RPGDX > Forums > Design and programming > Qbasic---HELP

Unknown · Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:09 am Post subject: Qbasic---HELP

I was tryin ta make a little rpg W/ Qb but...My code is running WAY to slow...Anyone have ANY ideas on how ta speed it up just a little bit ^_*

you can download the source here...http://www.members.aol.com/shadowed10566/QBRPG.ZIP

BUT you can't play it unless you have Qb 7.1pds which you can find here http://www.qbcafe.net/english/
_________________
Most people would succeed in small things if they were not troubled with such great ambitions.

LeoDraco · Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:50 am Post subject:

Write the game in a more modern language, which have support for better graphics APIs?</troll>

Um, back when I was coding in QB, the big thing was to use the popular graphics libraries, which were generally written in assembly and afforded minor speedups. So, you could probably either write your own assembly routines to speed up segments of your code, or you could google some of those libraries. I used DirectQB, which, if memory serves me correctly, might have been slightly bloated, but had pretty much everything that one wanted. There was also blast! and dash, which had their own followings.

Also, in looking at your code, you seem to rely a lot upon manual enumeration of all files you are using, as well as very little usage of arrays where they would make sense to have them. Perhaps writing the code with a more logical layout of program variables and what not?

Edit: you also are doing the same exact bit of code all of over the place to load your data (tiles?) into memory, which seems moderately useless: (The following is an excerpt from START.bas, although this seems relatively systemic, from the handful of files I have glanced at.)

tcaudilllg · Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:09 am Post subject:

In the case of QB, subroutines and functions are not going to make code faster....

If you aren't going to use some sort of asm library, like Blast!, or DirectQB, then I suggest dropping it. DirectQB, I should note, does have significant sound issues on WindowsXP. It would be better to use FreeBasic, and let QB go.

The reason I let QB go? Because I spent more time optimizing code than I spent making it functional! :\

LeoDraco · Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:39 am Post subject:

Unknown · Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:06 pm Post subject:

Instead of loading the code in the main program could i "link" a "grafix loading program" and the main game engin??? or would that be just as slow???

hmm...just dropping Qb huh LG...I might just do that after this project is done... ;-)

P. S. SCHOOL SUCKS!!!
_________________
Most people would succeed in small things if they were not troubled with such great ambitions.

DeveloperX · Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:50 pm Post subject:

Hey Unknown.
You gave up on me. heh.
:\
Life has become a royal pain in the ass lately,
and I havent had time to write any code, nor look over your code.

Check around on any news sites, and you will hear of that damned hurricane Katrina that ruined my life.
I used to live in SouthEastern Louisiana...
that reminds me, I need to edit my profile info..on about 50 forums..damn.

Anyway, I had told you awhile back that you needed to use a different method for your graphics, and that you were repeating alot of things.
If you send me small sections of code, I can help you optimize those sections, but I lack the time to sift through the whole source file.
Dont listen to people telling you to drop QB.
QB Rocks, and its still just as useful as it always was.
Its easy, fun, and fast (not fast like blazing C fast, but fast as in fast to use to write programs with)
I've gotten QBasic to run flawlessly under Linux too.
I'll ttyl man. drop me an email to my gmail account.
ccpsceo@gmail.com
_________________
Principal Software Architect
Rambling Indie Games, LLC

See my professional portfolio

biggerUniverse · Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:03 am Post subject:

Ren · Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:58 pm Post subject:

I'd upgrade to FreeBasic if I were you :) 90% of your code should still be useable, depending on how you've done it. If you're absolutely set on using QB i'd suggest GSlib, because it can run natively on 2000 and XP, and I think it's a little quicker than DQB. You'd best give up on music now though, unless you plan to make the FB switch.
_________________
Previous nicks: MidnightDreamer, The_Anarchist, Shroomasta.

ren-tek.net : BGC games and more!

Unknown · Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:43 am Post subject:

DeveloperX · Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:48 am Post subject:

DrV · Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:07 am Post subject:

Whatever you do, please don't use QB + Windows slave for audio - that makes it totally impossible to correctly run your program under a DOS emulator like DOSBox and also most likely it won't work very well or at all on modern versions of Windows, so you're limiting your audience to the ever-narrowing range of people still running on old software and hardware.

I have used (and still use) both C++ and FreeBASIC for game programming, and I would have to say that neither is really superior overall - use the one that is most familiar or logical to you. I would encourage you to learn C and C++ in any case just to broaden your knowledge of the possibilities and make informed choices.

Also, Allegro is a decent game programming library, as is SDL (and the various add-on libraries that go with SDL) - both of these can be used from either C(++) or FreeBASIC. Either will give you what you need when writing a game, but perhaps one might be better than the other in certain cases. I won't take sides on this issue as it is rather flammable. :)
_________________
Don't ask no stupid questions and I won't send you away.
If you want to talk fishing, well, I guess that'll be okay.

Unknown · Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:32 pm Post subject:

what im gona do is finsh the game W/ qb, learn c/c++ and Allegro. after doing that decide which is gona best suit my needs ... ;-)

of course in the mean time trying to keep my head above water in home work... that stuff just builds up so fast ...
_________________
Most people would succeed in small things if they were not troubled with such great ambitions.

Ren · Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject:

BadMrBox · Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:32 pm Post subject:

A tip from one QB user to another; dont use QB7.1. Use QB4.5.
I am myself thinking about upgrading to FB. I have been surfing around for info for awhile now.
_________________

Unknown · Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:16 pm Post subject:

Fb seems to be slightly better than Qb but if i have already started the project then why switch in the middle of a of it???
Mabey I'll switch after awhile but not yet ;-)