Subject: Re: [stella] why -68? From: "John Saeger" <john@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 09:12:56 -0800 |
One of the points I guess is that pixel numbering is arbitrary. The real question is whether or not you can draw more than 160 pixels on a scanline. Or whether you can move those displayable pixels around so that it looks like more. I would be interested if you can. ;-) If not, your 66 may be the same as my 68. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicolás Olhaberry" <nolh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > What do you mean by "but"? From my experience looks like HBLANK ends at > colorclock 66 instead of the documented 68. If this is correct. when I > position an object (having it´s delay in consideration) to be displayed in > colorclock 66, or , let say, 159 (since I´m not too sure about moving > limits), would this two pixels be visible? Mmm... maybe just giving the > background a different color from the playfield would be enough to see this. > > Does this make any sense? I guess it´s time to get an atari and a cuttle > cart... ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/ Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [stella] why -68?, Nicolás Olhaberry | Thread | Re: [stella] why -68?, Eckhard Stolberg |
[stella] cinciclassic, Ben Larson | Date | Re: [stella] why -68?, Eckhard Stolberg |
Month |