Re: [stella] SoftVCS

Subject: Re: [stella] SoftVCS
From: Andrew Towers <mariofrog@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:48:21 +1000

That said, is anyone else boggled by the technology choices here? Assembler + DirectX/Input/Sound seems to be like yoking a cheetah to a covered wagon.

Actually DirectX is about as fast as it gets under windows; on 95/98/ME in fullscreen mode you can lock the frame buffer and write directly to video ram on the display hardware.. under XP it might not allow this directly, I'm not sure as I haven't written for DirectDraw under XP.

In any case running in a window necessitates a copy from an off-screen buffer
to video ram, but most modern hardware is capable of performing a hardware-
accelerated stretch-blt as part of this operation making this very fast.

All of this is a moot point however since the SoftVCS page points out that
the current implementation is using the GDI, and I know from experience
that GDI's StretchBlt is *very slow* under XP and probably all other
versions; it doesn't seem to use hardware acceleration at all.

That said, it looks really good so far, and it even runs shadow keep..
with a few glitches here and there (I couldn't resist trying it ;)
I'd be very interested to see the source when you release it :)


Archives (includes files) at
Unsub & more at

Current Thread
  • [stella] SoftVCS
    • C. Bond - Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:39:57 -0400 (EDT)
      • Rob - Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:25:16 -0400 (EDT)
        • Ruffin Bailey - Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:06:13 -0400 (EDT)
          • Andrew Towers - Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:00:18 -0400 (EDT) <=
      • Fabrizio Zavagli - Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:58:50 -0400 (EDT)
        • C. Bond - Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:39:11 -0400 (EDT)
          • Rob - Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:11:02 -0400 (EDT)
          • C. Bond - Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:37:21 -0400 (EDT)