u/RRDDSS

That was a great idea to discuss how game developers artistically dealt with limitations of the past.

But the chaps only went maybe about as far as 1990, but, of course, it goes further back in computer history.

For example, Sinclair ZX Spectrum and its clones have totalled up to 12 million units, which js thrice smaller than the original Nintendo console sales by the end of the 1980s, but a massive phenomenon of the past still.

Being cheap in too many ways this computer had a way more limiting capabilities because it could only display two colours per 8*8 pixel block, so game developers have used techniques to create graphics around that, and it is seen in many games that were not just ports from platforms with better graphics.

This Spextrum platform has an advanced demo scene which has required incredible mastery to deal with maybe the most limiting capabilities of all machines of the kind.

Platforms like Atari 1000are also interesting because they were somewhat worse than Commodore Amiga, so programmers had to use their own tricks to fight the limitations.

But even earlier than all that there were simpler cheaper computers that did not have raster graphics at all, but could only use pseudo graphics, and people were creating wonders with those, too. Osborn, Kaypro II, Sinclair ZX80/81, TRS-80, Commodore PET, with the latter being the most popular of those.

John might get his friends who are ten-twenty years older than him to do the deep dive.

A few weeks ago the foundry workers were discussing a new high-end VR headset, and it seems John has misremembered the matter of screens it has in relation to Apple’s even pricier offer that debuted two years prior.

With the new headset John was under the impression that it is much better in terms of image clarity and details, but this is, of course, incorrect.

Those matrices are manufactured at the same Sony plant on the same line, so they have the exact same pixel density.

The difference is that the new VR headset is bigger, it has 27 million pixels versus AVP’s 23 million with corresponding field of view difference, and this is where Apple is losing against the extended 110 degrees FoV, not in clarify or details.

However, much faster SoC allows Apple to provide 120 FPS image, which is much smoother.

In the future it would be great to see FoV to become much closer to 180 degrees (for horizontal dimension) that humans actually have, and at least 240 FPS.

EDIT: corrected for typos.