I've tried the 89 version.. and found it extremely difficult to control.. I can't accelerate and steer at the same time.. I suppose that's what the "cruise control" button is for... Is it any better for the 85?

Being able to do two functions at the same time (like braking and steering) will be put in later.

Hey, I've been working on this browser in VB lately... but am using vb4 right now(don't laugh) If i get vb6, will i be able to translate it into something besides native code? And if so.... will all of the dll's be incorporated into the one .exe file?

I shall continue to laugh at you for using VB, regardless of what version! Learn a real language, like C/C++ or Object Pascal (Delphi owns VB royally!!)

VB has never produced true native code. It's always been some form of interpreted p-code, or a version of partially native code that is highly dependent on a massive runtime file, that is not an option. And VB only puts out to it's own format and executables. You couldn't do an #include of an OBJ file created in VB, because it doesn't make them.

DLLs are never incorporated into a program, that's why they're called Dynamically Linked Libraries. And no, even by vb6, VB still does not produce *REAL* DLLs.

in my opinion, C++ is the best language - you can do anything you want with it.

i think the question he was asking was whether vb6 incorporated all the vb runtimes into the final exe - which it doesn't.

akshay

Hey, I use VB6, and I find nothing wrong with it. Besides, it's a good way to start out programming, rather than jumping right to C/C++.

Probably because you don't know the insides or truer language of it. Delphi does rule in the visual field, though. I made the same program in VB and in Delphi, and Delphi's exe was smaller, faster, and didn't need that horrid vbrun file or any dll's. Plus, Pascal is like the easiest language to learn other than TI-BASIC. C++ is not visually object oriented like Delphi is, either, so it's harder to make the same file in C++ without using all those extra libraries. Plus, Delphi automatically knows which libraries you are using and inserts them automatically for you, no guessing. Delphi 5 ROCKS!

~ferich

VB is awesome... especially since you can (with alot of dirty tricks) incorpate code from VC++ projects (No I do not mean external files I mean inside the EXE made by VB)... and that can include inline assembly in your C++ projects. The problem with this is it's probably easier just to do it all in C++. But application speed and size (it's not hard to not have to use the VB runtimes and make them not required) in VB is comparable to C++, and VB is a much quicker way to build applications, even if you write some of your VB project in C++/ASM.

And yes I have done this, I'm not BSing :P

>... and that can include inline assembly in your C++ projects.

Delphi natively supports inline assembly, so it'd be a little easier to do that in Delphi.

I think your game has very good future ahead... but, like they said up there, the steering/brake thing needs to be done... also, how large will the final version be, if the demo is already so big? Well, it's big compared to most games... Also, will there be any power ups like weapons or speed boosters or anything?

Actually.. From turbosoft's page.. the program is ONLY for the 89... not 85... must be a typo by Nick on the news item..

Yeah -- typo -- see the link to the file:

ticalc.org/pub/*89*/asm/...

- Another Ken

Yes it was. That's fixed now.

Thanks ;-)

--BlueCalx

This could be the start of a geart game!

Is this really 3D? As in 3-D coordinate system?

And what about the C part? Is there a C compiler for the 85/86?

This would have been the first comment if only I hadn't spent so much time logging on!

Well, this looks like it is going to be very good, and i really hope that the demo gets updated soon! I played for about 30 seconds before the game quit on me, this was HW2 AMS 2.03, is this the same for HW1 and AMS 1.05? thanks 4 the info.......

yeah that's just how long the level is. Future versions will be longer of course! :)

Question to anyone who's tried this on an actual calc: Is it really that much faster than snoboard? It better be, because the game is really horrible when it can't run with a decent framerate and controls in realtime. . .

l think that the frame rate is somewhere between 4-8 seconds, depending on the graphics on the screen (snoboard2000 was 2). l tried the program on a HW2 calculator; it was about 25% faster it seemed. Later a timer will be implemented to keep the frame rate closer to an average.

you mean 2/4-8 frames PER second, not seconds???

yeah, but it doesn't feel smooth - the everything is still too jumpy. It just feels like snoboard 2000, but running faster - it's important that the can move fluidly, not jumping several pixels at a time, and that it can be controlled precisely and not once per jump. And disabling auto-int 1 would help you a LOT, as would reading keys directly from the port.

oops yeah l meant 4-8 per second. l've tried disabling Auto-int 1 before too, but with no success (crashes). l noticed that other assembly programs that disable auto-int 1 only do it for a second before enabling it (or at least that's what the code looked like). Yes in the future it should have a timer to actually slow down the less-graphical frames, so that it would all be smooth (an equal number of frames per second).

In my experience, you can get away with disabling Auto-Int 1 for a long period of time. In Phoenix, for example, Auto-Int 1 is always turned off during gameplay, and I've never had any problems from that.

I don't know about disabling it - which is what I think Turbosoft is refering to, in programs reenabling it after a second - but if you _clear_ it and replace it with an empty interrupt, you'll be fine. Clear, not disable. . .

Well, i have an home made overclocked TI89, mine is runing at more than 17 mHz. So Aerox is reeeaaaally smooth on it. It's something like Wipeout on the playstation :))