6 ms·
I did a double-take at > Executes one line of script per frame (~60 lines/sec). Makes the "runs at 60FPS" aspect of the engine feel a lot less relevant. A
by RodgerTheGreat 8mo ago
I did a double-take at
> Executes one line of script per frame (~60 lines/sec).
Makes the "runs at 60FPS" aspect of the engine feel a lot less relevant. At this speed, anything more complex than Pong would be a struggle. Even a CHIP-8 interpreter is usually expected handle a dozen or so comparably expressive instructions per frame.
- nxobject 8mo agoDon’t worry, you can’t have that many lines anyway… > Up to 128 script lines per program
- famahar 8mo agoWhich is why I love this. Extreme constraints. Takes a lot of creativity to make something interesting, without feeling overwhelmed with possibility. I'm considering making tiny arthouse game projects with this.
- azharav 8mo ago،sh12
- networked 8mo agoI agree. It seems like interpreting one instruction per frame is the developer's way to guarantee real-time performance. I don't want to discourage the developer from experimenting with this design. What I think they should do is determine the most instructions they can interpret each frame. I like the idea of on-device programming like this. While I haven't used it, I know there is a DSiWare application Petit Computer that lets you implement more complex (sprite-based) games in a Basic dialect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petit_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petit_Computer. As DSiWare, it has an official video trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AYlEo3rJHs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AYlEo3rJHs.