Thanks; seems like a superb analysis (in my extremely non-expert opinion†). > addressability (effectively deflection DAC's resolutions) So I guess from the pe

Thanks; seems like a superb analysis (in my extremely non-expert opinion†). > addressability (effectively deflection DAC's resolutions) So I guess from the perspective of how precisely a programmer could position vectors — and therefore how many distinct rotations would make sense — this limit in resolution was the ultimate deciding factor. There's a limit where more fine-grained angles/positions would have been pointless. But then, in turn, the DAC wasn't necessarily limited to that many bits because more wouldn't have been feasible, but because trying to position a vector more precisely would have been defeated in practice by the error introduced by the deflection coils, which can only be so accurate when you yeet the beam all over the place. My working hypothesis is that it would have been possible to make a display with more precise positioning, but only for the rare case when you wanted to display extremely little information, such as a single moving dot, which was too niche and silly to spend resources on. Does that sound about right? Just curious if I'm understanding the issue somewhat correctly. † I know almost nothing about the topic but it seems analogous to aiming lasers with mirrors on computer-controlled actuators. Which was a rare treat in my childhood and has recently become accessible to modestly prosperous hobbyist hackers. Check out https://youtu.be/tozuzV5YZ7U https://youtu.be/tozuzV5YZ7U for a quick taste. You'll probably want to watch the BTS next: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YONOexk0Eke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YONOexk0Eke . Oh and look, here's a thing that exists: Recreating Asteroids with lasers - Seb Lee-Delisle at An Evening of Unnecessary Detail — https://youtu.be/0RPHS1dlh_g https://youtu.be/0RPHS1dlh_g (Only 4168 views, WTF?)