[gameprogrammer] Re: Quake Engine v 3D Engines

On Thursday 07 December 2006 19:37, Stephen Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I was wondering what the main differences are between the Quake
> engine and other 3D engines, like Ogre or Crystalspace?  Presumably
> the Quake engine is one of the best, and AFAIK comes with networking
> code as well, so is there any reason to not use it (apart from the
> GPL licence maybe)?

In short, the Quake (III?) engine is more specialized, in order to do 
what it does faster than would a more generic engine.

For example, you may have noticed that although many Q3 based games 
have outdoor maps, most of them use various map layout tricks (deep 
curved valleys, or "floating" buildings or platforms, for examples; 
check out RTCW and the Star Wars series) to restrict the maximum 
in-game viewing distance. The reason for this is that the Q3 engine 
isn't optimized for outdoor scenes, and quickly runs into performance 
issues if you try to force "true" outdoor maps on it.


That said, I'm not all that into 3D and current 3D engines. Don't ask 
me about details. :-)


//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate

.-------  http://olofson.net - Games, SDL examples  -------.
|        http://zeespace.net - 2.5D rendering engine       |
|       http://audiality.org - Music/audio engine          |
|     http://eel.olofson.net - Real time scripting         |
'--  http://www.reologica.se - Rheology instrumentation  --'

---------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html

Other related posts: