🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1gsthtINNk4c@sauna.cs.hut.fi> hmallat@elektra.cs.hut.fi (Hannu
	Mallat ~ PurpleHaze!) writes:

>In <1gsmv1INN688@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
	(Len Stys) writes:

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

>Sigh. It's just simple maths...

>In 256 colour mode each pixel needs 8 bits for its colour index
>(2**8=256), which equals one byte. Thus, one screen takes
>640x480=307200 bytes=300k. Now, arcade games use double-buffering, in
>which one screen is shown when the other is being updated, to avoid
>flickering when the screen is drawn. 

	One thng I haven't seen mentioned that I'm curious about. Does
anyone know if the Falcon has retained the ability the STe has to fine 
scroll the screen? The reason I ask, is that this would mean a lot of
games would use a memory area greater than a full screen for efficient
scrolling in the play field. Double buffering these would take up even
more memoory, but of course the trade offs in speed and smoothness of
scrolling would be worth it. It's a shame the base model Falcon is one
meg, as with the graphics capabilities, this will restrict many
programmers as much as the large number of 520's sold did. I hope enough
machines get sold that companies will be able to risk releasing 2 meg
minimum games, as they recently have with one meg only games. Reading
interviews with programmers in various British magasines, it would seen
a significant ammount of time is spent trying to make a game fit into
520k once it's written. Same as the old single sided disk problem that's
now a thing of the past.


-- 

 "If Rush fans were braindead, why are there so   Bruce Bufalini
 many people posting to alt.music.rush?"              PSU