World in 3D looks great! So French guys can really make games! Keep up the good work you guys and TI-calc.

I don't currently have a Ti-92, but the game looks pretty cool. But I just wanted to ask, what is this about "French people really can make games?" I think French people make really good games as a matter of fact!

Port this to the 86, now that would be cool

Sorry, that isn't possible. The TI-92 use a Motorola 68000, and the TI-86 uses the Zilog Z80. They use a totally different instruction set...he'd have to completely re-write the game. It wouldn't be a simple port.

Besides, CLEM is already creating a 3D engine for the TI-86. Can't you wait a little bit?

CLEM's Raycaster is going to rock man, keep holding on and forget the 10k barrier :)

This game is very fast on mt overclocked TI 92!!!
Mail me for more information...

Question: What is the TI-92 II? Is it the same as the 92+? I thought the 92+ was just a new ROM chip. Did I miss something?

The TI-92 II is only sold in Europe and has more memory than the regular TI-92 for extra languages besides English. It is not the same as the TI-92 Plus.

The important thing is that TI-92 II is really faster than a 92 or a 92+ because of its components, so games, are quite faster on a 92 II (try with a 92II romdump on Tiger, you'll see the difference)

Are you sure it's faster than the 92+. As I undestand it the only thing that the 92II is faster in(compared to the 92+) is Basic.
Ohh well, I still can't try this program(due to the lack of Fargo support on the 92+)

SmithwickC

Yes, I am really sure that the stupid TI didn't use the same good components as the 92II for the 92+ and so the 92+ has got the speed of a *basic* TI92 (What a pity !)

The 92II is faster than the 92 because it uses both memory banks (like the 92 was designed to do) and therefore sequential reads from memory (and possibly writes as well) gain 50-80% in speed. BASIC programs benefit most from this because TI uses an interpreter and not a compiler. I see no reason for the 92+ to be any different as it has the same amount of true RAM.
Has anyone run any tests on this? can you give us some numbers? If not, I can run some tests on both the 92II and the 92+ in BASIC and Asm...

Assembly:
I converted Jimmy Mårdell's Torus demo to the 92+ (I will release it if he allows it). I ran 1000 frames (with lines) and timed it. Results:
92+: 01:16, ca 13 FPS
92II: 01:15, ca 13 FPS
92: 7-8 FPS (according to torus.txt), i.e. ca 02:13

BASIC:
randMat(50,50) -> a : pi*a -> b
92+: 01:09
92II: 00:56

It would seem like the 92+ is every bit as fast as the 92II/92E in assembly, just like I expected. I can't explain the difference in BASIC, but I'd bet it has something to do with routines having been re-written to handle the Archive memory or womething like that.