Subject: Re: [stella] And now, for my next trick... From: Erik Mooney <emooney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:47:42 -0500 |
>> I don't get it. That's a nice compression for the average and best cases, >> but the kernel and algorithm have to be able to handle the worst case. >> What if a large-scale stable situation develops - all stable patterns (2x2 >> blocks, 6-cell ovals, etc, 3-in-a-row alternators, etc) separated by empty >> gaps 2-4 cells wide? > > >Then my proposed implementation could not handle it. This is a limitation I >was aware of, and am prepared to put up with. It won't be perfect - but >will be good enough for most cases. I doubt, under most circumstances, it >would ever be noticed. How exactly do you "not handle" it - just drop the data from the last part of the board that won't fit into the storage? Still doesn't sound appealing to me - it may just be the effects of my almost-completed CS degree, but I really don't like such an elegant process as Life being affected functionally (in this case, actively corrupted) by the RAM of its simulator system. A closer look shows that for the generation processing, one needs to store one row of the shorter dimension of the rectangle plus 2 cells. You could do a 32 x 30 uncompressed and still have scratch space for the processing. To get the 40 x 64 that you wanted, you have to achieve a 2.666:1 (8:3) compression ratio (and that would also have a weird aspect ratio on screen in excess of 2:1.) - 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] And now, for my next t, Andrew Davie | Thread | Re: [stella] And now, for my next t, Victor M. Cabrera Mo |
Re: [stella] Trick12 - inv3.bin, Erik Mooney | Date | Re: [stella] Qb FINAL, MickeyKnox667 |
Month |