 | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) The one advantage to working with radix 10, on the RCX at least, is that the display routines use this radix, so even if you prefer working with some power of two radix, you might find yourself stuck converting in the end. Not that this is (...) (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) That's true. My very first fixed point implementation was in radix 10. At the time I didn't even know what I was doing was called fix point. Later, in graphics work, it just seemed obvious to use radix 2 since there are several tricks that (...) (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I must admit I didn't think at radix 2 for fixed point math. It is obviously the best choice to implement. I used radix 10 fixed point math because it came more natural to me. (...) Sorry I was not clear (it happens when you write in an idiom (...) (26 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) 28.4 is a pretty good general-purpose fixed-point representation. It gives a domain of -134,217,728 to 134,217,727.9375, and you can square numbers up to 11,585 without overflow. 28.4 is also well-suited to vector graphics on relatively (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) Thanks Todd for your suggestions. 16.16 would probably meet my requirements for the particular task I am working at present moment. Anyway I suppose I can write general-purpose code to be used with different radix points. (...) I made all (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
