F16: Can you please help RComp?

F16: Can you please help RComp?

Post by Andrew Westo » Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:06:32



What's the story please Mr.Rawnsley?

regards,

Andrew Weston

 
 
 

F16: Can you please help RComp?

Post by Ian Jeffra » Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:09:57



> What's the story please Mr.Rawnsley?

Yet another mad posting.  Why don't you just Email RComp
instead of posting this here?

I.

 
 
 

F16: Can you please help RComp?

Post by Andrew Westo » Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:02:41





> > What's the story please Mr.Rawnsley?

> Yet another mad posting.  Why don't you just Email RComp
> instead of posting this here?

Yet another biting posting that misses the point.
Why do you think I posted it, Ian?

Because I thought other people would be interested in the response.
RComp regularly read this newsgoup so I posted here.

--
"From a billion miles away, it came from outer space, all hell's
breaking loose at little Kathy Wilson's place"

 
 
 

F16: Can you please help RComp?

Post by Nathan Atkinso » Thu, 31 Jan 2002 06:33:51






>> > What's the story please Mr.Rawnsley?

>> Yet another mad posting.  Why don't you just Email RComp
>> instead of posting this here?

>Yet another biting posting that misses the point.
>Why do you think I posted it, Ian?

>Because I thought other people would be interested in the response.
>RComp regularly read this newsgoup so I posted here.

I have to admit that I sway with Andrew on this point. Having a public
response to an innocent question like this is a damn sight more handy than
an individual response.
 
 
 

F16: Can you please help RComp?

Post by R-Comp Interactive/RC » Fri, 01 Feb 2002 01:25:31


Quote:>Because I thought other people would be interested in the response.
>RComp regularly read this newsgoup so I posted here.

Correct <grin>

(well, I don't bother with the off-topic discussions!!!)

F16 is in limbo because it essentially needs to go about twice as
fast as it does now (even after some optimizing).  Until hardware
is available that can cope, we can't do much more.  I have a feeling
with some serious, heavy-duty optimizing it could probably break the
10fps barrier on SA or Kinetic, but that just isn't fast enough.

It's frustrating, cos I can fire it up and (short of maybe a few
last-minute fine-tunes on the interface screens) it works. Just...
not... very... quickly...

Sadly the game doesn't have a 320x200 or other low-res mode to fall
back to, because all the*pit and instrumentational graphics
are designed in high resolution.  Attempting to scale this would
render it unusable.

Andrew

--
R-Comp Interactive
22 Robert Moffat, High Legh, Knutsford, Cheshire WA16 6PS
Tel: (+44) 01925 755043            Fax: (+44) 01925 757377
http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

F16: Can you please help RComp?

Post by Andrew Westo » Fri, 01 Feb 2002 04:34:47




> F16 is in limbo because it essentially needs to go about twice as
> fast as it does now (even after some optimizing).  Until hardware
> is available that can cope, we can't do much more.  I have a feeling
> with some serious, heavy-duty optimizing it could probably break the
> 10fps barrier on SA or Kinetic, but that just isn't fast enough.

Sounds great and I wish there was a bit more power that could be
squeezed out of our computer hardware.

Quote:> It's frustrating, cos I can fire it up and (short of maybe a few
> last-minute fine-tunes on the interface screens) it works. Just...
> not... very... quickly...

I can imagine!
> Sadly the game doesn't have a 320x200 or other low-res mode to fall
> back to, because all the*pit and instrumentational graphics
> are designed in high resolution.  Attempting to scale this would
> render it unusable.

Thanks a lot for the information anyway.

regards

Andrew

--
"From a billion miles away, it came from outer space, all hell's
breaking loose at little Kathy Wilson's place"

 
 
 

F16: Can you please help RComp?

Post by Fantasia F » Sat, 02 Feb 2002 07:05:57



> Sadly the game doesn't have a 320x200 or other low-res mode to fall
> back to, because all the*pit and instrumentational graphics
> are designed in high resolution.  Attempting to scale this would
> render it unusable.

What resolution is it designed to run in? 640x480? Doesn`t antialiasing
help at all? What about designing a new low-res*pit? Are the
instrumentational graphics a key part of the game?

You have probably thought of all this before, but if you described where
exactly problems lie, someone may come up with a hacky solution.

Cheers,

Bill