Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
I noticed recently that EV seems to run faster than EVO. I wanted to make sure my tests were fair so I created a system almost identical to Levo with the same number of ships. I used the EV shuttle and an EVO shuttle that I created with all the same relevant specs. Of course the my accels were halved in both engines (by checking Person info) but that's standard. With almost identical ships and environments, the EV engine ran faster than EVO engine in a series tests. Both had their required amounts of RAM (roughly 8 MB for EV and 24 MB for EVO I think). Has anyone else run across this or is it my computer only?
Phoenix
------------------ (url="http://"http://commonwealth.cjb.net")Commonwealth Software(/url)
maybe because evo has more missons or more systems or something, but the engines are pretty similar. I don't think it would make much of a difference.
------------------ "I'm getting out of this place alive even if it kills me!"
The main difference between the speed of the two is the sound subsystem. It has more features, but is slower in the EVO engine.
------------------ Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc. Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
Hmmm, guess we EVO Plug Developers can't do anything about that. Thanks for the info.
(This message has been edited by Phoenix (edited 01-05-2001).)
I've never noticed a difference. then again, they load in an instant on my G3, so you can never tell.
------------------ - 010000010110111001100100011100100110010101110111 (url="http://"http://www.mac-pa.da.ru/")Check out the Mac User Planetarion Alliance!(/url)
This topic prompted an experiment, although being up for almost three days probably prompted spending so much time here at one in the morning.
Make a plug so that all you have is one ship, one system, and one spob in that system. Trim it down so that you have the exact same kinds of outfits for these plugs (one for EV, one for EVO) and then launch them.
EV loads a wee bit faster, barely noticeable. EV has the faster engine, but EVO has the more powerful engine in this case. This is just in terms of loading time though.
It's sort of like comparing one of those modified Integra Type Rs. They work on them and pour thousands of dollars into them, and manage to get over 470 hp in them (this is EV comparatively) but then you take a Camaro SS and it just barely loses to the Integra (EVO is the Camaro).
What I'm trying to get at is that EVO might have the faster basic engine and the more powerful one, but it's weighted down by some of the graphics, sound, and gameplay enhancements.
If this made little or no sense, then you probably sleep very well.
------------------ The never duplicated Never capitalized And always puce: forge
Quote
Originally posted by andrew: **The main difference between the speed of the two is the sound subsystem. It has more features, but is slower in the EVO engine.
**
I hope you don't mind answering this question, I don't want to bug mcb, but what is the sound format for EVO? Is it the same as EV and if not what are the different features?
I seem to remember copying the resources out of the EV files and pasting them in SoundEdit (I have version 1 which came with MacRecorder. It was digital! It plugged in through the Serial ports!) and it gave me all the format, size compression.
Memory is sketchy but I seem to remember 11.025khz mono with optional compression (Mace 4:1 or was it 3:1?) seemed to be the only things that worked.
Checking the FAQ I can see I'm right but the compression isn't noted though I DO know it works.
Does EVO just do stereo panning based on sprite placement? (ie Mono sound that is shifted to either speaker through the engine) The only thing I'm sure of is that the farther away the attacker the more muffled (quieter?) the weapon sound is.
I haven't really paid any attention to see if there were any stereo effects but may do so in the future and check back here, but if you know off hand andrew that would keep me from not being lazy .
------------------ "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." -Bill Cosby Star Trek Escape Velocity (url="http://"http://homepage.mac.com/startrekev/")http://homepage.mac.com/startrekev/(/url)
The EV and EVO engines are very similar, but EVO takes up all your memory or runs really slow because there is so much more stuff. Also, the main thing, is EVO is more complicated. The graphics are huge too. To speed up EVO, allot it over 30 megs of mem. (I found this out because I run on a 75 mhz MAC!! and I didn't play EVO lots 'cause it was so slow.)
------------------
Well, on my iBook they both run too fast to tell the difference, but on my Performa 578 I tried them and EV ran much faster.
------------------ Is the answer to this question 'no'?
so there is a use for my old mac
I use iBook for EVO, Performa for EV. (Ares also runs well, if you are really desparate for games.) Sometimes I play both at once.
EV is faster, but only because it has less stuff. On my old mac, EV took 10 minutes to load.
------------------ Hornet ------------------ (url="http://"HTTP://WWW.v-west.in2home.co.uk/zac/zac.html")My cool EV/O website(/url) Email:
10 mins!
What mac?
In my experience, EVO runs REALLY badly on 68k and (maybe) early PPC machines. EV worked pretty well on my old LC III though. However, on this iMac, they both run roughly the same. However, I remember someone saying that EVO should be a little faster, and that you should set the speed to 125%. I don't do that but on my old macs I had to set it to 225% and use Caps-lock, and it would STILL go really slow. Blech.
However, the engines themselves are about the same, speed-wise.
------------------ --Joolzman5, that guy with the red spikey hair whose presence never fails to suddenly kill Mag Steelglass