🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article, hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu) says:

>In article <1grcjlINNn2m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys) writes:
>Just what exactly are you asking here? Of *course* it will flicker, that is
>the nature of interlaced video. Will you notice it? Depends on the TV, and
>on what's being displayed. A single-pixel horizontal line will flicker
>terribly, but that's true regardless of whether the video is computer-generated
>or just happened to appear in some TV or film production. The desktop has
>a lot of flicker, because it's covered with icons and windows that all have
>single-pixel horizontal lines for borders. A game with moving images,
>background scenery and such probably won't have very noticable flicker
>(unless it's got some pretty boxy-looking graphics, eh?)

I am talking about flickering that wou and I would notice and perhaps
give us headaches (sort'of like the Amiga flicker).

>>

>>I have been also informed that the Blitter REALLY would not be fast
>>enough to move graphics around.  And someone suggested that Atari should
>>have used the TI30410.  My question is, would the DSP work just as well?
>>The Atari Advantage article states these things:
>
>The DSP can only communicate with the main memory at up to 1 megabyte/second.
>This is nowhere near the speed required to pass as a blitter. The items
>mentioned in the Atari Advantage article are aimed purely at computation -
>the DSP can be used to process the geometric formulas required to define
>shapes and 3-D objects, rotate them, shade them, etc., but all that computation
>can only be done in the DSP memory, and you would then have to transfer
>the results to main memory before you could do anything like draw them onscreen.

Well, what do you say Howard?  Could the blitter possibly replace a graphics
chip like the TI30410?

Why don't you think Atari included it?  Or better yet, why didn't
Atari include the RISC 64-bit graphics chip inside of the Falcon030?

I'm sure that chip could be used for something other than games.

IF the chip exists that is.

>>
>>Is there any chance that Atari is only including 1 Meg in the Falcon030
>>and expecting the 640x480 TRUE color mode to be used as a standard because
>>of a video technique which will allow them to do so?
>
>I don't think Atari really expects many true-color games to run in
>640x480 resolution on 1 megabyte machines. I think they really expect to
>see a lot of games support the 256 color modes, but ya never know fer sure.


Ok, how much memory would it take to get games to be created with the
640x480 256 color mode?

How much more memory does the TRUE color mode take?

If someone can repost the calculations needed to figure it out,
I'd appreciate it.  I plan to print it out for future reference.

>>
>>And lastly, the Jaguar is rumored to run off of a RISC 64-bit chip.
>>We don't know what type of chip this is.
>>
>>Could the Jaguar POSSIBLY be a Motorola 68030 at 16 MHz and have a
>>RISC DSP?
>
>"run off" is a misleading phrase. "RISC DSP" is almost redundant. I'd bet
>that the Jaguar (which I've never seen, and heard only a very little about)
>is 68030 based with a 64 bit graphics coprocessor. I would also bet that
>this 64-bit chip is called a RISC chip merely because of the tiny size of
>its instruction set, an instruction set devoted entirely to describing a
>graphics display, (just like the 8-bit ANTIC) and having very little other
>functionality.
>-- 


Hmmm.  If you are right about that, I'm sure Atari has had that chip
for a couple of months now.  I wonder why they didn't include it in the
Falcon030's plans.  It can't possibly cost that much, since rumors
are already circulating that the Jaguar will cost under $150.

Wow, now that I think about it, it would great if I could tell my friends:
"Yeah, this puppy has a 64-bit graphics processor.  Just imagine what
kind of graphics this Falcon can do..."

>
>All true wisdom is conveyed in one-line witticisms.
>

--