[gameprogrammer] Re: Actual query (was: Re: game engine?)
- From: Robbert de Groot <zekaric@xxxxxxxx>
- To: gameprogrammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:59:02 -0500 (EST)
Coming from a sort of similar CAD package at work our frame rate is
probably not as spunky as game engines either or with half the
features but certainly better than a frame per 2 seconds.
As far as I can see, CAD software and software I code for, have to be
seriously generalized to support all the features that architects and
engineers expect from a CAD product. They are totally different
problem domains.
Game Engines rarely draw wireframe, line patterns, face patterns,
thick lines, thick patterned lines, etc. Similarly CAD tools have no
need for texture mapping, light mapping, normal mapping etc.
Game Engines seriously tailor their display code to a specific world
format. The 'level' has to be 'prepared' for the engine to obtain
the best speed. I would imagine it would be very difficult for a
CAD package to incorporate a game engine and a converter for their
general model to an engine specific model. Meaning, It's a lot of
effort for very little gain. CAD products make their money on the
features they afford the architect or engineer. A walkthroughs is a
very minor deciding factor on a CAD tool.
Add to the mix is that the CAD tool has mainly been developed with a
2D frame of mind, architects and engineers can't get their head
around 3D, so their primary code is heavily based on 2D design or at
best, 2.5D. To get a walkthrough at all would probably mean forcing
their code base kicking and screeming to simulate the experience. My
guess is that they did it simple. Used a painters algorithm to draw
all the bits instead of implementing a z buffer. z sorting all the
triangles each and every frame. This would suck big time for speed.
--- grant hallman <unilogic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I've been shopping for an adequate drafting program i
> can use to design a new house. Some of them have a walk-thru
> feature. In
> every case i've seen, it's a huge bandwidth hog (and the controls
> suck wet
> concrete). Can anyone explain the major discrepancy in frame rate
> for
> architectural software walkthru vs the typical Quake/Doom - even
> Descent -
> game engine?
>
> Like this - i build a "house", with PunchPro. It has a dozen rooms,
> the
> rooms have windows, monochrome walls, low-poly-count furniture
> objects,
> nothing as complex as say Level 1 in Q2. The frame rate is around
> 0.5 Hz.
>
> Alternatively, i want to show my e-bud in Europe what the inside of
> our
> cabin looks like, so i use the Descent level builder and slap
> together a
> few walls & textures, about 75% as complex as the PP dwg, and the
> Descent
> game engine delivers a frame rate over 60 Hz.
>
> I talked to one of the designers of PP. He was surprised i was
> surprised.
> He knows nothing about game engines. So why the big discrepancy?
> Are the
> architect-app guys just a decade behind in rendering algoritha? I
> know i'm
> asking for speculation (unless we happen to be blessed with an
> architect-app coder), but any guesses?
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
---------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html
Other related posts:
