Re: LF: ti92 fast enough?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
-> > -> If you think that the ti-92 is just fast enough and no one
-> should > -> think about upgrading it. After all, the 3d grapher only
-> takes a few > -> MINUTES to calculate a mildly complicated graph, and
-> it is obvious > -> that any slightly detailed version of Doom will be
-> a slide show, > -> making it easier, and thus
-> >
-> > Yes, I believe it should be faster. But I don't think it's a
-> necesity. > Besides a doom type game would be just about impossible
-> at the speed of > the current calc, but a Wolf3D type game would run
-> fast.
-> >
-> You couldn't make Doom anyway becauset he LCD is too slow, everything
-> would just become a blur. And that's even worse in 4 grayscale
-> colors, which still would look terrible to texturemap in.
-> Besides, if you put a highend 680x0 in the TI92, you'd have to change
-> batteries every other day, not to mention that it would need some
-> kind of cooling.
->
-> If we compare the TI92 to the good old Vic-64, we have twice the Mem
-> and many times the speed. And there's some pretty amazeing stuff on
-> the 64, so we should be able to do MUCH with the present CPU. My 24
-> surface hidden line vector (included in the Fargo archive) has much
-> "raster-time" left, so it is not that hard to make fast 3D with
-> Fargo.
For a calculator, it is really fast, but when you compare it to, even a
386, it's preatty slow. It's hard to compare a computer and a
calculator... anyway...
Wolf3D would be easy to make, atleast 10 fps, I know what you mean by
the blur, but for the speed expectations for a game like Wolf3D on the
calculator it should be too big of a problem.
References: