September 22, 2019, 04:07:06 PM

Author Topic: AGK2 vs Pure Basic  (Read 1780 times)

Offline Qube

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2115
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2019, 07:25:48 PM »
So basically (lol) there's still not a simple but powerful language that suits all.
Nope, never has and never will be the ultimate does it all perfectly language. Different things and all that :)
Until the next time...

Online Steve Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2019, 07:28:32 PM »
Yes there will be.   ;)
Windows 10, 64-bit, 16Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 3.2 GHz, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (2Gb).
MacOS Mojave, 64-bit, 8Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 2.3 Ghz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640 1536 MB.
Linux Mint 19.1, 64-bit, 16Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 3.2 GHz, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (2Gb).
Raspbian Buster, pi4 4Gb RAM,1.5Ghz

Offline Qube

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2115
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2019, 07:31:35 PM »
;D
Until the next time...

Offline Madjack

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2019, 06:17:48 PM »
So just confirm, leaving graphics aside, AGK2 BASIC is about how much slower than Blitz3d in code execution?

Offline Pfaber11

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
    • FABERS GAMES
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2019, 07:29:07 PM »
I don't personally know the answer to that but I have used both and the results I got were better with AGK2 however it was my first game for the pc I created with bltz3d and it wasn't up to much. I think the potential is better with AGK2 but I'm sure there's  many who would disagree. I couldn't get pure basic to run seemed to be having a problem with OGRE . I think it was using FMOD for the sound too which has some copyright stuff going on I believe. Hmm .

Offline Rick Nasher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 776
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2019, 10:07:53 PM »
So just confirm, leaving graphics aside, AGK2 BASIC is about how much slower than Blitz3d in code execution?

Can only speak for myself and while using 3D gfx. In comparison, in AGK on my old core2duo from 2007 was a breeze: could now use shadows, animated water and lighting in hi-res at a descent rate opposed to Blitz3d, which then would start to crawl.

I understood different people on occasion experienced results that were more slow in regards to Blitz3D when using other aspect of the language, but I can't say I've got adequate material to compare it with, for I basically didn't care to much about that and could live with it very well.

_______________________________________
 B3D + physics + shaders + X-platform = AGK!
:D ..ALIENBREED *LIVES* (thanks to Qube).. :D
_______________________________________

Offline Qube

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2115
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2019, 11:17:54 PM »
So just confirm, leaving graphics aside, AGK2 BASIC is about how much slower than Blitz3d in code execution?
For pure code execution Blitz3D is faster than AGK but nothing that really limits the type of game you want to do. I've never had any speed issues with AGK as the byte code it outputs is easily fast enough for all my needs to date. If your game is logic heavy and you don't want to optimise it then Blitz will out perform AGK on pure code speed grunt.

If you're asking for a speed difference in code alone then I'd say that Blitz is around 30% faster but once you start to introduce graphics, sound and music then the speed difference drops as AGK's 2D side is very fast.

Or to put it another way AGK is capable of creating any 2D game you want. Yes it does 3D too but I'd personally use something like Unity for 3D games as it's feature set is so much more richer.
Until the next time...

Offline RemiD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 851
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2019, 09:15:13 AM »
Quote
most bizarre moment was, when i realized that example supplied by AGK, uses lightmap on a OBJ format which doesnt support 2nd UV map channel, while those which does (X, B3D), simply doesnt work..

so, a few months ago, some of you guys wrote that AGK was the best language / game engine, which would replace blitz3d, and now you complain to not manage to apply a diffuse texture on a mesh. :))
DualCore AMD E-450, 1646 MHz - 6 Go DDR3 1333 SDRAM - AMD Radeon HD 6320 Graphics (384 Mo) - Windows 7 Home Premium - DirectX 11.0

Offline Naughty Alien

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2019, 09:38:04 AM »
..i was the one of very enthusiastic AGK users..no mistake about it...until i started to dig deeper in to 3d side of things (before that i was working on GUI and few other things, 2D related)...soon after that, whole thing was not so optimistic to me and it is like that right now..thats how it went for me..

Online Steve Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2019, 09:42:43 AM »
It depends if you want to write 3D games or are happy developing 2D games like I am.  AGK is great for 2D with Box2D built-in and a very simple language that runs on many platforms, as for full 3D features?  Not so much.  Also, the syntax is very wordy (which is not something I like).  Pure BASIC is even more wordy though, both companies don't seem to know the word abbreviation!
Windows 10, 64-bit, 16Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 3.2 GHz, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (2Gb).
MacOS Mojave, 64-bit, 8Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 2.3 Ghz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640 1536 MB.
Linux Mint 19.1, 64-bit, 16Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 3.2 GHz, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (2Gb).
Raspbian Buster, pi4 4Gb RAM,1.5Ghz

Offline Qube

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2115
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2019, 04:16:33 PM »
Quote
so, a few months ago, some of you guys wrote that AGK was the best language / game engine, which would replace blitz3d, and now you complain to not manage to apply a diffuse texture on a mesh. :))
Lol, the 3D side does work with textures, it just that it doesn't fully implement certain 3D model formats and can be quirky about which UV it wants to apply the texture to depending on model format.

It's easy enough and straight forward but in the case of the other thread his model didn't have any UV data at all, hence the problem.
Until the next time...

Offline RemiD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 851
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2019, 04:34:16 PM »
oh i see... well it is reassuring that it works for such basic features :P
DualCore AMD E-450, 1646 MHz - 6 Go DDR3 1333 SDRAM - AMD Radeon HD 6320 Graphics (384 Mo) - Windows 7 Home Premium - DirectX 11.0

Offline Qube

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2115
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2019, 05:17:46 PM »
oh i see... well it is reassuring that it works for such basic features :P
Has more features and can push more polys than Blitz3D :P
Until the next time...

Online Steve Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2019, 05:21:03 PM »
Quote
Has more features and can push more polys than Blitz3D :P

And is in active development...It even has a website and forum!  :P
Windows 10, 64-bit, 16Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 3.2 GHz, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (2Gb).
MacOS Mojave, 64-bit, 8Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 2.3 Ghz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640 1536 MB.
Linux Mint 19.1, 64-bit, 16Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 3.2 GHz, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (2Gb).
Raspbian Buster, pi4 4Gb RAM,1.5Ghz

Offline iWasAdam

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1246
Re: AGK2 vs Pure Basic
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2019, 06:19:47 PM »
Touché Steve  :D