<![CDATA[ChipMusic.org - I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/topic/12061/i-guess-what-they-say-about-pockets-is-true/ Sat, 31 Aug 2013 01:46:06 +0000 PunBB <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182519/#p182519 Victory Road says:

making it less cpu intensive. even if that just means running the song at a slower tempo.

i would take out that first transpose and then either the C or V command. if the pulse channel ever gets a solo you can just make a copy of the instrument with all the bells and whistles.

]]> Sat, 31 Aug 2013 01:46:06 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182519/#p182519 <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182510/#p182510 jmc1987 says:

What exactly do you guys mean by optimizing?

]]> Sat, 31 Aug 2013 00:35:46 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182510/#p182510 <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182488/#p182488 nordloef says:

Embrace the limits and optimize your tables smile

]]> Fri, 30 Aug 2013 22:02:01 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182488/#p182488 <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182439/#p182439 Invisible Robot Hands says:
nitro2k01 wrote:
Invisible Robot Hands wrote:

Pocket's a touch faster than the DMG, mind.

Nope. It's exactly the same. Maybe you're thinking of the SGB which is 2.4% faster. However, this doesn't do you much good. as the CPU still sees the same thing internally. It has the same number cycles to complete all writes to video RAM etc, so it will just about the same.

Only advice I can give to the OP is to optimize your song.

I know the sgb is a bit faster, but for some reason I thought I remembered hearing the pocket was around the same speed as the sgb. Whoopz

]]> Fri, 30 Aug 2013 18:37:37 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182439/#p182439 <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182429/#p182429 nitro2k01 says:
Invisible Robot Hands wrote:

Pocket's a touch faster than the DMG, mind.

Nope. It's exactly the same. Maybe you're thinking of the SGB which is 2.4% faster. However, this doesn't do you much good. as the CPU still sees the same thing internally. It has the same number cycles to complete all writes to video RAM etc, so it will just about the same.

Only advice I can give to the OP is to optimize your song.

]]> Fri, 30 Aug 2013 18:11:48 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182429/#p182429 <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182425/#p182425 jmc1987 says:

Derp. I meant slower than the DMG.

]]> Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:27:10 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182425/#p182425 <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182423/#p182423 arfink says:

I'm not an expert on the Pocket, but I don't think the CPU is actually slower. Most of the problems I have had with the MGB have stemmed from the fact that it runs on AAA batteries, and starving the system of voltage is a real possibility when running comparatively power-hungry flash cartridges and such.

]]> Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:04:31 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182423/#p182423 <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182408/#p182408 Bamboori says:

the pocket is slower than itself?

]]> Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:48:06 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182408/#p182408 <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182395/#p182395 jmc1987 says:

I always thought the Pocket was actually a touch SLOWER than the Pocket.

]]> Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:14:55 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182395/#p182395 <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182347/#p182347 Victory Road says:

yeah combining V, P and C commands is a pretty surefire way to get slowdown on DMG/Pocket. you can optimize that pulse drum to make it less taxing on the processor by taking away one of those commands and still achieve a pretty similar sound.

]]> Fri, 30 Aug 2013 05:49:38 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182347/#p182347 <![CDATA[Re: I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182338/#p182338 Invisible Robot Hands says:

Pocket's a touch faster than the DMG, mind. GBC's fine and dandy if you prosound it and give it a good mixing board treatment.

]]> Fri, 30 Aug 2013 05:08:54 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182338/#p182338 <![CDATA[I guess what they say about Pockets is true...]]> https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182331/#p182331 jmc1987 says:

...I finally have hit the "Oh shit, my Game Boy Pocket truly doesn't have a processor that can power all the fun stuff with LSDJ" wall.

I was experimenting with making a noise kick, wave bass and the "spacey percussion" from this LSDJguides video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCAKmOepYvs) and LSDJ started really messing up as I was editing. Characters from previous screens wouldn't go away, highlights would get stuck as I scrolled and other weird anomalies. I stopped playing the pulse channel and it was back to normal.

So, it only took me about 3 or 4 months, but I think I'm about to outgrow the Pocket.

]]> Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:30:52 +0000 https://chipmusic.org/forums/post/182331/#p182331