A86: RE: A82: Universal, shmermuniversal....
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
A86: RE: A82: Universal, shmermuniversal....
Thanks for the skepticism, but my plan is to restrict the screen size only for games with static screens. It would leave one with less space on the 85/6, but for games like sqrxz, xc1701 and the like, all you would lose would be a few pixels on the 82/3. it's like TI-basic's pt-xxx commands in that you can go off screen. However, it would be based on the center.
I know it's a bit hairy, but the only real issue will end up being static grayscale images, which half the time end up being porn-related (and I thought I had too much free time)...
Also, I the was a flame posted in response to my lack of support for ash 3.0. Well, I run ash 3.0, and it's just fine. However, it'll be a pain to add that, as we have to then double parts of our code, such as the relocation schemes. Ash2 and OS/OShell 82 are good enough, and besides, if we pull this off, what will it matter? We might toss in a conversion toolkit to fix it anyway.
Christopher Kalos
raptorone@geocities.com
raptor_one@hotmail.com
Executive Director/Administrator
Virtual Technologies Developer's Group
----------
From: Cory Crooks[SMTP:badman@velocity.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 1997 1:21 AM
To: assembly-82@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: A82: Universal, shmermuniversal....
Hey Kalos,
A "universal" thingy would be nice, but how the hell do you plan on getting
around the screen size, restrict the 85/6, or make some dumb ass percentage
screen space crap to figure exact pixels for different screen sizes? I agree
that 85-86 and 82-83 conversions would much more appreciated.
----------
badman@velocity.net
www.velocity.net/~badman
-----------
p.s. To anyone who cares, Zetris is on the way, it's just taking a while to
shrink / optimize....