3 ms·

> About my approach, what it solves is that you can do that for any resolution without finding a max length LFSR of the appropriate size. https://en.wikipedia.

> About my approach, what it solves is that you can do that for any resolution without finding a max length LFSR of the appropriate size. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear-feedback_shift_register#Some_polynomials_for_maximal_LFSRs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear-feedback_shift_register... We have LFSRs for ... well more than anyone could ever need. EDIT: To be clear, I still think your article is really cool and useful for bringing up the topic of Feistel networks!

wyldfire 9y ago
But I guess the point is that each of those LFSRs have a different polynomial and this is a general solution. The context is related to these notes [1]: > Note : Because the effect works by plotting pixels individually, it was hard to replicate when developers tried to port the game to hardware accelerated GPU. None of the ports managed to replicate the fizzlefade except Wolf4SDL, which found a LFSR taps configuration to reach resolution higher than 320x200. > Note : The tap configuration on 17 bits generates 131,072 values before cycling. Since 320x200=64000, it could have been implemented with a 16 bits Maximum-length register with taps on 16,15,13 and 4 (in "Galois" notation.). My assumption is that LFSR literature was hard to come across in 1991/1992 and finding the correct tap for a 16 bit maximum length register was not worth the effort. [1] http://fabiensanglard.net/fizzlefade/index.php http://fabiensanglard.net/fizzlefade/index.php