Subject: Re: [stella] Ho ho ho #1 (Boing) From: Rob <kudla@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2000 20:38:29 -0500 |
At 04:06 PM 1/1/00 -0600, Clay Halliwell wrote: >Why blow memory on a vertical position table when you can just do it right >with a physics-syle solution? Because I am "l4m3". ;) >You could add a second byte to the >y-coordinate for fractional accuracy, and then it's as simple as >(pseudo-code follows): The question is, which would be more memory intensive - a vertical position table of say 64 bytes (read forward and reverse obviously for a total of 128 frames between bounces, just over 4 seconds) or the code required to implement that algorithm? I've never dealt with double-byte arithmetic on the 6502, though there's a first time for everything. It was my original intent to do the bouncing thing but at the time I figured it would be really code intensive. Given your p-code I'm gonna try to implement it but I suspect it may actually use less ROM space to do a table. I'll try and post the results here whether I use it or not - thanks! Rob kudla@xxxxxxxxx ... http://kudla.org/raindog ... Rob -- 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] Ho ho ho #1 (Boing), Clay Halliwell | Thread | Re: [stella] Ho ho ho #1 (Boing), Clay Halliwell |
Re: [stella] Ho ho ho #1 (Boing), Clay Halliwell | Date | Re: [stella] Ho ho ho #1 (Boing), Erik Mooney |
Month |