Qbasicnews.com

Here my results:

Compiled: FPS 180.2410844629823
QB IDE: FPS 53.0364025695932

My PC: Athlon XP1600+,512MB SDRAM,GeForce TI 4200, Win98/XP

180.9009062391077 FPS. And my computer is an Athlon XP1600+, 128MB DDR, GeForce 2, Win98, almost the same as ak00ma but with some noticeable differences. Yet mine's ran faster. The little magic of QB-compiled code. :roll:

Ak00ma, Hex:
In my P4 1,4 the code runs 33 fps in the ide and 250 fps compiled with ffix and 32 - 240 without it. the 53-180 you had is very strange, one should expect the differences go in the same way. And an Athlon 1600 should be faster than a P4 1,4.
My OS is W2K SP3, but it should not help (or it does?)...
Maybe you enabled /ah?. Or enabled "produce debug code" at compile?
The speed is variable depending on movements, and the zoom is the slowest operation, I tested speed moving around the plane without zooming.

My aim is to add a rotation around an axis perpendicular to screen, AFAIK no one has done that in QB yet...

I used the EXE provided with the archive. And since I was a bit skeptical the first time about the FPS count (the difference between frame rates was bigger), I ran your demo for about a minute, wandering aimlessly, but always moving. Then I got the 181 FPS result. Possibly (possibly? nah, for sure) I'd get better results testing your floormapper in plain DOS, but I can't do that because I'm FTP-trading music in the background. Sorry... :roll:

PS: note that the video card may have something to do with the IDE/compiled FPS difference.

c'mon, it's not a contest. And besides, you can't compare one that reads 4 pixels each pixel to one that only read one. Try the one that reads only one.

I get a fps count of 2.34895 on my TI-82... :wink:

*peace*

Meg.

TI-82? Wait.... huh?
I have a TI-83 plus, but............ HUH?

Hex:
Music downloading in the background explains the difference in speed.

*cough* Heh heh, maybe.