Check out ...

Might be interesting to note that it was written mostly in C++.
Posted on 2004-04-15 14:15:32 by death
...and that it's size optimized, NOT speed optimized. Pretty slow on my P4 2.54ghz / 1gig ddr333 ram / r9600xt-256meg... but it's pretty impressive nonetheless, and I'm sure they could do quite some speed optimization at the expense of size.
Posted on 2004-04-15 14:45:01 by f0dder
Yeah, it's not 96kb for free. But I recall *some people* here saying C++ compilers generate bloated code, so there.
(PS - I doubt this could have been done using PowerBASIC, with the same strains on written assembly code quantity ;))
Posted on 2004-04-15 15:04:01 by death
Well, I would imagine the farbrausch guys have compressed the executable - but still... pretty impressive. And btw this is probably full C++ code, not just pure C.
Posted on 2004-04-15 15:23:12 by f0dder
that's amazing. these guys should join up with id software or write some sort of executable packer lol ;x. the highest frame rate i got on that was about 8 fps though :( on a p4 2.4ghz w/ ht,512 kingston pc3200,Radeon 9800 pro 128mb. ;x that game was worth more than its weight in bytes. i wonder if anyone will ever try to see if they can do better and try to get a 3d game in 1 - 95kb ;x.
Posted on 2004-04-15 17:20:07 by HeXeN
Well, I think a 10meg game at 30fps is btter than a 96kb game in 8fps :P - but the farbrausch guys quite clearly have some tricks, and some of those could surely be incorporated in a game engine... it's about balancing things. Look at unreal tournamet 2004. Their engine isn't very interesting, but they have some quite huge textures and polygon data, so it ends up looking good (at the expense of 6 CDs).
Posted on 2004-04-15 18:27:18 by f0dder
It GPF'd on my system.
I guess they had to omit error checking to make it that small. ;)
Posted on 2004-04-15 19:03:50 by iblis has some info on how some of there demos are created i wonder if thats how they did their game to using the same tools that they used to make the demo. it still amazes me how they can get so much information in such a small program.
Posted on 2004-04-15 19:11:58 by HeXeN
it just crashed on my system. running winXp.

But the screenshots look pretty impressive. When you said 96k i thought it was going to be some doom style old game.
Posted on 2004-04-16 11:26:54 by clippy
lol, they replaced the screenshots with tiny ones because of all the traffic and because they were bigger than the game ;x
Posted on 2004-04-16 17:58:24 by HeXeN

it just crashed on my system. running winXp.

But the screenshots look pretty impressive. When you said 96k i thought it was going to be some doom style old game.

lol i thought it will be 96 000 frame per second game :grin:
Posted on 2004-04-17 06:11:41 by AceEmbler
that would have been nice at 96k frames per second i bet i could walk through the walls lol ;x
Posted on 2004-04-17 11:59:00 by HeXeN
Didn't run here ... wonder why .. 192MB PC100 RAM, P3 700MHz, GeForce2 32MB :grin:
shows off the ease of use of DX9, I guess :)
it's cool how complex some of the textures are.
Posted on 2004-04-18 07:31:57 by Ultrano
Hehe Ultrano :)
I think they use a bunch of 2.0 shader stuff - it doesn't show all the time, and most of what they do could probably be done faster without shaders. But there is dynamic lighting etc and it looks fairly good.

The thing I like best about this game, is the quality of the textures. I don't think I've ever seen such high-quality textures in a game or demo before, it's quite cute.

But umm. The framerate sucks, and I do consider my system to be "okay" :-s
Posted on 2004-04-18 09:53:10 by f0dder