Sign in to follow this  

should I get fastgraph?

This topic is 4756 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I want to write 3d games (and maybe 2d games) and I'm thinking of getting fastgraph. The advantage in my reasoning to using fastgraph versus directx is that the users of my games (which I'm going to try to sell as shareware) will not need to get the DirectX runtime in order to play the games. Does fastgraph without directx handle 3d well? Are there any limitations? Is it any more difficult than directx? Does the documentation included with it explain fully how to do 3d graphics with it? I want to make this clear in my post: I do not want to use fastgraph and directx together. I want to use fastgraph without directx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
I remember having a look at FG quite a while ago,and it is apparently a good product.I think (if i'm not mistaken) Diane was behind the "I have no mouth but must scream" classic.

Sorry can't really be more helpful,but iv'e heard from others also for certain types of applications its very good and stable.

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
I remember having a look at FG quite a while ago,and it is apparently a good product.I think (if i'm not mistaken) Diane was behind the "I have no mouth but must scream" classic.


A classic? Cool! Well then, lets give credit to the right people. I was lead programmer on "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" and I can tell you that neither Diana nor Ted Gruber were even remotely involved in making the game (other than providing Fastgraph and some technical support).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Isn't fastgraph a software renderer?

Why are you worried about people have directx? 99% of gamers use windows pc's anyway...

Why not opengl?

Are you crazy?

Is this a joke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Just something i heard(apparently wrong then) a long time back...
No offense intented John,if you was the lead on that one,
i would shake your hand if i met you in the street.

At least i was right in that it was developed with
Fast Graph lol :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fastgraph, hmm, interesting concept (first I've heard of it).

Odd, what's this "pricing info" link?

$300!!!!!!

Why would anyone want to pay for such a system? I mean, OpenGL doesn't have a run-time, is completely free, and is much simpler API wise than DX (which is also free).

Oh, and according to the site, Fastgraph uses D3D routines anyway, so you'd still need the run-time, not counting the fact that if you have Windows, you have the run-time...

Granted I'm just reiterating what's been said above me, but geez, what a waste of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
$300 is peanuts considering how long FS has been around and stable FS is.

If your doing something like a point-and-click for the PC (i think "The longest journey" and "Sanitarium" used FG.

I personaly have not used it,but i have heard only good stuff about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professional game design is a completely other boat, in that case yes, $300 is nothing. The thread-starter seemed to be starting a personal project, of which there is no need to spend such money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
James,as i told you i haven't used it myself,so i'm really only answering by stuff iv'e heard from others who have,which wasn't recently.

I think the best guy here to give advice and explain exactly what might be a benefit to the thread starter(if he is doing a personal non- commercial project and is struggling/getting caught up in the DX API) would be JohnBolton.

I'm pretty sure its more than just what you wrote above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster

Fastgraph is a programmer's graphics library, meaning it is low-level (assembly language) code you can use in your program to create things like graphics primitives, bitmaps, animation, and 3D rendering. Fastgraph supports most video modes, graphics chipsets and compilers. It is easy to use, small, quick, well-documented, and compatible with most other programming toolkits. Fastgraph makes graphics programming easy!

You can try Fastgraph for yourself. Download the Fastgraph/Light evaluation version for Windows or DOS from our demos page.

We are proud to announce the release of version 6.03 of Fastgraph for Windows. The latest version of Fastgraph has all the power and versatility of the earlier versions, but we have added additional compiler support, making this the most versatille version of Fastgraph ever. Now you can use Fastgraph with the following compilers:

Support for Visual C# .NET
Support for Visual C++ .NET
Support for Visual Basic .NET
This is in addition to all previously supported compilers, including Borland C++Builder, Borland Delphi, Microsoft Visual Basic, Microsoft Visual C++, PowerBasic and more. If you are using a compiler not on the list, contact us.

WHY FASTGRAPH?

Fastgraph offers power and versatility not available in other graphics libraries. Whether you are drawing simple lines and vectors, doing bitmap animation, or rendering complex 3D scenes, Fastgraph can handle the job.

Our code is expertly written in hand-optimized assembly language. It is thoroughly documented and virtually bug-free. Fastgraph is easy to use, thorough, powerful and fast.

Our unparalleled customer support is another reason for our high level of customer satisfaction. For 15 years, Fastgraph has been the graphics library of choice. Try it and see! You will never find an easier or more efficient way to add graphics to your programming projects than with Fastgraph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A software 3D engine (like Fastgraph or Pixomatic) is not such a bad idea these days, for certain types of games. A lot of people have 3+ GHz processors coupled with Intel's shitty excuse for an integrated 3D graphics chip ("Extreme" Graphics my ass). I would not be surprised if a well-written software renderer was faster than using the 3D "acceleration" on those machines.

Plus, you don't have to deal with driver issues - you know the game will look exactly the same on each system. The move to dual-core processors will only make software 3D even more viable, as long as Intel keeps making garbage 3D chips.

Of course, even a $50 ATI X300 will destroy any software solution performance-wise, but really, for a lot of games, hardware just isn't necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is 4756 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this