🚀 go-pugleaf

     -=> Patric Aalto spoke of "Re: video game standard!?" <=-
    To All at 09-08-92  07:45
 >Graphics hardware
 >    320x200x256 resolution (is thier a need for higher?)

 PA> Please! 320x200 is not nearly enough. In my game I support 320x200
 PA> (which is nearly useless due to lack of resolution), 320x400 (passable
 PA> when using antialiasing, but not great) and 800x600 (great). I would
 PA> like the last one to be a new standard. I think 256 simultaneous colors
 PA> from a palette of 16.7 million is usually enough.

    The reason for 320x200:

        1: It puts no strain on the hardware
        2: it does not use lots of memory access cycles
        3: it is compatible with cheap Tv's (common we are
            talking consumer here)
        4: graphics will be very fast
        5: leaves enough video memory for other things (sprites)

    640x400 would be the next best progression thier are problems
    though
        1: uses a considerable amount memory (requires > 256k
            video memory to perform any decent animation)
        2: SLOW the bigger the graphics array the slower the game
        3: lower access the amount of time the CPU or GPU will
            have access to display memory will be GREATLY
            hampered
        4: cost - the bigger the array the more expensive the
            hardware (unless using an existing chipset but that
            still goes without saying)
        5: it will not work well with a TV.  a NSTC monitor can
            handle only 64 color changes per scanline at 320x200
            this isn't bad at 640x400 you will have problems.

    Most TV's or NSTC monitors will not be able to show a
    descernable difference.  To me it's just an extravegance.
    However that doesn't mean that thier should be such a mode
    it's just not all to neccessary.

        Stephen Cyberman@Toz.Buffalo.NY.US
        Scripted at Wed  09-09-1992  09:11:04

... Then, quite suddenly, and all at once, nothing happened
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10