Oh my gosh! Will they ever be porting the fat engine to the TI-83 Plus (or can it even be done)? I think I foresee quite a number of "No"'s following this comment. Please explain. Thanks.

--Nathan Buda

I would have to say it's possible. I don't know what the FAT engine is built in (C or ASM), but either way it would be very nerve racking and time consuming to port. But i've seen crazier things done. First, if it were written in C, it would have to be ported to M68k ASM, then to Zilog Z80 (stop me if i'm wrong, the TI-83 has a Z80, so I assume the TI-83+ does as well) ASM. Any further questions, mail me.

How much space does the Fat engine take? As well, how much do the games take? Is the fat engine an OS? What exactly is fat engine (I know :P. I didn't e-mail you)?

Thanks.

--Nathan Buda

The FAT-Engine combines both worlds: ASM where plain calculation power is necessary and C for the highlevel stuff. Due to the memory restrictions porting it to the TI-83+ makes no sense in my opinion. Maybe a different approach may work, but I don't believe it.

I doubt that anything approaching the quality of the FAT-Engine could be done on any Z80-based calc. The TI-83, etc. just don't have enough power. Something similar was done for the Z-80, I think, but I don't think it looked as nice.

i very much so beg to differ. just look at defiance. Defiance in many ways is much much better than the so called 'fat' engine. It has much much smoother scroling, real raycasting, and besides the fact that it isnt finished, it could have made for a better game than anything with the fat engine. So just because its a z80, doesnt mean crap. Of course, if it were written for 68k, deifiance would be a hell of a lot better.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if I compare both programs side by side, I don't see what you are talking about. Smoother scrolling? Real raycasting? I think you haven't seen the latest demos of the FAT-Engine and are still refering to the earliest ones ...

And not "it could" counts, real-working games count. Just wait a little bit longer and you will see what I mean.

Better: take the challenge and make a similar game for the Z80. What's up? Are you tough enough? Or are you just one of those who can just moaning?

Since over 2 years I'm looking for co-programmers to realize interesting projects like the upcoming MR3D or "ports" of games like Elite, but sorrily I found no one (beside short corporations). But everytime something gets released or just "announced" posters like you think they know everything better. Of course, better programs are possible. Not only on the 68k, but also on the Z80. But as stated above: in my opinion it just counts what's getting realized. And because I still miss some kind of games I will realize them by my own. I would NEVER claim that I'm a good programmer, neither in C nor in Assembler. But I have some ideas, a "little bit" of time and I want them to become reality. And just by waiting almost nothing changes. That's all.

First off, Thomas Nussbaumer, you are an awsome programmer. I D/L the Demos and you have come a long way from the first FAT engine. The new demos are the best grahpical game (For TI-89 NO-STUB) that I have played yet and they aren't even finished yet! If you keep going with this FAT engine it will be the best game for the TI-89. Keep up the great work!

Thomas... to sum up all the fan posts that will apear...

We love you. Just because you do things. Whether we play them, learn form them, or just rejoice because we're geeks, we like it. Shure, we'd always like a lot more, but hell, we praise you for your geek work. :)
Anyone who criticizes obviously hasn't seen your work, or has no ideia of the effort.
But, there are us who love you. :) so, i guess, keep it up because someone likes it.
I hope...

---
Cd_Slayer

AEWSOME!!!!!!!!!! One of my all time favorite PC games on a calc! When this comes out it'll be THE game for my and any calc. way to go Tom!!!

Ahhh, your just mad cause no one ever said enything like that to you!

What's up guys?
It's been so long since I've done anything within the TI community. I am the author of Defiance. It makes me very happy that, after a year of no revisions, people still remember it.
I just need to make a correction: Defiance doesn't use "real" raycasting, but rather a system very similar to raycasting that is better. It allows for non-orthogonal walls and the like.

~Adamman

The slower processor of the 83 is balanced by the much smaller number of pixels needing to be drawn each frame. That makes a raycasting engine for the 83 possible. I've seen raycasting engines for Z80 calcs before.

What's the name of the program for the TI-83 Plus? Won't the TI-83 Plus SE be able to handle the graphics for the fat engine?

--Nathan Buda

That screenshot was amazing. I hope they can pull off a good game with it. I wonder if we could do something like it on the 83+.

enough with the 83, anything under ti-89 is obsolete in my opinion...anyway has there been a single soul out there who has made the radio links work on the 89, and what program did you use?

You too? I've had my electrical engineer friend working on it for quite a while, and now the two RadioLincs can communicate...too bad it doesn't work with the calculator! Anyway, I'm going to have my uncle (who works at a university) to find somebody too work on it.

All for a RadioLinc...

I don't agree when you say that anything under ti-89 is obsolete. At least here in Finland, calculators with symbolic manipulation aren't allowed in school. That means that we have to use calcs from the Z80 family. I'm sure that there are some other countries that don't allow TI-89/92 calculators to be used in school. The different calculators are designed for different groups of users. Then there's also the price issue. TI-89 and 92 are more expensive than, for instance a TI-83. The only calculators that I feel can be called obsolete are the 85 and the 82. And as far as I know they are out of production. So, basically what I want to say is, different calculators are made for different needs.

Ooops, this is like the second time I have posted anything, and I'm already off-topic. I'd better stop.

I agree with Andreas Finne. The TI-83, 83 Plus and 83 Plus SE are the most commonly used TI's in the USA. This is because, both, they are required for algebra studies, and can do most of what the TI-89 and above families can do because of the application option. I know it can't do all the TI-89 (and above) can do, but really, for the money, like Andreas Finne said above, it's definently worth it.

--Nathan Buda

If you are dissing Thomas Nussbaumer and the excellant games he makes there is a 99.99999999% chance that you fit under one of the following:
1) You never tried the program you are dissing.
2) You don't own a 68k calculator.
3) You don't know how to program.
4) You're on drugs.
5) You have had a front and back lobotomy.
6) Or, You have made the program you say is better than his.
Oh, and what about TI89 vs. HP49g, the TI89 is faster... try www.technoplaza.net for a comparison.
Also, TI83/+/SE's have no hope to ever _EVER_ be better than 68k calcs, just give up non 68k'ers. Besides TI is focusing on the TI83/+/SE simply because it is cheaper to mass produce, therefore people buy more of the cheap calcs, therefore TI makes more money.
TI83 better, HA, what a ridiculously outlandish concept.
:P

As much as I hate to fan a fire, I'll have to agree. I was a diehard Ti83 zealot for 2 years, but within 10 minutes of opening my Ti89, I put my Ti83 on the shelf. I haven't moved it since =)

And no, you can't have it.

Ditto the 86, except almost exactly 1 year ago instead of 2 :)

So as me (I use my 83 once in a while, though).

As far as hacking goes-the 83+ is way better than any 68k calc there is.Can you make an asm prgm on a 68k calc w/o any additional software?NO!Can you increase the memory of a 68k calc w/o additional software?NO!
You can do all this with a 83+ and a 73.Yes,I said 73.
And if anyone at ticalc checked their email, they would notice my 100 or so emails I have sent them to add an asm folder to the 73 directory.I HAVE ran asm prgms on the 73 and it seems no one here cares.As far as my opinion goes-it apparently stops where yours begins-the 83+ is way better than any other calc on the planet.If anyone is interested about my hacks for the 73, email me at calcgenius@yahoo.com.
--Peace Out--

I'm with you all the way, man. I have no experience with a TI-73, but my TI-83 Plus is extreemly "smart". As for the ticalc.org staff, they don't reply to any mail (that I know of) which ticks me also.

--Nathan Buda

I actually got a reply from "them" about 30 minutes ago.Coincidence?

Hmmm... I'm sure it's just a coincidence... Or else they just read my last comment about 30 minutes ago ;).

--Nathan Buda

Although it was automated. :)

;)

Maybe so, but the TI89's programs are so much better any extra required software is well worth it.
And I want to know if anyone who is disagreeing does NOT fit under one of the categories above, I am sure the majority does!
:)

I do not, but yet, I like the TI-89, though I do not own one.

--Nathan Buda

>Can you make an asm prgm on a 68k calc w/o any additional software?

What do you mean with this?
- It IS possible to write assembly programs directly on the TI-89/92+ by using the Exec command. It requires you to enter the hex op-codes directly though, but you would have to do that on the TI-83/83+ too.
- It IS possible to write assembly programs which will not require any external files (like kernels, ...). It is enough to include "OS.h" instead of "doorsos.h" and to define "xdef _nostub". There are some serious assembly programs ("serious" as opposed to "examples") written that way, including most of the programs by me or by Samuel Stearley, the games Phoenix and Another Mario (all written in assembly), and many of the programs and games written in C.

I was refering to asm programming without the aid of a computer or additional software on the calc.The 89 just can't do it.Pffthh

Yes, it can, if you know the 68k op-codes. To do on-calc programming without additional tools on the 83/83+, you would have to know the op-codes of the processor too (Z80 in that case), so there is no advantage of the 83/83+ in this area (except that there is no AsmComp on the TI-89, so the Exec string will have to be run non-squished, like on a TI-83 (not 83+) without additional software).

The Exec comand of the TI-89 allows you to execute whatever assembly program written as 68k op-codes. For example:
Exec "4e444e750000"
corresponds to:
trap #4
rts
and turns the TI-89 off.

This is not true. I'll bet you don't own or have ever tried a TI-83, TI-83 Plus or a TI-83 Plus SE. If you have, you haven't tried them all. I like the "If you are dissing Thomas Nussbaumer and the excellant games he makes there is a 99.99999999% chance that you fit under one of the following:", but this does not apply to any TI (especially in comparrison to HP). TI has put lots of effort into the TI-83 family because, again, like I said above, it's the most comonly used calculator in the U.S. This is a way to get money, but you shouldn't be so negative about it. If you owned a company, wouldn't you keep on creating new things for it? I know you may be ticked that TI is making new stuff 'only' in the 83 realm, but it being the mostly used calculator, I can clearly see why.

--Nathan Buda

And you are so sure that you do NOT fit in one of the categories above. Have YOU tried all three, the only one I have not tried is the SE but I know people who have.
:P
I sure got a lot of comments on this one, what a great way to get people to actually respond, and in case you haven't noticed, there are more people agreeing than disagreeing!

I forgot:
Add:
If I owned a business I would make newer and newer products of course, except I would make sure each of my products is better than the previous one!
:P

I do not apply to any of the above since I am not "dissing" at all. No, I have not and do not currently own an 68K calculator, but, like you, I know someone that does and I've used his. That was immature, bringing up the fact that the total were more in favor for your comment rather than mine. I wasn't going to bring up that fact. I wouldn't have even if I had more for my side. For your second comments:
You think the TI-83 Plus Silver Edition is not as good, or equal to the TI-83 Plus? I think everyone will agree that the TI-83 Plus is definently better than the TI-83 Plus.

--Nathan Buda

I was saying that the SE is better than regular plus.
I doubt what you say however, I think the TI-83 Plus is equal to the TI-83 Plus.
:)

Gak! I meant, "do you think that the TI-83 Plus silver Edition is less, or equal to the TI-83 Plus?". Igonre the second to last sentance above on my post. Replace it with this. ;)

--Nathan Buda

????????????
is the 83+se equal or lesser?
what kind of question is that?
the 83+ se is so much better is crazy. My math teacher, who works for ti, got one for free and brought it into class. It is so much faster than the normal 83+. The menus pop up so much faster, the on graph cursor is faster. We ran a system of equations with the ti86, and the se beat it in speed. It was almsot twice as fast. The 83+ se is an awsome calculator. Not much diff than and 83+, but a lot faster. I, personaly, would never purchase one, because it is a waste of money. Pay $140 more for speed and more memory. Its crap. But i hope to win one in the detached s contest :p

Thank you. I knew that. I was trying to prove a point to "Shaun". He paraphrased his sentance so that it sounded like he thought the TI-83 Plus was equal or better than the TI-83 Plus SE. I know that the TI-83 Plus SE is faster than almost any other calculator and that it can hold a LOT more stuff in the ram (1.5 MB). Besides that, it's just cool looking.

--Nathan Buda

Grrrr
I know that the SE is better than any other z80.
I am now going to find something and see how long it lasts under 200 psi.

I wouldn't buy a calculator for its GUI, but for what it can do: the HP 49G, just out of the box, outclasses a TI 89 in almost every respect except for some display speed issues (at least, IMHO.) Though, TI 89's are still great calculators. I'm just partial to Hewlett Packard. ^_^

-- Nick

nope! 89 is better than HP-49G in every aspect, from hardware to software - except memory though...
HP-49G is more like TI-86 with increased memory and couple more functions but display is rather bad and small

Boy did I get a lot of comments! Down with the TI83! The SE is stupid! (although less stupid than the regular TI83+). You (TI83 supporters) do not know what you are talking about! :p
Now who wants to dis Microsoft, Yay!
Note: 200 psi is very heavy, and I am not responsible for anyone injuring themselves or any cases of uncle abuse caused by trying to left heavy objects.
Note: Just trying to get imput, what a great way, make someone angry, then they will comment, haha.

I guess you figured it'd be me posting the next comment (a polite on at that). As for your first comment, "Down with the TI-83", I agree. I hate the TI-83. And as for you second comment, "The SE is stupid", I think everyone will agree that all computers, calculators, tvs, micro waves, etc. are stupid (translation: Lacking or marked by a lack of intelligence). They have no physical knowledge or intelligence. I, again, agree. Your third comment, "You (TI83 supporters) do not know what you are talking about", I agree again (refer to my first sentance). I won't "dis" (even though that's not a word in the dictionary) Microsoft either. For your information, I like Microsoft. If it wasn't for them, we would live on Mac. :P I would just assume live on the TI-OS. :)

--Nathan Buda

I agree, haha, that microsoft is excellant I have just noticed that the majority of the people who use this site like some linux or unix thing.
:)

Yeah. Personally, I've never tried Linux. You like Microsoft? That's the first attribute thus far I like about you. That's a good enough reason though. ;)

--Nathan Buda