 | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think... —Mario Ferrari
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think... —Todd Lehman
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think... —Mario Ferrari
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | |
