Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!warwick!csuwk From: csuwk@cu.warwick.ac.uk (Ade Lovett) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Game vs Multitasking Message-ID: Date: 30 May 90 17:48:57 GMT Sender: csuwk@warwick.ac.uk Distribution: comp Organization: The Nut House, Worrik University, UK Lines: 51 In article <3871@darkstar.ucsc.edu> davids@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) writes: > In article mt87692@tut.fi (Mikko Tsokkinen) writes: > > And BTW my game contains fractal landscape and complex 3D objects, you > >seriously think 68000 can run it and some other programs simultaneusly? > >NO WAY MAN! > Of course a 68000 can run it and other programs. It's not like the > chip is going to explode or something if you try it :-). Your game will > just run more slowly that it otherwise would (depending on how many tasks > are being run, how processor intensive they are, their priorities, etc.). > The choice, however, should be left up to the user; I personally don't > like being told what my system's capabilities are when the programmer has > no idea just what my system is. Right. Having watched this debate for a coupla days, it's time I chucked in my 1.4p (roughly equal to 2 cents :-) First, if your game doesn't need to be speedy then, fine, there's no reason why it shouldn't multitask. However, your average Joe Punter who goes into his local store and decides to buy a game which describes itself as blinding fast with stunning 3d graphics is going to be a little annoyed when he finds that because it's multitasking, it actually runs about as fast as downloading 4Mb of news at 1200 baud. It's all very nice for people to say "but on my A328732 Turbo-nutter with fuel injection it won't be a problem", but you have to cater for the majority of machines when it comes to games -- i.e. the bog-standard A500, 1/2Meg RAM, 7.14Mhz 68k. Consider a game where you've got a 4-bitplane screen which is updated 10 times a second. Just displaying the screen means you're going to be shifting 10x4x320x200 bits = 320k(ish) of screen data a second, not including all the time spent figuring out hidden plane removal (assuming a nice 3d shaded polygon blast-em-up game). In this case, you're not going to want to make a call to OwnBlit() only to be told by the OS "Sorry matey, task XYZ is using it at the mo for saving the file its just downloaded on to the HD" ... you want the blit, like, now (man :=) I'm just getting a little p*ssed off about the arrogance of some people. Sure, you may have a super-fast Amy, but you're the exception not the rule, and if you don't cater for the rule, you're not going to get any sponds out of your game. Since these machines cost loadsa money, why don't you just blow away another $500 on an A500 to run games? (In fact, that's the way I work - development machine being an A2000 with lots of RAM and an HD and a 68020, and an A500 for testing and playing games). aDe -- +--- Ade Lovett --------+- ade@cs.warwick.ac.uk ------ +44 932 842478 -------+ | Computer Science | INTERNET: ade%cs.warwick.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | | Warwick University | UUCP : ...!mcvax!ukc!warwick!ade | | Coventry CV4 7AL, UK | BITNET : ade%uk.ac.warwick.cs@ukacrl | +-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+