- Original Message -
From: "Howdy-Tzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Does it have to do with 16-bit ints, or with that funky error that
> also keeps the stage width from going past 4095 pixels?
Dunno why that limit is there, but that's the upper bound of a 12-bit
unsigned integer. It may be tha
>
>I was referring to projectors. As far as Director itself, I don't
>recall, but I know you couldn't make a 32-bit projector until D5, I
>think. I don't know... it was a long time ago! :)
>
>I don't know if Director itself was EVER 16-bit. I meant the projectors.
Me too, but the issue didn
I was referring to projectors. As far as Director itself, I don't recall,
but I know you couldn't make a 32-bit projector until D5, I think. I don't
know... it was a long time ago! :)
I don't know if Director itself was EVER 16-bit. I meant the projectors.
At 05:01 PM 6/18/02 -0400, Colin
>Does it have to do with 16-bit ints, or with that funky error that
>also keeps the stage width from going past 4095 pixels?
It's bitmaps, isn't it? And yes, they're probably related, in that
Director had to live within QuickDraw limits, and VideoWorks was
written before 32 bit QuickDraw was
At 17:01 -0400 06/18/2002, Colin Holgate wrote:
>Interesting logic, but I think that Director wasn't a 16 bit app
>until version 3.03. Before that it was only 32 bit.
Yeah, that port to Windows really did some damage to it. ;)
Does it have to do with 16-bit ints, or with that funky error that
>Since Director originally was a 16-bit app, and 32-bit wasn't
>introduced until Director 5, most likely the file format and
>everything for those was still 16-bit; there being no practical
>reason (other than perhaps speed) to move to 32-bit ints. Also, the
>speed diff between 16 and 32 woul
Since Director originally was a 16-bit app, and 32-bit wasn't introduced
until Director 5, most likely the file format and everything for those was
still 16-bit; there being no practical reason (other than perhaps speed) to
move to 32-bit ints. Also, the speed diff between 16 and 32 would be
Thank you very much Colin,Robert and Buzz for your understanding of that
problem. MM?It would be great anyhow to push loch to a 32 bit number, to
dumb down many things. On the other hand your suggestion, Robert (internal
loc property with a floating-point value) rejoins my solution.
Regards
jean-l
At 6:37 PM +0200 6/18/02, you wrote:
>hello list
>What do you think about this limitation of loch: Impossible to obtain a
>value inferior to -32768. It changes itself to a positive value. Is it a
>negligence, a bug or a technical impossibility ? Curiously the regpoint of
>a member has no problem
- Original Message -
From: "jean-louis valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What do you think about this limitation of loch: Impossible to obtain a
> value inferior to -32768. It changes itself to a positive value. Is it a
> negligence, a bug or a technical impossibility ? Curiously the regpoin
>
>What do you think about this limitation of loch: Impossible to obtain a
>value inferior to -32768. It changes itself to a positive value.
It seems that the loch of something is a 16 bit number (is that a
short integer, or a medium integer?). Wrapping around to a negative
number if you go to
hello list
What do you think about this limitation of loch: Impossible to obtain a
value inferior to -32768. It changes itself to a positive value. Is it a
negligence, a bug or a technical impossibility ? Curiously the regpoint of
a member has no problem when ajusted to less than that value.
Tha
12 matches
Mail list logo
