels extensively across different configurations (with vastly different performance).

On the other hand I also agree that the pace itself plays a significant role. When all stuff move slowly on screen by default and most enemies are not very energetic and the action never becomes frantic, difficulty is not affected as much.

I'm pretty sure that AB3D2 wasn't designed to be played at 25 FPS anyway. You don't have to aim pixel perfect in this game. The base rifle even aim by himself.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

I'm pretty sure that AB3D2 wasn't designed to be played at 25 FPS anyway. You don't have to aim pixel perfect in this game. The base rifle even aim by himself.

Lets not get carried away, I said 12 fps was probably ”playable” but on a regular 060 you are looking at single digits fps a lot in AB3d2, even with the new improvements.

What I found fascinating with DREAD/GRiND was how the artwork was adopted to 2x1 to look better that it normally would. Maybe something like that could be applied to TKG along with some other tweaks (widescreen) to get it more usable on lesser hardware?

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

Lets not get carried away, I said 12 fps was probably ”playable” but on a regular 060 you are looking at single digits fps a lot in AB3d2, even with the new improvements.

Really ? That is surprising considering how much the FPS are improved for lower configs.

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

Lets not get carried away, I said 12 fps was probably ”playable” but on a regular 060 you are looking at single digits fps a lot in AB3d2, even with the new improvements.

[ Show youtube player ]

It would be interesting to know the speed you get for the same areas tested in @amipals video here. For the original game levels the updated engine was turning out a significantly improved performance.

[VladR]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

I was probably pretty happy with 12 fps on a crt.

Today ppl play CS2 at 180 fps and have 140Hz screens and still complain ;-)

We absolutely do not have to go to present.

I've experienced this issue myself back in 1999 with Quake3 already. My CRT monitor had the typical refresh rates going up to 100/120 Hz depending on resolution. I eventually got an EIZO that had about 140 Hz at 640x480 (don't recall exact number after quarter century now)

Playing Quake3 at 100+ Hz was waaaay easier than at mere 60 fps because of 2 things:
- fast movement
- fast rotation


And that was 1999. I'm sure we could find some earlier examples than Quake3, but for me, Quake 3 showed how 100+ Hz really matters for playing FPS games.

Once you play FPS at 100 Hz/100 fps, you'll never go to 30 fps, it's just ridiculous.


But yes, AB3D is a different pace, so it doesn't need 120 Hz....

[VladR]

Originally Posted by Karlos

Back on topic, I think AB3D2 engine could be used for very different settings. I did think about something Wolfenstein esque, escape from a big old Nazi castle type thing.

Wolf can be quite frantic.

I think the best use of AB3D2 would be for some turn-based game, where framerate is, basically, irrelevant.
Just need to make the GUI update at 60 fps, the 3D background can be at 10 fps , that's fine.

I've played plenty turn-based games on PC at 9 fps, and it's OK.

[abu_the_monkey]

this is not really the thread to discuss this, but...

I think peoples expectations of what is possible on an amiga from the early 90's is crazy.

the copy speed from fast ram to chip on an AGA machine is ~5.5mb/s which means copying a 320*256 screen takes ~75% of 1 frame (15ms). leaving 5ms to run the game code if you want to achieve 50 fps, so at best you could ever hope is to get the game loop down to 25ms and get 25fps. which for something as complex as AB3D2 on 'real' silicon 100mhz 060, I think is unachievable.

edit: IMHO 16fps is a more realistic goal for full screen 1*1 on the fastest (100mhz) 060 machines in Lowres 320*256 AGA with RTG being only slightly faster.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by abu_the_monkey

I think peoples expectations of what is possible on an amiga from the early 90's is crazy.

.

Not sure I agree with that statement ;-) What post exactly made you feel like this? Maybe that was the perceived tone, but I don't think anyone actually claimed that. ;-)
Rabidgerry mentioned that 15-25 was acceptable not "flying" but that is his subjective opinion about how he enjoys FPS games. Like me, he has a 100MHz 060 to play on, so that's naturally what you'd play TKG on if you could. Someone claiming if flies on 030 raises some eybrows...

Anyhoo, that being said, the OP was asking for something that can be modded. From that perspective, the modder still has a lot of options regarding what game to build, how complex.. So I guess a lot of parameters that will decide the final performance. But out of the engines listed, TKG is probably the most demanding, so if the OP has a larger audience in mind, GRIND or GLOOM are probably better suited. Then again it could be down to what type of game is imagined in the first place and maybe the engine would be chose according to how well it does the desired job.

Now I also want to ask this question about TKG, I guess, its for @abu & @Karlos
Would it be doable to add a proper 16:9 mode -option where the weapon is fully visible and not "cut off" at the bottom and fill out the black space with some GUI stuff so that it looks nice in order to save some vertical pixels and increase performance? ;-)

[abu_the_monkey]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

Now I also want to ask this question about TKG, I guess, its for @abu & @Karlos
Would it be doable to add a proper 16:9 mode -option where the weapon is fully visible and not "cut off" at the bottom and fill out the black space with some GUI stuff so that it looks nice in order to save some vertical pixels and increase performance? ;-)

dropping the current boarder HUD and going for an 'in view area' HUD idea has been bounced around, so, having a pre set 16:9 screen option (just using the letter boxing) does not seem beyond the possible.

edit: doing it proper would probably be also doable but require more work. I will look over it but no promises.

[Karlos]

For me something doesn't add up. On the video posted by amipal, he was getting around 10-15fps fullscreen on AGA on a 50MHz 060. At 2/3 size, it was up to 30 in some simpler locations

Is there something about your 060 boards that's the issue here? I'd expect better than what is being reported for 100MHz. Some screenshots or capture would be informative.

For the wide-screen all you need to do is to be able to raise the model view for the weapon slightly and use the letterbox in conjunction.

[VladR]

Originally Posted by Karlos

Back on topic, I think AB3D2 engine could be used for very different settings. I did think about something Wolfenstein esque, escape from a big old Nazi castle type thing.

Since there's an editor working, isn't it just a matter of designer creating the levels now ?

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by VladR

Since there's an editor working, isn't it just a matter of designer creating the levels now ?

More or less. You still have all the assets and game linking stuff to do as well.

[abu_the_monkey]

Originally Posted by Karlos

For me something doesn't add up. On the video posted by amipal, he was getting around 10-15fps fullscreen on AGA on a 50MHz 060. At 2/3 size, it was up to 30 in some simpler locations

Is there something about your 060 boards that's the issue here? I'd expect better than what is being reported for 100MHz. Some screenshots or capture would be informative.

The video posted by amipal might be from before double buffering was introduced?
The old method using ScrollVPort would update the screen at any time (which caused some graphic artifacts)
I assume that it now has to wait till the buffer is flipped successfully which could cause reduced performance?

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by abu_the_monkey

The video posted by amipal might be from before double buffering was introduced?
The old method using ScrollVPort would update the screen at any time (which caused some graphic artifacts)
I assume that it now has to wait till the buffer is flipped successfully which could cause reduced performance?

I don't think so. It would be good if he were able to retest a more recent iteration.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by Karlos

For me something doesn't add up. On the video posted by amipal, he was getting around 10-15fps fullscreen on AGA on a 50MHz 060. At 2/3 size, it was up to 30 in some simpler locations

Is there something about your 060 boards that's the issue here? I'd expect better than what is being reported for 100MHz. Some screenshots or capture would be informative.

For the wide-screen all you need to do is to be able to raise the model view for the weapon slightly and use the letterbox in conjunction.

Well Im sure there are noticable differences between boards. One of my 060 is on a TF1260 with old Firmware and that one is definitely slower than my Apollo 1260 board.
Then you have TFs with latest firmware, old Blizzards and Warp1260 which should be the fastest.
On A4000 I only have experience with the BFG9060 which I have myself.
But yea, stating its running on a 060 isnt really enough. Some boards really are faster than others.
I can record and post some videos at some point.

[VladR]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

But yea, stating its running on a 060 isnt really enough. Some boards really are faster than others.
I can record and post some videos at some point.

I understand it's a lot of work, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate such a comparison

By any chance, does AB3DII have some sort of benchmark that could be simply run, just like Quake1's timedemo ?