This site is no longer active and is available for archival purposes only. Registration and login is disabled.

Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices


Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby Dan East » Feb 20, 2001 @ 10:39am

I've received several emails lately, in addition to the posts on this forum, regarding the creation of Pocket Quake versions for many other types of Windows CE / Pocket PC devices. First off, let me say that this is an open source project, and that there are others currently working on producing builds of Pocket Quake for other Pocket PC devices. We'll just have to wait to see when and if any results are seen. :) <br>Now, it is my opinion, based on my experience with the project coupled with the results of various benchmarks, that the only Pocket PC's powerful enough to run Quake in a playable fashion are the iPaq and @migo. In addition to those two devices, there are HPC Pros that have StrongARM processors that could conceivably run PQ. The problem here is that the Game API is not available for those devices (the direct screen access is absolutely required to bypass the perfomance penalties imposed by using Windows CE to do the display drawing). I do feel that it would be possible for a playable version of PQ to be created for some of the more powerful HPC Pro devices, assuming that some form of direct screen access can be achieved through 3rd party libraries. However, that is exactly the type of contribution I would expect to be accomplished by other Windows CE programmers with experience in that particular area. A further potential problem with HPC devices is the screen size. Quake is playable on the ipaq at a 240x180 resolution. Because Quake is a 3D rendering engine, any increase in output resolution results directly in a large amount of additional processing to render those additional pixels. For some reason I doubt it would be acceptable for the typical HPC owner to play Quake at a miniscule 240x180, when their screen is 640x240. It would of course be possible to stretch the image to fit better, but the result would be blocky (and still result in additional overheard / reduction in fps).<br><br>So, to sum it all up, the source code to Pocket Quake is available, and a relatively small amount of work would be required to modify it to build for any Windows CE device (any device meeting the RAM / Storage requirements could run PQ). However, unless the device is based on the 206 mhz StrongARM processor, I do not think the result would be playable. It is barely playable on the iPaq, whose StrongARM processor far outperforms the SH3 and MIPS processors in the critical area of floating point operations.<br><br>Dan East<br>
User avatar
Dan East
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5264
Joined: Jan 25, 2001 @ 5:19pm
Location: Virginia, USA


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby Moose or Chuck » Feb 20, 2001 @ 12:21pm

Well that's a very dismal, negative post.
Moose or Chuck
 


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby Rob » Feb 20, 2001 @ 2:23pm

DSA is possible on the hpc pro, on my jornada 820.  I dont know how, but jimmy and another guy did it for Iron Rain.  Does this mean i can have quake on my hpcpro?<br>rob
Rob
 


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby Dan East » Feb 20, 2001 @ 3:42pm

Let me add that if a fixed point conversion of the floating point routines is successful (even if only a partial conversion of key areas is done), then this will 1) speed up the StrongARM version, and 2) possibly escalate a MIPS / SH3 version to the current performance level of the StrongARM version. While the iPaq is a whopping 12 times faster at floating point operations than the Casio E-125, it is only 1.35 times faster at integer operations. So a fixed-point conversion will result in a massive performance increase for MIPS devices. While I'm comparing devices, the iPaq is also a few times faster at memory access than both MIPS and SH3 devices. The iPaq has extremely fast memory access, even when compared to desktop machines. Quake is of course a memory-intensive app, and nothing can be done to work around this disparity between the devices. I don't know how much this would hurt performance on MIPS / SH3 devices, but it would have to result in further observable performance degradation for MIPS / SH3.<br><br>Now, the iPaq and @migo are faster devices than the rest of the Pocket PCs. If we were talking about PCs here, and someone said they wanted to run Quake on an old 486 with no floating point coprocessor, then there wouldn't be an issue. Their hardware is not up to the task. Period. They are too far behind in the technology-development curve. In the world of Windows CE, because we are talking about devices based on entirely different processors, we sometimes end up trying to compare apples and oranges. However, at the heart of this, it is no different than the 486 analogy I used above. Quake barely runs on the fastest Pocket PC's made. It should be very obvious that this does not bode well for the other devices. I am certainly not trying to be negative here. I am simply trying to present logical, hopefully accurate statements regarding the differences between various Pocket PC devices and how that would impact Quake's performance.<br><br>Again, if a fixed point conversion succeeds it should allow for a playable version of PQ at least on MIPS devices. I feel that is the only way Quake will be playable on the current production MIPS devices.<br><br>The performance statistics I keep referring to can be found at:<br>http://www.dalecoffing.com/General/VOBenchmark/VOBenchmark.htm<br>Note that while the Casio excels in some graphical areas, they represent calls to Windows graphical routines. Serious games would not be using Windows' drawing primitives, so those areas in which the E-115 excels are moot in this case.<br><br>Dan East<br>Last modification: Dan East - 02/20/01 at 12:42:13
User avatar
Dan East
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5264
Joined: Jan 25, 2001 @ 5:19pm
Location: Virginia, USA


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby Rob » Feb 20, 2001 @ 3:50pm

so are we looking at port to my 190mhz, 32 mb jornada 820?  it would be sweet.<br>rob
Rob
 


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby Sparky009 » Feb 20, 2001 @ 4:20pm

you tell those non-ipaqer's Dan!
Sparky009
pm Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Jan 26, 2001 @ 5:34pm


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby ShatruSK » Feb 20, 2001 @ 4:30pm

How about the new 500 mhz MIPS coming out?<br><br>It will be playable on them, right?
ShatruSK
 


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby Bill S » Feb 20, 2001 @ 5:12pm

No offense, but speed is relative and code is key. If a Quake port can run on an iPaq, it can run on the Casio (bear in mind so many are overclocked to 180 or 200MHz these days). There's no really significant hardware differences between the ARM and MIPS devices that specifically allows Quake that the other doesn't. What is really comes down to is optimization, optimization, optimization. 3D graphics on a non-3D hardware-equipped device comes down to how well the code is written as well as system resource familiarity on the part of the engineer. It may be much more difficult to get Quake to be playable on a MIPS device, but it's not all just floating point.<br><br>DOOM is not as 3D intensive as Quake, but it still uses a fairly elaborate 3D environment. It doesn't run slow on a MIPS device at all - - in fact, it's faster than most PC's could run it in its day. Strange from a device that's supposedly so slow that it can't even hope to run Quake. The ARM doesn't so far outperform the MIPS that it negates any possibility of a playable Quake. If nobody tries, how will anyone know? Benchmark apps don't tell the whole story... It has more to do with what you can do with the whole device than the numbers game between the two CPU's.<br><br>I'm sure that, eventually, someone will take a crack at Quake... And come up with something that, while perhaps not as smooth as our DOOM ports, will be at least somewhat functional. But it will take someone willing to TRY, and possibly work very hard at it.<br><br>Anyone?<br><br>b
Bill S
 


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby 999 » Feb 20, 2001 @ 7:36pm

Bill S:<br><br>DOOM isn't real 3D, big difference. ;)<br><br>
Image
999
pm Member
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Jan 24, 2001 @ 11:48pm


(OT) Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby sponge » Feb 20, 2001 @ 8:41pm

Regarding Doom, I'm not sure if I ever heard a good explanation for this, but why isn't Doom a true 3D game? I think it had to do with raycasting, but I could just be pulling random terms out of my head.
sponge
 


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby Dan East » Feb 21, 2001 @ 12:39am

Where do I begin. :) Bill, you feel there is no significant difference between the hardware of an iPaq and Casio device that would give one advantages over the other? Besides running the same OS, and the fact that electricity courses throughout their circuits, there is absolutely no similarity between the devices. The MIPS devices perform terribly when it comes to floating point emulation. This is most likely because the MIPS processor lacks particular instructions that are useful for floating point emulation, or because of poor compiler (or floating point emulation library) design. Either way, the iPaq's hardware has very obvious advantages over MIPS devices in certain areas.<br>If optimization was the primary solution to increasing the performance of the hardware, then companies like Intel would not waste millions of dollars designing new technologies. Us programmers could simply keep optimizing our code whenever we feel like speeding up our computer. Quake is an extremely well written piece of software, and any optimizations would result in token improvement in performance (I don't consider switching to fixed point an optimization - it is simply an attempt at working around a hardware deficit).<br>Doom is totally dissimilar to Quake. Doom achieves a pseudo-3D affect by bitmap manipulation. Flat bitmaps are simply stretched and transformed 2D so they are no longer rectangular. The resultant panels are spliced together to create what looks like a 3D environment. Even the characters are simply pre-drawn bitmap animations scaled based on the distance from the player. This can all be done with integer math.<br>Quake on the other hand is pure 3D, consisting of 3D models which are transformed, scaled and rotated based on the user's POV. This all done with floating point math. In fact, Quake was one of the very first games that required a floating point processor. Floating point math is absolutely the underlying issue with MIPS devices.<br>Benchmarks certainly do not tell the whole tale. However they provide a far more accurate projection than anecdotal comparison using entirely different, dissimilar applications.<br><br>Again, I am not saying that Quake could never be playable on MIPS devices (anyone that knows anything about me knows that I am the last person to say "can't" ). I am saying that fixed point conversions will be necessary for playable Quake on MIPS and possibly SH3 devices.<br><br>Dan East<br>Last modification: Dan East - 02/20/01 at 21:39:52
User avatar
Dan East
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5264
Joined: Jan 25, 2001 @ 5:19pm
Location: Virginia, USA


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby CARPEDIEM » Feb 21, 2001 @ 9:44am

Hey Dan, are you positive about what you are saying?, I mean, 12 times faster is a little too much i think, So i have to disagree with you there.<br>I have developed a pretty reliable Benchmarking tool called Gapi Benchmark which is now up to version 2.0<br>With it i prove that the 12x floating point Mith, is just that, a Mith and not a fact. The Ipaq outperforms Casios, but they are just about 30%-40% faster in floating point emulation. And Ipaqs are also more than 50% slower when casting.<br><br>Why don't you make your own test and see what happens?, don't trust Mine or VO's word about the floating point issue and see for yourself.
CARPEDIEM
 


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby Moose or Chuck » Feb 21, 2001 @ 4:17pm

I hate being the person that just HAS to point out grammar or spelling mistakes but...<br>Its spelled myth, not mith.<br>I know, I'm annoying.<br>Last modification: Moose Master - 02/21/01 at 13:17:30
Moose or Chuck
 


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby CARPEDIEM » Feb 21, 2001 @ 8:43pm

I'd like to see how well you speak spanish moose.<br><br>D*mb as*<br>
CARPEDIEM
 


Re: Regarding PQ for non-iPaq Devices

Postby Matt Keys » Feb 21, 2001 @ 9:59pm

Come on children, lets be nice. This isnt brighthand:D
Matt Keys
Co-Founder
PocketMatrix.com
User avatar
Matt Keys
Site Co-Founder
 
Posts: 3243
Joined: Jan 24, 2001 @ 7:29pm
Location: Michigan, USA


Next

Return to Pocket Quake 1 and 2


Sort


Forum Description

Discuss Pocket Quake 1 and 2 by Dan East

Moderators:

Dan East, sponge, James S

Forum permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

cron