
By the way, not kidding about it not running Doom - this thing barely manages 15 FPS on E1M1! Probably the onboard video chip's fault.
64 MB was, in fact, the smallest stick of memory I had available that the motherboard would take - coincidentally, it's also the largest amount it will allow. I suppose it's not bad for spare parts, and if there's any real problems with excessive RAM, I can always waste it by spawning a couple of ramdisks.leileilol wrote:Also don't 486s not use cache when the RAM amount is excessive on some boards? Given the general specs i'd stick to 16mb at most.
I do have a weird old Compaq sitting in the other room, I think ~2002 or 2003 vintage - it only has PCI slots, and is running some kind of Celeron with onboard graphics. I have not yet even booted it up. I'm considering preemptively nuking it and putting Win2K on it, assuming I can find drivers for that, but the real hurdle is going to be that video hardware - I don't have any PCI 3D accelerator cards lying around.given the craptiva spec, the said Y2K machine could be one of those lousy 'internet PCs' that are just built only for running IE5 slowly (Think lowly Celeron 600s with 32MB with a small form factor), unprepared for the mass of flash/javascript banners/ads to follow a year after.
Compaq you say? god that takes me back... my first personal laptop (not school) was a compaq presario c700... had a dual core precessor with windows Vista on it.wildweasel wrote:64 MB was, in fact, the smallest stick of memory I had available that the motherboard would take - coincidentally, it's also the largest amount it will allow. I suppose it's not bad for spare parts, and if there's any real problems with excessive RAM, I can always waste it by spawning a couple of ramdisks.leileilol wrote:Also don't 486s not use cache when the RAM amount is excessive on some boards? Given the general specs i'd stick to 16mb at most.
I do have a weird old Compaq sitting in the other room, I think ~2002 or 2003 vintage - it only has PCI slots, and is running some kind of Celeron with onboard graphics. I have not yet even booted it up. I'm considering preemptively nuking it and putting Win2K on it, assuming I can find drivers for that, but the real hurdle is going to be that video hardware - I don't have any PCI 3D accelerator cards lying around.given the craptiva spec, the said Y2K machine could be one of those lousy 'internet PCs' that are just built only for running IE5 slowly (Think lowly Celeron 600s with 32MB with a small form factor), unprepared for the mass of flash/javascript banners/ads to follow a year after.
Call super.tick() twenty times in a row.Tartlman wrote:I'm not sure what can be done with this cursed knowledge...
i think i remember trying to call it 12 times in a row... but it looks like gzdoom just gave up and called tick once? Either way, if i keep tampering with this graf is probably going to have an aneurysmGez wrote:Call super.tick() twenty times in a row.Tartlman wrote:I'm not sure what can be done with this cursed knowledge...
This is one of the things that is called an "undefined behavior". If it's not possible to predict what it will do then depending on this behavior is sure to lead your mod to being broken somewhere down the line - often sooner than later. Another example of undefined behavior is actively exploiting a bug in order to make the engine do what it was not designed to do to achieve a certain effect.Tartlman wrote: i think i remember trying to call it 12 times in a row... but it looks like gzdoom just gave up and called tick once?
He simply does not like it when people use undefined behaviors - but he does not get really that angry about it unless it becomes an established/popular mod that he has to support and can't change the behavior of (in order to try and introduce actual sanity to the system) without it breaking.Tartlman wrote: Either way, if i keep tampering with this graf is probably going to have an aneurysm
I honestly doubt calling "Tick" many times per tic would actually do that. There's no reason why it'd break and just call it once. I find it far more likely that he botched the test, tbh.Rachael wrote:This is one of the things that is called an "undefined behavior". If it's not possible to predict what it will do then depending on this behavior is sure to lead your mod to being broken somewhere down the line - often sooner than later. Another example of undefined behavior is actively exploiting a bug in order to make the engine do what it was not designed to do to achieve a certain effect.Tartlman wrote: i think i remember trying to call it 12 times in a row... but it looks like gzdoom just gave up and called tick once?
"[...] oder bist du Gift?" is "or are you poison?" I was playing on the different meanings of the same word between the two languages.dpJudas wrote:That poem makes wonder if gift also can mean married in German.