2086
TI Z80 / Re: Multitab 83+ & Chemitab 83+
« on: June 16, 2010, 04:39:21 pm »
Sorry about that. Edited.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to. 2086
TI Z80 / Re: Multitab 83+ & Chemitab 83+« on: June 16, 2010, 04:39:21 pm »
Sorry about that. Edited.
2087
Axe / Re: Wave Simulator (sortof)« on: June 16, 2010, 04:29:20 pm »
No, sorry, talking to Darl181.
The effects caused by improper synchronization (the "waves") does look interesting, I must say. Edit: (Reply to Darl181) Weird, that shouldn't be happening... Only giving Shade( certain out of-range values (92-95, to be specific) should cause that... I'll bother quigibo later. 2088
Axe / Re: Wave Simulator (sortof)« on: June 16, 2010, 04:23:58 pm »
Is it the program you listed earlier, or is it a different one? This needs reporting... getting the BLOD's is not good.
2089
Axe / Re: Wave Simulator (sortof)« on: June 16, 2010, 03:57:02 pm »
That is not a good thing... was it Axe only? (no inline-asm)
and how you sure it was blue, or just really high contrast? 2090
KnightOS / Re: KnightOS« on: June 16, 2010, 02:14:54 pm »
I take it every program will have to be ported, then? I can't see write-back working well, given that, after running, the program is locked to a certain address.
2091
KnightOS / Re: KnightOS« on: June 16, 2010, 02:07:17 pm »
The only TI-OS routines you should games are the ones for appvar lookup/creation, anyway.
2092
Axe / Re: Buffering« on: June 16, 2010, 02:04:50 pm »
This is why BASIC programs using pixel and point commands are so slow. For example, I made a BASIC program to make the screen all-black and an Axe program to do the same (both doing it pixel-by-pixel). The BASIC program was, of course, slow, while the Axe program was nearly instantaneous. Changing the Axe program to update the LCD after every Pxl-On( made it as slow as the BASIC program. (Well, the Axe program was running at 6MHz, idk how much of a difference 15Mhz mode would make)
2093
KnightOS / Re: KnightOS« on: June 16, 2010, 01:50:54 pm »
Those are actually used as a sort of jump table to the full routines, so the size would be much, much larger.
2094
Axe / Re: Buffering« on: June 16, 2010, 01:49:41 pm »
No, I could do "Hello World"->Pic1 and it'd be fine.
And yes, if Pic1 is a 768-byte picture, then Pic1->DispGraph will display it (on the screen only, not the buffer, as discussed) 2095
KnightOS / Re: KnightOS« on: June 16, 2010, 01:48:02 pm »
Probably a good thing, because you'd end spending most if not all of your time implementing them. The Ion routines are definitely useful. Maybe you'll include the MOS ones too? (DCS... maybe. All the graphical routines could become a pain)
2096
Axe / Re: Buffering« on: June 16, 2010, 01:44:59 pm »
Well, writing only, then. Yeah, the LCD is painfully slow...
2097
KnightOS / Re: KnightOS« on: June 16, 2010, 01:40:43 pm »
Well, you'd only include the most important and most used ones. Size is definitely a problem, though.
2098
Axe / Re: Buffering« on: June 16, 2010, 01:39:51 pm »
Well, not yet. Maybe we could ask quigibo to add support for writing directly to the LCD? (and at any spot, most importantly)
2099
TI Z80 / Re: Multitab 83+ & Chemitab 83+« on: June 16, 2010, 01:38:20 pm »
Her goal w/Chemitab was to make a periodic table in pure basic w/o any pics. She doesn't have a link cable... so, yeah.
Maybe she could explain Multitab more? 2100
KnightOS / Re: KnightOS« on: June 16, 2010, 01:34:49 pm »
A compatibility layer would allow TI-OS programs to be run unmodified. The only problem is it's a lot of work, and some very low-level programs (i.e. ones that mess directly w/the VAT) wouldn't work. It's kind of like Wine.
|
|