|
|
CT60 and related things BBS
| Re: moved: why c2p ? |
|---|
|
Posted by: evil
|
Aug,16.2003-01:15
|
Not really, kalms routine is probably quite near "perfect" and it does everything the hard way with shuffeling and reordering bits. 68060 rather do that than dig in memory tables.
The movep c2p on ST is based on a table and 2 pixel wide chunky pixels..
I also tested Rays 1x1 c2p for 8 planes and a 1Mb table; it was alot slower than the table-free kalms routine.
--
Anders Eriksson
ae@dhs.nu
|
[All messages in this thread] [Start new thread]
|
Topic
|
Posted by
|
Date
|
|
moved: why c2p ?
|
evil
|
Aug,15.2003-21:33
|
|
Re: moved: why c2p ?
|
MiKRO
|
Aug,15.2003-22:13
|
|
Re: moved: why c2p ?
|
evil
|
Aug,15.2003-23:16
|
|
Re: moved: why c2p ?
|
Anonymous
|
Aug,15.2003-23:16
|
|
Re: moved: why c2p ?
|
Peter
|
Aug,15.2003-23:21
|
|
Re: moved: why c2p ?
|
evil
|
Aug,16.2003-01:15
|
|
Re: moved: why c2p ?
|
earx
|
Aug,19.2003-09:03
|
|
Re: moved: why c2p ?
|
creature
|
Aug,18.2003-21:08
|
|
Re: moved: why c2p ?
|
deez
|
Aug,19.2003-10:20
|
|
Re: moved: why c2p ?
|
creature
|
Aug,19.2003-15:19
|
|
Re: moved: why c2p ?
|
earx
|
Aug,19.2003-11:55
|
What's the anti-troll code?
That's your personal code to be able to add comments and messages on the dhs.nu site.
Don't have a code or forgot it? Fix it here.
|
