[z-machine] 1.1 proposal

[Dave]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, David Kinder wrote:

> > This may seem restrictive, but the only alternative is to have the number
> > of available channels change depending on what samples are currently
> > playing, which is the sort of complexity I'm trying to avoid.
> 
> To me, that's the beauty of Kevin's system in the proposed spec: it copes
> with as many channels as the interpreter can provide, depending on what
> sounds are currently playing.
> 
> Your system, then, imposes a different set of restrictions from those
> imposed by the proposed spec. As I see it, those restrictions are:
> 
> 1) There is a maximum number of possible sound channels that any
>    interpreter could ever offer (you've put it at 16, I'd say it should
>    be higher, say 256). The draft 7 spec imposes no limit.

I can imagine some situations where one may want to have more than 16
sounds playing at once (ambient noises in a tropical forest).  If you're
going to go above 256, then you've some serious problems in taste.
However, a limit that high may place an unnecessary strain on the
interpreter.  I think 128 channels would be sufficient.

> 2) The game may think that no more sounds could play when, in fact,
>    the system really could play them. As an example, on a system where
>    stereo samples take up twice as many channels as mono samples, if a
>    game uses only mono samples it can only make use of half of the
>    available system resources.
> 
> I have to say that these restrictions are worse than those in the draft
> 7 spec, especially 2), IMHO.

Where are you presuming the channels to exist?  On the soundcard or some
software mixer?  Does it even matter?

> Of course, from the traffic on this list, it appears only David and I
> care :)

Since I'm not sure how cranking up the maximum number of voices will
affect Frotz, I'd like to have some time to monkey with that.


-- 
David Griffith
dgriffi@cs.csubak.edu