home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!aa399
- From: aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
- Subject: Re: Falcon030, resolutions, TRUE color, and DSP
- Date: 18 Dec 1992 14:24:33 GMT
- Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
- Lines: 92
- Message-ID: <1gsmv1INN688@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- References: <1992Dec18.074213.26617@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <1grcjlINNn2m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- Reply-To: aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys)
- NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu
-
-
- In a previous article, hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu) says:
-
- >In article <1grcjlINNn2m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys) writes:
- >Just what exactly are you asking here? Of *course* it will flicker, that is
- >the nature of interlaced video. Will you notice it? Depends on the TV, and
- >on what's being displayed. A single-pixel horizontal line will flicker
- >terribly, but that's true regardless of whether the video is computer-generated
- >or just happened to appear in some TV or film production. The desktop has
- >a lot of flicker, because it's covered with icons and windows that all have
- >single-pixel horizontal lines for borders. A game with moving images,
- >background scenery and such probably won't have very noticable flicker
- >(unless it's got some pretty boxy-looking graphics, eh?)
-
- I am talking about flickering that wou and I would notice and perhaps
- give us headaches (sort'of like the Amiga flicker).
-
- >>
-
- >>I have been also informed that the Blitter REALLY would not be fast
- >>enough to move graphics around. And someone suggested that Atari should
- >>have used the TI30410. My question is, would the DSP work just as well?
- >>The Atari Advantage article states these things:
- >
- >The DSP can only communicate with the main memory at up to 1 megabyte/second.
- >This is nowhere near the speed required to pass as a blitter. The items
- >mentioned in the Atari Advantage article are aimed purely at computation -
- >the DSP can be used to process the geometric formulas required to define
- >shapes and 3-D objects, rotate them, shade them, etc., but all that computation
- >can only be done in the DSP memory, and you would then have to transfer
- >the results to main memory before you could do anything like draw them onscreen.
-
- Well, what do you say Howard? Could the blitter possibly replace a graphics
- chip like the TI30410?
-
- Why don't you think Atari included it? Or better yet, why didn't
- Atari include the RISC 64-bit graphics chip inside of the Falcon030?
-
- I'm sure that chip could be used for something other than games.
-
- IF the chip exists that is.
-
- >>
- >>Is there any chance that Atari is only including 1 Meg in the Falcon030
- >>and expecting the 640x480 TRUE color mode to be used as a standard because
- >>of a video technique which will allow them to do so?
- >
- >I don't think Atari really expects many true-color games to run in
- >640x480 resolution on 1 megabyte machines. I think they really expect to
- >see a lot of games support the 256 color modes, but ya never know fer sure.
-
-
- Ok, how much memory would it take to get games to be created with the
- 640x480 256 color mode?
-
- How much more memory does the TRUE color mode take?
-
- If someone can repost the calculations needed to figure it out,
- I'd appreciate it. I plan to print it out for future reference.
-
- >>
- >>And lastly, the Jaguar is rumored to run off of a RISC 64-bit chip.
- >>We don't know what type of chip this is.
- >>
- >>Could the Jaguar POSSIBLY be a Motorola 68030 at 16 MHz and have a
- >>RISC DSP?
- >
- >"run off" is a misleading phrase. "RISC DSP" is almost redundant. I'd bet
- >that the Jaguar (which I've never seen, and heard only a very little about)
- >is 68030 based with a 64 bit graphics coprocessor. I would also bet that
- >this 64-bit chip is called a RISC chip merely because of the tiny size of
- >its instruction set, an instruction set devoted entirely to describing a
- >graphics display, (just like the 8-bit ANTIC) and having very little other
- >functionality.
- >--
-
-
- Hmmm. If you are right about that, I'm sure Atari has had that chip
- for a couple of months now. I wonder why they didn't include it in the
- Falcon030's plans. It can't possibly cost that much, since rumors
- are already circulating that the Jaguar will cost under $150.
-
- Wow, now that I think about it, it would great if I could tell my friends:
- "Yeah, this puppy has a 64-bit graphics processor. Just imagine what
- kind of graphics this Falcon can do..."
-
- >
- >All true wisdom is conveyed in one-line witticisms.
- >
-
- --
-
-