Andrew wrote:
> I think the invaders are vertically spaced too far, so I'd suggest you have
> a look at that optimisation sooner rather than later.
Done that already (-3 scanlines). :-)
But I may (have to) sacrifize one of those scanlines, so that I can display
the missile (or missiles) during the spacing scanlines too. Do you think
that this would be an important improvement?
> Probably only 10 invaders/row would be all you'd be able to fit and have
> reasonable horizontal movement -
I think I would let the player decide how many invaders he wants to
fight. And even with the current 11 invaders they could move to 11
different positions, which still is a one position improvement. ;-)
> ...but hey, it's pretty impressive right now.
Thanx!
> My gut feeling, though, is that since we have Space Instigators - ANY
> future Space Invaders effort will need to be a perfect clone.
100% agreed. If I'll make a game out of it, there will be a mode that
will matches the arcade as close as possible on the Atari 2600. But I
am planning to include a lot of variations, like in Space Invaders 2600
(depending on the ROM/RAM space). And maybe we'll find find some
new variation ideas while discussing.
I am not sure about the bunkers yet. My old demo featured 3 quite
larger bunkers, while the original arcade game had 4 of them, which
would be ~11(?) pixels wide when converted to the 2600.
So what would be better, 3 x 15 pixel bunkers or 4 x 8 pixel bunkers?
Dennis wrote:
> looked at the source (very briefly). How much of this is your old code
> and how much was changed? I wish I had it with me now.
I have rewritten this from scratch, only the invader graphics have been
copied, plus a few ideas. The old code used a different kernel trick and
a different storage for the invaders status. But since it was a bit more
advanced in progress I might be able to copy some more code.
> I want to know how many RAM bytes the code takes up.
Currently 46 bytes (I already managed to optimize one byte) and maybe I
will use RTS or BRK instead of the jmp, so that will save another two bytes
there (but increase stack usage).
Albert wrote:
> I haven't had a chance to try it yet--I will endeavor to do so soon.
> :) Since you said it doesn't work well in emulation, I need to try it
> on a real system..
Definitely, but I hope "someone" will improve one of the existing
emulators soon.
Have?fun!
Thomas
_______________________________________________________
Thomas?Jentzsch?????????|?***?Every?bit?is?sacred?!?***
tjentzsch?at?web?dot?de?|
______________________________________________________________________________
Horoskop, Comics, VIPs, Wetter, Sport und Lotto im WEB.DE Screensaver1.2
Kostenlos downloaden: http://screensaver.web.de/?mc=021110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
