Quake II uses OpenGL mainly, or if there is a 3Dfx Voodoo card present, then it uses 3Dfx Mini-GL Driver to do the rendering (since there is no OpenGL ICD yet for 3Dfx Voodoo's... I think).

And, the reason why its so fast, is because it uses only a part of the OpenGL. On the other hand, Unreal is so slow because of its beatiful special fx. Not that Quake II is nothing, I could *never* do such a master-piece, but it is fast because its limited.

Hmm... what type of a computer and configuration do you have? You can't really expect much on a low-end system--any Pentium first generations really. I would say second generation CPU's are the bottom line these days.

Also, are the polygons texture mapped or gouraud shaded? Any special FX enabled? (Alpha Blending, Anti-Aliasing--this is a killer, Depth cueing)? Fog is good to have--especially in Landscape stuff, but it does have a good effect on the frame rates.

Also, are you enabling back-face culling? If not, that could really help--especially in landscape apps.

- prauppl

first thanks for your fast reply
I´ve a PII 450, a Elsa Erazor II (TNT), 256 MB SDRAM. My Engine does at 1000 Polys only 40 fp/s.
Alphablending is only activated when the player shots ...my Engine uses hardware-acceleration through direct3d, too.
All polygons have their own SetTexture (); -Calls. This means, that every polygon will be drawn with it´s correct texture. And every polygon will be draw through its own DrawPrimitive (); -Call.

But what I´m making wrong?

Andy

------------------
-------------------------
Andrew
Lead Programmer
UNITED BYTES, GERMANY
andy@unitedbytes.de
-------------------------

Hm... your system is very good. I don't know whats wrong. Are you in full screeen mode? If you are, the video cards "synchronize" to a specific fps. If you are in windowed mode however, the fps seem to be limitless!

So, the polygons *are* visible, but the problem is that you need to make your program faster?

- prauppl

Andrew

------------------
-------------------------
Andrew
Lead Programmer
UNITED BYTES, GERMANY
andy@unitedbytes.de
-------------------------

But, in DrawIndexedPrimitive, you send TOTAL number of vertices, number of vertices to be RENDERED (just like DrawPrimitive) a pointer to the MASTER vertex list, AND a pointer to unsigned shorts that are the *indices* for the vertex list. The indices specify the vertices for your polygons in the master vertex list.

There is no difference I see--as long as you're careful, why you need to use DrawIndexedPrimitive instead of DrawPrimitive. I never used the indexed primitive, but D3D docs sound like its useful when you have indices to vertices of a figure in an array... which is generally not the case. You usually setup a triangle with 3 vertices, one right after the other...

In other words, they are not *seperated* with a vertex from another geometric figure after a vertex of yet another geometric figure... Meaning:

T_Vn = Triangle vertex 'n'
Q_Vn = Quad vertex 'n'

T_V1
T_V2
Q_V1
T_V3
Q_V2
Q_V3

However, I am not *totally* sure about this, if someone finds me wrong, or see that my thinking is different, please tell me... however, I am pretty sure that the above is correct...

- prauppl

The url is: http://www.unitedbytes.de

-Andrew

Sorry about that. :-) And, btw, just wanted to say that the UB's screenshots were pretty cool!

- prauppl