Subject: Re: [stella] Gunfight 2600: Design thoughts From: Erik Mooney <emooney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 05:58:21 -0400 |
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:06:55 +0200, you wrote: >First thing is that you'd have to rewrite PF2 two times on both lines of >the 2LK, which I just don't have the cycles to. >Second is that you'd have to time the second write to PF2 so exactly, >that it's value changes at the very pixel both PF2s touch. (Has anyone >ever tried that?) It has been done, yes... it isn't that difficult if you can time the kernel to have the write in the correct place. IIRC, you have a four-color-clock margin; you can change PF2 while it is scanning out the last playfield-pixel (4 clocks wide). You could be sneaky and never have an obstacle occupying the last pixel of PF2 and the first pixel of Reflected-PF2, and that gives you some flexibility in timing the write. >The only other way I can think of ATM is to skip shootable obstacles >completely, but offer lots of different obstacle layouts instead, like >the river, some rocky/fency areas, a train, a coach, a tree and a cactus >for example... I think this would be okay. Let some of the obstacles move around during gameplay, and that will provide a reasonable dynamic environment like you were striving for with shootable obstacles. - 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 -> |
---|---|---|
[stella] Gunfight 2600: Design thou, Manuel Polik | Thread | Re: [stella] Gunfight 2600: Design , Manuel Polik |
[stella] C= Hacking #20 out, Manuel Polik | Date | Re: [stella] Gunfight 2600: Design , Manuel Polik |
Month |