Thanks, Dave -- the compliment is appreciated.
Given the length of this thread, I would have expected that at least one person bother to contact us rather than just posting what they believed to be the case.
Yes, we run can Quake levels, but we certainly don't claim to run *all* levels -- these are handhelds, and to expect that they'll perform the same as a PC with many times the amount of resources and power is plainly foolish -- and smacks of someone looking to criticize without real foundation and is merely looking for a point to raise.
It's been a huge amount of work, and yes, it's all in ARM/Thumb for the speed -- but there's no big mystery as to how, or why it's fast: Lots and lots of time spent rewriting algorithms and blocks of code until it's acceptable.
As with many programs, Dan, I'm sure that if you rewrote all of Quake in ARM (or PPC), you would easily get much faster results than you're seeing now -- it's a matter of how much time you want to spend.
Better yet, do what we did: Design the engine from the ground up for the platform you're targetting instead of porting code that was aimed at a different level of technology.
And, Derek, rather than getting into a pissing contest about who's right, I'll simply point out that the spiders aren't generally considered "low poly" on mobiles these days -- each of them is 380 polygons -- for mobile devices, that's impressive by any standards.
As for the models being "small", there are plenty of images that show the models occupying anywhere from half to almost all of the screen.
I still remember one of Derek's earlier postings on his website where he claimed that real 3D models akin to MD2s weren't even "viable" on GBA (edit: I've added the link below) -- and he wrote that after our webpage had numerous videos and screenshots showing the very thing he said wasn't reasonable.
When Yeti3D can run the same type of complex geometry that we've shown in our videos (yes, running on a stock GBA at 16Mhz), then I'll concede that we've done "nothing more complex"
On GBA as far as FPS engines go, our visual quality is second-to-none -- If you have an example of something else that's comparable and yet better, I'd be more than happy to concede that as well.
What you've done with Yeti3D is quite impressive, I'm not disputing that -- but it's just not appropriate to be spreading incorrect information and mere supposition about our engine without at least attempting to verify it -- especially given that we've had a number of EMails back-and-forth already discussing this particular issue.
I have no qualms in stating that we've worked as hard at building 3D engines as you have (and likely far more so, if only on a sheer time basis), but that doesn't give us the right to lay unfounded criticsm at Yeti3D anymore than you should feel the need to do likewise towards DRG3D.
Healthy cynicism is a good thing, in moderation. To claim that what we've done isn't possible, reasonable, or that we're somehow deceiving everyone, especially given the media and examples posted on our site, is just plain wrong.
Rand.
<edits/additions since posting>
...and here's Derek's original quotes I was referring to ( from http://www.theteahouse.com.au/gba/quake.html )
"One company has made the very bold claim that current Quake MAP's can run un-changed on a GBA, complete with static lightmaps."
The links to the original data are all on our website -- download them and see for yourself.
Sure, it's not 100% identical -- but to expect that isn't quite reasonable given that we're not using Quake itself, is it?
Still, it's pretty damn close -- and far closer than anything on comparable machinery.
Also, take note that we don't claim anywhere that you can take a .BSP from your PC and run it "as-is" completely unchanged on a GBA.
"So, lets see. After playing with GBA coding for about 2 months now, I dont think full 3D models are viable on a GBA. Maybe some minimal models likes boxes and weapons, but I cant see any spare processor time avaliable to handle 3D monsters."
Clearly you don't believe that anymore, so instead of claiming that our models aren't viable, you've moved on to stating that we're no more complex than anything you can render.
Yeah, right. When Yeti3D can do everything that DRG3D can, then I'll take what you have to say seriously.
Until then, it's a safe bet that you're just trying to raise conflict in order to attract visitors to your site, and engine -- or at least that what you've said yourself on that same webpage: "I have to speak my mind so that my site attracks visits."
Derek, and Dan, both of your accomplishments are significant and impressive -- there's plenty to be proud of without having to "put down" others' work at the same time, intentionally or otherwise.
