Thanks for the replies. I've been checking out the tutorials
at the different user websites, so I know there's lots to work through and keep me busy.
As for the demos, I've downloaded room, face, ltype, spheremapping, waterslide and roadterrain. The room demo showed some potential like I stated earlier, but the rest definately needed work. I know these are only simple demos and don't show the full power of DBPro, but these were some of the problems I had.
RoomDemo - The player was able to walk through the walls at certain points in the green-lit room, and the camera didn't turn fast enough to keep up with the player(although I'm sure that could be fixed with code).
SpheremappingDemo - It runs
really slow on my computer and I've got a PIII 1.3, 384 MB RAM, and a 32 MB video card. The demo was barely playable, it ran way too slow to be of any use.
WaterslideDemo - It's a really simple level, just one long tunnel with corners(so there's not much in the FOV), but the most I was able to get was 42fps. To me, that's unacceptable. I can't imagine how slow it would have run if there had been more entities moving around. I did like the way you moved on the water though, I thought that was pretty good(it gave me a few game ideas).
LtypeDemo - This was a pretty cool demo, I like the way the terrain moved depending on how you moved your ship. What I didn't like was the clipping problems. The player's ship and the enemies bullets passed right through the terrain. Obviously that shouldn't be happening, and I don't know if it's a flaw with the engine, or just a coding flaw.
I think what bugged me the most was the low fps I got in the WaterslideDemo. 42fps in such a simple level isn't something I could deal with. When I loaded the sample level that came with the other engine I use, there's people walking around, moving platforms and a much wider open space with buildings and sprites, and I was getting 85fps.
The low fps is either a coding problem, or a flaw with the engine. If it's the engine that can't handle level geometry very quickly, I can only assume that it'll be fixed in the next patch, or very soon after that.
If I was making simple arcade style games, then I can see myself buying this engine, but I want to make FPSs, and I would need a much higher fps than 42. I've been searching through the forums and it seems that a lot of users are talking about getting 30-40 fps, and talking like that's the norm.
Once again, I think this engine definately has potential and the feature list(when they all work) is fantastic. But 42fps? If that's the way it's going to be, then I may have to look elsewhere.