From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


So, there's this video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqyIB-joQO8

It's the pre-release demo-video of Wing Commander developed for CES to
hype up the game. It was aimed mostly at retailers, since back then
most computer game sales were through individual retail stores (as
opposed to big chains) and you had to convince the owners of each that
YOUR game was worth putting on the shelf. While it's mostly a mockup,
it does use game assets and visuals.

But watching it, what mostly struck me was how indicative it was of
DOS gaming of that era. Look at those giant pixels. Look at that
framerate! And even when the actual framerate is smooth, look at all
those limited, non-interpolated animations that makes the game look
choppy regardless. This is what DOS gaming was about in 1990. Even
that framerate was considered more than acceptable. Nowadays people
moan if they don't get 60fps; thirty years ago we were happy with
single-digit frame-rates.

Nowadays, even with emulation, its hard to really get a feel for what
DOS gaming was like back in 1990. Our CPUs are so powerful, and our
screens so large, that even emulated we get an experience our younger
selves never would have imagined possible (and if we saw modern games,
we'd probably have an cerebral aneurysm from how great it looks). That
video reminds me of how terrible it all was back then... and also how
awesome.




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 08 Aug 2025 19:55:02 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

So, there's this video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqyIB-joQO8

It's the pre-release demo-video of Wing Commander developed for CES to
hype up the game. It was aimed mostly at retailers, since back then
most computer game sales were through individual retail stores (as
opposed to big chains) and you had to convince the owners of each that
YOUR game was worth putting on the shelf. While it's mostly a mockup,
it does use game assets and visuals.

But watching it, what mostly struck me was how indicative it was of
DOS gaming of that era. Look at those giant pixels. Look at that
framerate! And even when the actual framerate is smooth, look at all
those limited, non-interpolated animations that makes the game look
choppy regardless. This is what DOS gaming was about in 1990. Even
that framerate was considered more than acceptable. Nowadays people
moan if they don't get 60fps; thirty years ago we were happy with >single-digit frame-rates.

Yeah, they were trying to do something the hardware wasn't capable of.
This is not indicative of DOS gaming in 1990, imo, it's indicative of a
typical Origin Systems mistake.

Elite on a C=64 (wireframe) was smoother. So was Rescue on Fractulus for
that matter, iirc. That was 1985.

Elite (dogfighting):
https://youtu.be/LhTTpV5qFrs?si=6u2JU5HxFCRAj9ZY&t=1254

Fractulus (launching):
https://youtu.be/FbZ-chrOgGg?si=yenNnV8O-xN-T9jl&t=54

As for WC (1990), four years later we get Descent (1994). Here's some
gameplay footage. I adjusted the DOSBox cycles parameter to approximate
486DX66 CPU performance (cycles=26,800).*

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zk8dm46u2h8qchy2j624s/Descent-486DX-66.mp4?rlkey=bbdmhhlmzieo04acmljwgigk1&dl=0

And on a 386DX33 (cycles=7800)

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ftlbmbbj9p8ltln0tpras/Descent-386-33.mp4?rlkey=tw6o8oohiuey36zcjxwjhhybu&dl=0

So, TL;DR... it's hardware and too much ambition. The 386DX is doing full
scene renders and getting comparable performance. Origin was trying to do something the hardware couldn't handle. Literally everyone else
developing at the time knew better.

I didn't play Wing Commander for that reason. Origin had a way of
realizing big ideas that failed in execution. I didn't understand why the series was at all popular until WC3. I skipped WC2. Was WC2 better?
--
Zag

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ...Ben Franklin `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
* Not the first time I've revealed my real name here, but it's easier
this way. The days of needing a nym on Usenet are pretty much over.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2