🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>In article <1gu8d9INN8qf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys) writes:
>>If I'm incorrect, please feel free to post. :) 
>
>Heh. Wouldn't dream of doing anything else...   }-)


Thanks Howard, but now you confused the hell out of me even more.

>>384x480 overscanned
>>There may be a small flicker when using graphics on a TV--no one really
>>knows how bad it may be.  Any developer care to test it?
>
>I still don't understand what you're thinking. Any visible flicker would be
>identical in both of these modes (320x480 and 640x480). As I already mentioned,
>it is only noticable for single-pixel thickness horizontal lines. All of the
>info I've posted on this subject is from first-hand experience. There is nothing
>to "test" about it. If you draw a lot of horizontal lines, they'll look pretty
>bad, unless the line color and background color have similar luminance. This is
>a simple fact of interlaced video.

What I'm asking is what I'm asking.  How bad would be the flicker even
if the line color and the background color have similar luminance?

Could games like Links Golf in 640x480 be displayed on a television
without giving you a headache?  (A normal TV set, nothing special)


I thought the reason the Amiga flickers is because of its interlaced video, no?

>>
>>I am NOT sure if 320x480 (normal), 320x240 (line-doubling),
>>640x480 (normal), and 640x240 (line-doubling) can be displayed on a TV
>>or a SC1224 monitor OR if they can be interlaced.  The information
>>from John Townsend makes it unclear.
>
>All resolutions can be displayed on a TV. Line-doubling is a feature used to
>adapt the low resolutions to the high VGA scan rate and is meaningless for
>the TV. The 200 (240) row modes are non-interlaced. Period.

This is why I was confused.  This chart is from Atari Advantage Magazine,
it was provided by John Townsend of Atari.

COLORS       MODE          MONITOR            RESOLUTION

4            normal        TV                 320x200
16           normal        TV                 320x200
256          normal        TV                 320x200
True         normal        TV                 320x200
4            interlace     TV                 320x400
16           interlace     TV                 320x400
256          interlace     TV                 320x400
True         interlace     TV                 320x400

4            normal        vga                320x480
16           normal        vga                320x480
256          normal        vga                320x480
True         normal        vga                320x480
4            line-doubling vga                320x240
16           line-doubling vga                320x240
256          line-doubling vga                320x240
True         line-doubling vga                320x240

Now, I pretty much understand that the TV will display 320x200 without
interlace.  But, according to the above, it will not display 320x400 without
using interlaced video.

The second part does not mention TV at all or interlace.  All it mentions
is "vga" and that is probably where I'm getting lost.

Is the "vga" overscanned?  But the "tv" is capable of being overscanned
as well, no?
>>
>>It is CLEAR that 2 Megs would be more appropriate as the minimum amount
>>shipped with a Falcon030 if Atari wishes to make the Falcon030 an
>>excellent game platform.
>
>Personally I would go with 4 meg as the bare minimum.

Do you think that average person looking for a low-costing computer
would be attracted to 4 Megs from a marketing view?

That's at least another $100.

And then you start getting into $899 or $999 and start slipping away
from $799 or even LOWER...

RAM is not so expensive anymore, but it still raises the price of the
computer quite a bit.

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

--