Falcon vs Jaguar. I' d be interested in your views

[Christos]

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=111325

[Gorf]

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=111325

 

 

Great machine missing 3 more processors than Jag and a 64 bit bus and not even close.

[jens]

Great machine to surf the net, chat with other Atari users, do file transfers, listen to mp3s and do other things...

[ggn]

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=111325

 

 

Great machine missing 3 more processors than Jag and a 64 bit bus and not even close.

 

And the jag is missing a keyboard/midi controller, a floppy controller, a scsi controller, an ide controller, a lan controller... That's 3 or 4 chips there. Your reasoning doesn't stand.

[Christos]

And of course the YM. GGN how could you forget that?

[ggn]

And of course the YM. GGN how could you forget that?

 

I'm not called "Grazey" you know, so I'm entitled to forget it

 

(really hoping that dubmood isn't reading this board )

[Gorf]

And the jag is missing a keyboard/midi controller, a floppy controller, a scsi controller, an ide controller, a lan controller... That's 3 or 4 chips there. Your reasoning doesn't stand.

 

LOL!

 

My reasoning does'nt stand? Let's see.....Forget the fact that you are short 32 bits on the bus....

 

The Jaguar's GPU/DSP and the 68k can completely control the ENTIRE system....try that with your SCSI,

Floppy, midi, ide or lan controller....oh...that's right...you cant...they are SUPPORT chips....not processors.

 

The blitter is twice the bit path of the one in the Falcon....does many more effects in 1 to24 bit color.

Falcon is not a 24 bit color machine. I think 15 bit is it's highest...correct me if Im wrong on this.

 

Show me even ....hmmmmmm Cybermorph on the Falcon....ooops you cant...not enough color and the

blitter does not G-shade at high color.

 

No contest. If the Falcon was more powerful, why did Atari spend money they really did'nt have to

go with Jaguar. They could have pulled an XEGS style release with the Falcon...so much for your

reasoning my friend.

[Gorf]

And the jag is missing a keyboard/midi controller, a floppy controller, a scsi controller, an ide controller, a lan controller... That's 3 or 4 chips there. Your reasoning doesn't stand.

 

LOL!

 

My reasoning does'nt stand? Let's see.....Forget the fact that you are short 32 bits on the bus....

 

The Jaguar's GPU/DSP and the 68k can completely control the ENTIRE system....try that with your SCSI,

Floppy, midi, ide or lan controller....oh...that's right...you cant...they are SUPPORT chips....not processors.

 

The blitter is twice the bit path of the one in the Falcon....does many more effects in 1 to24 bit color.

Falcon is not a 24 bit color machine. I think 15 bit is it's highest...correct me if Im wrong on this.

 

Show me even ....hmmmmmm Cybermorph on the Falcon....ooops you cant...not enough color and the

blitter does not G-shade at high color.

 

No contest. If the Falcon was more powerful, why did Atari spend money they really did'nt have to

go with Jaguar. They could have pulled an XEGS style release with the Falcon...so much for your

reasoning my friend.

 

 

Also, Just so you know....I'd have killed for a falcon back in the day. Mopped the drool and all

everytime I saw one....but it aint no Jaguar. I can add all those niceties with little or no hardware

as the DSP has quite a lot of those very functions built in to it and acessible on the Jaguar's DSP

port.

[ggn]

LOL!

 

My reasoning does'nt stand? Let's see.....Forget the fact that you are short 32 bits on the bus....

 

The Jaguar's GPU/DSP and the 68k can completely control the ENTIRE system....try that with your SCSI,

Floppy, midi, ide or lan controller....oh...that's right...you cant...they are SUPPORT chips....not processors.

 

So try loading stuff on the jag from SUPPORT devices... oh wait, you can't do that because it doesn't have them. So streaming HC backgrounds for a vertical shoot-em-up (for example) is off... pity....

 

The blitter is twice the bit path of the one in the Falcon....does many more effects in 1 to24 bit color.

Falcon is not a 24 bit color machine. I think 15 bit is it's highest...correct me if Im wrong on this.

 

Well I think you're one bit off, it's 5-6-5 in HC mode. BUT! Please demonstrate me what I miss when a game doesn't have 24-bit cols... in most (all?) cases you only get more shades to play with. A competant graphician can surpass that problem. So in most cases you just burn more bandwidth best suited to other stuff. And well, I haven't seen many falcon gouraud shaded stuff, simply because usually texture mapping is applied.

 

Show me even ....hmmmmmm Cybermorph on the Falcon....ooops you cant...not enough color and the

blitter does not G-shade at high color.

 

Phew! The falcon was spared of that piece of poo then . Seriously though, playbility wise it'd be no problem. Now if you want to get down to the "not enough shades" excuse then well, excuse me, but we are looking at completely different things in games. I always looked at a game playbility wise (yep, it helps if the gfx are attactive, but it's not an obligation).

 

No contest. If the Falcon was more powerful, why did Atari spend money they really did'nt have to

go with Jaguar. They could have pulled an XEGS style release with the Falcon...so much for your

reasoning my friend.

 

Err, when did I write THAT reasoning?????? And what kind of reasoning is this you're writing here? In any case, Atari's marketing and management dept. never did have a clue what they wanted to do, so I don't think this statement holds much anyway.

 

Also, Just so you know....I'd have killed for a falcon back in the day. Mopped the drool and all

everytime I saw one....but it aint no Jaguar. I can add all those niceties with little or no hardware

as the DSP has quite a lot of those very functions built in to it and acessible on the Jaguar's DSP

port.

 

You philistine . Anyway, I grew up with the atari 8bits and then the 16/32 machines (I have 4 of them set up in my desk as we speak, playtesting the next D-Bug menu ), so I'm kinda attached to those.

 

[EDIT] replaced TC with HC, sorry

Edited August 5, 2007 by ggn

[Christos]

Some youtube links.

 

We have sono which is a dsp demo. Underscore, likewise, and Beams which features MP2 music. The latter means that all the effects are being done by the cpu and the blitter.

[Gorf]

So try loading stuff on the jag from SUPPORT devices... oh wait, you can't do that because it doesn't have them. So streaming HC backgrounds for a vertical shoot-em-up (for example) is off... pity....

 

CD player. That'll work. Again one simple addition to the DSP port and I'll be able to

do all that and more.

 

I guess you must not but I do indeed notice a difference between HC and TC. and it's not small either.

 

Phew! The falcon was spared of that piece of poo then . Seriously though, playbility wise it'd be no problem. Now if you want to get down to the "not enough shades" excuse then well, excuse me, but we are looking at completely different things in games. I always looked at a game playbility wise (yep, it helps if the gfx are attactive, but it's not an obligation).

 

Unfortunately most people forget this little reality...games are about the games. We agree then.

I'll take yar's revenge over a lot of todays fluff.

 

Err, when did I write THAT reasoning?????? And what kind of reasoning is this you're writing here? In any case, Atari's marketing and management dept. never did have a clue what they wanted to do, so I don't think this statement holds much anyway.

 

 

My point is why design new hardware that is less powerfull when you acn just use the falcons

base without all the fancy peripherals.

 

 

You philistine . Anyway, I grew up with the atari 8bits and then the 16/32 machines (I have 4 of them set up in my desk as we speak, playtesting the next D-Bug menu ), so I'm kinda attached to those.

 

 

Yup....2600,5200,7800,8 bits, XEGS, ST, STE, and Jaguar. Held off on the Falcon as

my friend was happy to let me use his....seeing he was a musician too however,he

was a total novice at computing.....fringe benefits of geekhood! Woohoo!

 

But no one will question The St /TT/Falcon Midi superiority...not me anyway.

 

I still like it better than anything out there today.

[Gorf]

Some youtube links.

 

We have sono which is a dsp demo. Underscore, likewise, and Beams which features MP2 music. The latter means that all the effects are being done by the cpu and the blitter.

 

 

Most impressive. I'd like to see that kind of graphical power in a practical application however.

The frame rate was about 15-20 at best and Im sure the Falcon was working rather hard and

optimized. I would like to see some specs on the Blitter....I ant remember all the abilities it had.

Any links?

[Christos]

Gorf, first I disagree in your sentence that demos are not practical applications. They provide fun to both the authors and the end users. Sometimes it's harder to code a demo than a game.

I tried to record some gameplay videos today so that I could show how good falcon games are , but my RF modulator cable was dead and I need to make another. But that will have to wait since I am going away for some vacations.

[Michael_]

Most impressive. I'd like to see that kind of graphical power in a practical application however.

 

If by practical application you also mean games, then Crown of Creation perhaps? Don´t know if any movies of it exist (couldn´t find any six months ago at least).

[ggn]

If by practical application you also mean games, then Crown of Creation perhaps? Don´t know if any movies of it exist (couldn´t find any six months ago at least).

 

This game is in the D-Bug "Liberation" list . Just have patience people

[+CyranoJ]

Speaking as someone who has actually coded on both platforms...

 

Yes, the Jaguar is a nice peice of kit..... on paper

 

In practicality, it is a bodged out rushed chunk of chips, with no real integration between the systems (ooh look, 3 chips on the SAME BUS...oh and you can't use jumps on the risc chips from main memory reliably..ho hum)

 

It also has the most retarded display list command set ever invented, with everything required to be rol'd into the correct bit positions which, to top it all off, gets trashed by the GPU as it draws the screen.

 

Now, the real kicker is that nearly all Jaguar games suck totally as far as gameplay goes, and you have to be some sort of deformed hulk monster to hold the controllers comfortably (or maybe just american, I don't know)

 

Consider the Jag as a host box for Tempest 2000,and you cant go wrong. Consider it as something to play games on, and you need your head examined.

 

The Falcon030, on the other hand, is slower, has lessmemory bandwidth, has no GPU, but does have the DSP, and has an 68030 CPU at the same speed as the Jag's 68000 CPU.. in effect making its main processor actually quicker

 

And before you all startranting about the GPUs, I think you'll find that 99% of jag games actually had their main code running on the 68k.

 

\but if you really want to see which machine is "better" check the scenes out. The Falcon scene is thriving nicely with FREE quality products being produced, while the Jag scene seems to be run and maintained by people producing 2600 game clones and charging an arm and a leg for them.

 

Anyway,

 

Thats my £0.01.

Edited August 7, 2007 by CyranoJ

[Atari060]

Ok,

 

first of all, let me say I like both. The Jag and the Falcon. As I am mainly a gamer, I was first really impressed what the Jag could do. But as I like racing games best, the Falcon, even a plain one without acceleration, for me is the better choice. Except Super Burnout, Atari Karts and maybe World Tour Racing, the Jaguar sucks for this kind of games, as the first two are bitmapped based and so outdated, even Need4speed on 3DO looked miles better. On the falcon you have moongames (like f-zero) and the upcoming Reeking Rubber and No 2nd Prize (3D Hang On) and the hopefully upcoming Falcon Racing Game Project (Flying High), not to mention the working ST racing games.

 

Now as my falcon is accelerated with ct60, I can even play Quake, Heretic and Hexen on it, it sure is the "better" gaming plattform from the technical potential. Before that, I liked AvP most.

 

I also agree that in the falcon scene you have lots of good software for free, while the jaguar scene is more profit orientated, although atomix and diamjags proof the opposite.

 

On the other hand, if I could get a "killer app" racing game for my Jag, I also would pay a hundret bucks

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

[Michael_]

No 2nd Prize (3D Hang On)

 

One of (if not THE) best motorcycle racing games ever IMO.

[Bill Brasky]

Now, the real kicker is that nearly all Jaguar games suck totally as far as gameplay goes, and you have to be some sort of deformed hulk monster to hold the controllers comfortably (or maybe just american, I don't know)

 

 

The Jaguar controller is the same width and thickness as a Playstation controller. The only difference is where there's empty space on the PS controller, the Jag has a keypad there.

[+CyranoJ]

Now, the real kicker is that nearly all Jaguar games suck totally as far as gameplay goes, and you have to be some sort of deformed hulk monster to hold the controllers comfortably (or maybe just american, I don't know)

 

 

The Jaguar controller is the same width and thickness as a Playstation controller. The only difference is where there's empty space on the PS controller, the Jag has a keypad there.

 

Are you SERIOUSLY comparing the Jagpad to a DuoShock?

 

The Jagpad "middle bit" is solid, so you cant naturally curve your hands around the sides. The D-Pad is tacky and horrible and feels like the graphite contacts of the old 2600 sticks, the 3 red buttons are a considerable distance apart and not very tactile.

 

You also hold a Duoshock "naturally" (ie, its ergonomically curved, like natural keyboards) whereas you have to hold the Jagpad vertically like a housebrick.

 

And as for use, try Doom on the Jag, and Doom on the PSX and then say the JagPad is the same as the DuoShock. (Even tho playing FPS games without a mouse is pointless)

[Bill Brasky]

Now, the real kicker is that nearly all Jaguar games suck totally as far as gameplay goes, and you have to be some sort of deformed hulk monster to hold the controllers comfortably (or maybe just american, I don't know)

 

 

The Jaguar controller is the same width and thickness as a Playstation controller. The only difference is where there's empty space on the PS controller, the Jag has a keypad there.

 

Are you SERIOUSLY comparing the Jagpad to a DuoShock?

 

The Jagpad "middle bit" is solid, so you cant naturally curve your hands around the sides. The D-Pad is tacky and horrible and feels like the graphite contacts of the old 2600 sticks, the 3 red buttons are a considerable distance apart and not very tactile.

 

You also hold a Duoshock "naturally" (ie, its ergonomically curved, like natural keyboards) whereas you have to hold the Jagpad vertically like a housebrick.

 

And as for use, try Doom on the Jag, and Doom on the PSX and then say the JagPad is the same as the DuoShock. (Even tho playing FPS games without a mouse is pointless)

 

Yeah, I'm SERIOUSLY comparing the Jagpad to a PS pad. Who cares what you think of the d-pad or the button layout, you're just trying to change the subject. You said "you have to be some sort of deformed hulk monster to hold the controllers comfortably". Why? It's not bigger, fatter or thicker than the PS controller. You don't need to put a death grip on it and hold it vertically. I've played DOOM on both systems. The difference, I had to stop playing the PS version at points because of painful cramping in my hands, a common complaint about the PS controller when it debuted back in 1995. Now it's considered the industry standard shape so it's beyond criticism.

 

The Jagpad "middle bit" is solid, so you cant naturally curve your hands around the sides.

 

Why would you want to curve your hand around the inner part of the joypad anyway? Are your fingers 11 inches long? Were you born with your left and right hands reversed and backwards? Have you ever even held a Jagpad or played a game using one? I've owned both systems and can't think of any time the inner keypad prevented me from being able to wrap my hands around it or grip it properly. Do you work for EGM by any chance?

[Michael_]

Are you SERIOUSLY comparing the Jagpad to a DuoShock?

 

Although the Jagpad isn´t my favorite of the lot, it´s certainly leagues above anything even remotely connected to a Playstation or a PS2.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Palmer Eldritch

[Fadest]

The blitter is twice the bit path of the one in the Falcon....does many more effects in 1 to24 bit color.

Falcon is not a 24 bit color machine. I think 15 bit is it's highest...correct me if Im wrong on this.

 

Show me even ....hmmmmmm Cybermorph on the Falcon....ooops you cant...not enough color and the

blitter does not G-shade at high color.

Hem, in 320x200, you only have 64000 pixels, so a 15bits palette is more than what you need to have 1 different color on each pixel. Of course, a 24bits palette will give you more choices

 

And yes, the inbox Gouraud shading of the Jag is a must.

 

The problem, is, that neither the Jaguar or the Falcon have been used to their max potential (even if the Falcon, being a computer has probably be pushed to his limits by demomakers - and the Jag has 1 or 2 games that really take every bit of power from it).

[Fadest]

Most impressive. I'd like to see that kind of graphical power in a practical application however.

If you have the occasion, you should have a look on the good old Apex Media running on a standard Falcon. This was really impressive for the time.

Some soundtrackers were also impressive (IHM and audio capacities), but I don't remember any name, sorry. Also, there was Cubase or Notator for professionals.

 

Most of the Gem applications suffered from the poor 16mhz 030 . But are impressive on an accelerated Falcon (Calamus, ...).

[Gorf]

Speaking as someone who has actually coded on both platforms...

Yes, the Jaguar is a nice peice of kit..... on paper

 

It's actually better in real life. Lazy coders would never know this how ever.

 

In practicality, it is a bodged out rushed chunk of chips, with no real integration between the systems (ooh look, 3 chips on the SAME BUS...oh and you can't use jumps on the risc chips from main memory reliably..ho hum)

 

I guess you dont know how to REALLY code the Jaguar then. I have 5 applications in the works right now.

All of the AI is running on the GPU FROM MAIN RAM and with no assistance whatsoever from any other

chip. Oh did I mention sucessefully jumping back and forth between the local and the Main too?

 

Here you go....Nothing fancy....a simple 3D simon in space of sorts but all GPU running from Main

AND local with no assistance from other processors to do the jumps. The jumps are more than possible,

just not done the same way in main RAM. Enjoy...

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?a...st&id=66953

 

So much for that point.

 

Bodged out? No integration? You cant know much about it's design if you believe this.

 

It also has the most retarded display list command set ever invented, with everything required to be rol'd into the correct bit positions which, to top it all off, gets trashed by the GPU as it draws the screen.

 

Um.....Maybe it's retarded to call the OPL a DLI. The jaguar does NOT have a display list comand

set...sounds like you're thinking in the 8 Bit days. The Jaguar has an OPL and it's not supposed to

be anything like a DLI, at least not like you are thinking. You could actually use it as a much more

flexible DLI though. It can act like a DLI, a windows accelerator, and a sprite engine as well as others.

Flexibility sometimes requires a little extra work. The Jaguar OPL is every sprite engine you ever needed.

 

You'd be closer comparing it to player/missles but still no cigar. It's that and way more.

 

You obviously relied on too many Atari samples code. There are ways to make an obect list ONCE.

Then a simple update of the 4 fields that would ever need changing( the one that get trashed by the

GPU). X, Y postitons and data fields are the only one that get trashed as those are going to change

anyway...to move and to flip frames. Again more flexibility.

 

 

Now, the real kicker is that nearly all Jaguar games suck totally as far as gameplay goes, and you have to be some sort of deformed hulk monster to hold the controllers comfortably (or maybe just american, I don't know)

 

Opinion sounds like......of some which I PARTIALLY agree with you. A good percent of the games were

16 bitter quality but did not suck. Then yes like all systems it had its suckers. I still find the Jaguar controller

one of the most comfortable I've ever used. I have gotten cramps from every other controller I 've ever use

but never once did my hands hurt after playing with the Jaguar controller. I usually get tired before my hands

do using the Jag controller.

 

Consider the Jag as a host box for Tempest 2000,and you cant go wrong. Consider it as something to play games on, and you need your head examined.

 

Again opinion.

 

The Falcon030, on the other hand, is slower, has lessmemory bandwidth, has no GPU, but does have the DSP, and has an 68030 CPU at the same speed as the Jag's 68000 CPU.. in effect making its main processor actually quicker

 

Yup an 030 with 16 bits of its bus fallen by the wayside. There goes that advantage.

 

The 56k DSP(though a deadly DSP indeed) can't control the system unassited. The Jerry DSP can. So can the

GPU as well as the 68k. There is NO CPU in the Jaguar. Any one of the three gen purps can fully contol the

system with the other two completely disabled. I'll take ONE GPU core against an 030, even several 030's

wired at 16 bits anyday. I can run DSP code from the GPU local, GPU code from the DSP local and every

combination in between. How can you NOT see the flexibility in this as a coder?

 

And before you all startranting about the GPUs, I think you'll find that 99% of jag games actually had their main code running on the 68k.

 

See above link. again nothing fancy but proof otherwise.

 

Lazy coding does not take away from a systems ability. However I concurr whole-heartedly with you here.

A mistake by the Tramiels. They should have not allow the 68k to do anything more than boot the system

and control interrupts....what it was intended to do. IT was NEVER intended to be the CPU. It's the manager.

Come now. How many managers do you know that really do any work?

 

\but if you really want to see which machine is "better" check the scenes out. The Falcon scene is thriving nicely with FREE quality products being produced, while the Jag scene seems to be run and maintained by people producing 2600 game clones and charging an arm and a leg for them.

 

Ok so we have a few publishers out ther that feel 90 dollars is reasonable. I'llbe right behind you in line to

bitch and moan about that. Free games are fine if you dont mind limitations(on a cosole that is). On a computer

system, free games are a lot less of a cost issue.Not everyone has an alpine or BJL and BJL only allows two meg

games. I can fit much larger games on a cart which costs money. You can't give those away unless you are rich

and run out of things to do with yuor money. We produce quality products for the JAguar. Gorf classic was rated

#4 all time by Retro Gamer...cant be too horrible now can it? $34.95 for a professionally produced product is a

rather reasonable price, I'd say.

 

The 'scene' or fan base does not take away from a systems ability. It certainly can make it more plesant though.

 

Anyway,

Thats my £0.01.

 

NO, I dig.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Gorf