Re: A85: new 85 hardware...


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A85: new 85 hardware...




I am doing extensive research into making (or porting) highly optimized 3d
routines.  Actually, it's a group project for Trig.  I will start on the
computer and then port it to the calc, if possible.  Does anyone who has
tried this have any ideas about optimization, etc.  Stop complaining.

Dave

---------------------------------
"DoN't caLL Me CraZy.  OvEr 75% oF my PeRSonAliTies arE SANe."
-my psychyatrist

----------
> From: Jason Blakeley <phantomlogic@hotmail.com>
> To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
> Subject: Re: A85: new 85 hardware...
> Date: Friday, September 04, 1998 5:16 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: Humberto Yeverino <humberto@engr.csufresno.edu>
> >To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
> >Subject: Re: A85: new 85 hardware...
> >Reply-To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Jason Blakeley wrote:
> >> My question is how much potential do you think the z80 has? In the 
> age 
> >> of 64-bit and 128-bit Pentium processors that clock at 400mHz, how 
> many 
> >> z80 programmers would ever be satisfied with with the quality of 
> >> programs they could write for an 8-bit, 6mHz calc? I always thought 
> that 
> >> the reason people programmed calcs in the first place was because it 
> was 
> >> open territory. It wasn't dominated by DOS, Windows, or Unix. It 
> seemed 
> >> kind of like when the first 8088 or 8086's PC's were made. There was 
> no 
> >> one making software for it at first. But even PC companies and users 
> >> moved on to faster processors because they realized that there was 
> only 
> >> so much they could do with a 8086. Their larger, more complicated, 
> and 
> >> more entertaining programs required more processing power and more 
> >> memory to run them. I just think its gotten to the point where we've 
> >> maxxed out the calc and we're searching for something to do with it 
> >> because nothing more powerful has come out.
> >
> >But when I look at the software situation I see everyone using a shell
> >with an inferior relocator that wastes space.  Instead of writting or 
> just
> >using the better relocator that's already been written the solution is
> >make an expander for more memory.
> >The way I see it most programmers don't even use what's already there, 
> or
> >just don't use it effectively.  Maybe it's because everyone thinks it's
> >easier to add more memory than to write programs that use less.
> >
> >The only game that, in my opinion, maxed ot the z80 was Daedulus, and 
> the
> >games I've seen lately don't even come close to it's complexity.
> >
> >-Humberto Yeverino Jr.
> >
> >"I kick ass for the Lord."
> >
> >***********************************************************
> >Home Page:                                               
> >  http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/Home.html      
> >
> >Ti Page:                                                 
> >  http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/tex.html       
> >
> >z80 Source Page:                                         
> >  http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/z80source.html 
> >
> >Official Tyrant Home Page:                              
> >  http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/tyrant.html    
> >
> >E-mail:                                                  
> >  humberto@engr.csufresno.edu                            
> >***********************************************************
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> But is everyone satisfied with those games? Wouldn't people rather be 
> able to take games with them like Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, Diablo, Tomb 
> Raider, or Descent, rather than board games, arcade classics, simple RPG 
> games, or very constrained versions of newer games. Why doesn't somebody 
> write a fast 3D graphics engine for the z80? Not that doing so would 
> matter because it would like crap on the 85's low res b&w display 
> anyway. If someone would just show me a version of Doom or something, 
> with good 3d graphics, sound, and a bunch of levels, I would never say 
> another thing about it again. But you and I both know that's not going 
> to happen. Its never going to be the little computer that everyone 
> wants. The Ti calc was never meant to do the stuff that we want it to, 
> and nothing using a 20 year old processor could. I'm not saying you 
> can't get sound, because you can. I'm not saying you couldn't get 3d 
> graphics, because you could (even though they'd be slow and crappy 
> looking), but you won't get them to work together. I understand that 
> people aren't taking full advantage of the capability fast, small shells 
> would provide, but there is only so much that a shell can do.
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


Follow-Ups: