GinDiamond wrote:
Oh, cool! DCS can do ANYTHING!!!
It would be sweet if one were to make an LCD screen with 2x the resolution (but the same size) as the regular Ti-84+ screen. Then someone could make a special driver that converts all the regular Ti programs to work with the new screen, but it will also allow finer pics and the oppritunity to make really cool games specialized for that screen.
True, but the framerates would go down by 4x, since you'd have 4x as many pixels to push per frame.
KermMartian wrote:
GinDiamond wrote:
Oh, cool! DCS can do ANYTHING!!!
It would be sweet if one were to make an LCD screen with 2x the resolution (but the same size) as the regular Ti-84+ screen. Then someone could make a special driver that converts all the regular Ti programs to work with the new screen, but it will also allow finer pics and the oppritunity to make really cool games specialized for that screen.
True, but the framerates would go down by 4x, since you'd have 4x as many pixels to push per frame.
Not to mention no greyscale at all. (full screen 4-shade) Plus, you need 6144 bytes to hold the buffers.
Yup, that would be prohibitive. Better to simply go for a more powerful calculator overall, in my opinion (Prizm, anyone?).
Is there a program that can overclock the Ti-84+ without any hardware changes?
GinDiamond wrote:
Is there a program that can overclock the Ti-84+ without any hardware changes?
Well, you could write a tiny program that manipulates Port 20 to switch between 6MHz and 15MHz mode, although the TI-OS tends to muck about with the port.
so, how exactly would I write that tiny program?
GinDiamond wrote:
so, how exactly would I write that tiny program?
If you are running Doors CS, you can use the ExecHex function along with, let's see, 3E01D320C9. That's ld a,1 \ out (20),a \ ret. That would be:
Code: det(20,"3E01D320C9")
So, I just type this code into a completely blank *.asm file and compile it?
GinDiamond wrote:
So, I just type this code into a completely blank *.asm file and compile it?
No, that's something you can put in a BASIC program. All of the Third Party Libraries are powerful assembly routines that Doors CS exposes to BASIC programmers.
Ah! I put that line in a basic program with a DCS header!
GinDiamond wrote:
Ah! I put that line in a basic program with a DCS header!
You don't even need the BASIC header; Doors CS will notice the special use of det() even without it. The header is mostly to give programs icons and descriptions, although you can also use it to specify programs that need to be unarchived with the main program.
Okay, I think I get it...
(I'll test it on wabbitemu first...)
It says there's a syntax error:
det(20,"3E01D320C9")
with the blinking cursor at the "d" of "det()"
GinDiamond wrote:
It says there's a syntax error:
det(20,"3E01D320C9")
with the blinking cursor at the "d" of "det()"
Did you use the matrix det command? You don't type the letters d-e-t.
Edit: And please don't double-post. Edit your post instead.
oh.
Is det() in the CATALOG thing?
GinDiamond wrote:
oh.
Is det() in the CATALOG thing?
Almost every command is in the Catalog. det() can also be found in the MATRIX menu.
okay.
It works!
But, I can't really see a big improvement.
Is that just cuz I'm testing it on an emulator?
GinDiamond wrote:
But, I can't really see a big improvement.
Is that just cuz I'm testing it on an emulator?
After performing my own experiment, I have concluded that it has near no effect. I made a simple BASIC program that uses a for() loop to count to 500, and every cycle through the loop outputs the number it's currently on, and the time elapsed using checkTmr().
Mathprint mode yeilded average results of 35.6 before the 'overclock' and 35.2 after. In case you suffer at basic math, that's a 0.4-second delay on a 35-second program.
Classic mode looked a tiny bit better for the 'overclock', with average results of 9.8 seconds before and 9.2 seconds after running the hex file. Not only is this 150% the change of the Mathprint difference, but that's a much better change relative to the overall time of the program.
Still, it's only about 6% improvement on Classic mode, and a 1% improvement on Mathprint mode.
In conlusion, it would be much more practical to just make sure the calculator is in Classic mode, because that was a 28% improvement. If you need all the speed you can get, then running the hex file might be somewhat useful, but overall, I don't think its worth it.
True, but I did make it a program. I've uploaded it to the archives.
It's called OverClok.
I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but as far as I know the OS automatically runs TI-BASIC programs at 15MHz on capable models (83+SE, 84+BE, and 84+SE). That's why Cheezeee found very little difference in execution speeds; I'm pretty sure any differences were just the result of the inaccuracies of such kinds of testing.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
»
Go to Registration page
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
