by T¹ » Dec 28, 2002 @ 7:05am
2d graphics consist of sprites/bitmaps (i.e the type of artwork drawn in MS Paint, etc)
3d graphics consist of polygons (i.e 3d meshes made using a modelling package like 3D Studio)
There are games that give the illusion of true 3d by faking certain aspects. An example of this is Metalion by Ziosoft, which simply scales 2d bitmaps to give the illusion of 3d environment.
Raycasting engines simulate a 3d environment, but suffer many limitations as they are not true 3d (walls only at 90 degrees, no up/down look, 1 floor/ceiling height, etc).
Other not-quite-3d engines exist also, e.g Doom & Diesel FPS demo, and have their own limitations (no floor above another, no true up/down look, etc). Although still not 3d, they are more capable than raycasters. Other variations exist also e.g Duke3D
Interstellar Flames is a true 3d game. There is no fps counter, but why do you even need to know the framerate? There's been a growing number of posts about framerates in games, which can be a bit misleading imo. Framerates don't neccesarily dictate how fast/smooth/playable a game is. Personally I believe that a developer shouldn't include fps counters in games, instead letting consumers judge performance by the game itself rather than staring at a fps counter. If Interstellar Flames is fast and playable, would it make a difference if it ran at 5fps or 40fps?