ThomSW Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Small tip... Just DO NOT FEED ANYMORE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomSW Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 ...thanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 BTW... all 2600 programming is trickery unless you like vertical bars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oswald Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 BTW... all 2600 programming is trickery unless you like vertical bars. I have rewrote my argument without using the word trick. now go and redefine another word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogstar_robot Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I have rewrote my argument ... And that is your problem. You are looking for an argument that you can feel good about winning and you've picked a really stupid place to have it which is strange since you seem to be fairly intelligent otherwise. And the A8 vs C-64 argument is a moldy oldy. Most us here are just wanting to understand how things work for themselves or to get a machine to do what we want. Nobody really cares if a given result requires some technique not necessary on a C-64 (or vice versa) unless they are developing for both platforms and even then the only thing of any importance is the result. Let's just make the guy happy and give him what he wants so we can get back to discussing how the get the best displays out of an A8. All together now: The C64 is the best 8-bit ever made. No other 8-bit is worthy to so much as grovel at it's feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Oswald...ok, I agree on "on the c64 its done with 0 cpu power and 0 sprites and 0 colorchanges and 0 mode changes." while on A8 it needs more programming or custom software. but I would avoid the term trickery or cheating. for me G2F is not trickery, some Numen fx are as I do not understand them... for Fox and Eru who wrote all the fx they might be "no trick"... simply clever... For Graham most of his fx might be "trickery" or "cheating" as he "cheats" the VIC-chip for special fx... Now...what do you say if I tell you that non-flickering rasterinterrupt on C64 is trickery and cheating? as it is not "build" in? agreed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The C64 is the best 8-bit ever made. No other 8-bit is worthy to so much as grovel at it's feet. Yup, they r0xoRz. I'm gonna send all my money to Commodore at the address here in the 64 user's guide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 It's a trick, in this case an ingenious use of an existing feature and there's nothing wrong with that but when you have to throw that many resources (the hardware sprites and a slab of CPU power) at replicating what the C64 is doing whilst idle, it makes all the boasting about achieving that match seem a bit... well, futile really. The C64 is loading and playing three channel music whilst it's version of that picture is displayed too... This is a bad argument, and tired as well. Why it's a bad argument is left as an exercise to the reader. i've restored the bit of my post that you strategically left out and put it in bold for emphasis; this thread was originally about converting the entire game and not just the pictures, the CPU and other resource overheads should therefore be a major part of that discussion but, since it seems to have boiled down to pretty pictures and cheap shots at me and Oswald, i think i'll keep out of it now. Good luck to anyone brave enough to take on coding something of this size, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Back on topic... I'd love to see this happen just to see how it comes out. Would it be better to rip gameplay mechanics from the 64 code or write from scratch? I'd also like to see expanded RAM support so it can load more than one section at a time. Also, is the Amiga soundtrack available in MOD format? -Bry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 i've restored the bit of my post that you strategically left out and put it in bold for emphasis; this thread was originally about converting the entire game and not just the pictures, the CPU and other resource overheads should therefore be a major part of that discussion but, since it seems to have boiled down to pretty pictures and cheap shots at me and Oswald, i think i'll keep out of it now. Good luck to anyone brave enough to take on coding something of this size, though. TMR, this goes both ways. Of course such a game is going to be more work on the A8. It doesn't natively have the color depth for these kinds of images. But unlike most 8-bit systems, the A8 gives you a lot of options if you're willing to code for them. Oswald wants derail every discussion with non-stop 64 evangelism and it's getting old. The Atari chipset is three years older than the 64 chipset so the fun is in showing what was possible three years before the 64, just like the 64 showed what was possible three years before the Amiga. If it were 1980 and you had to pick a computing platform, what would YOU have picked? -Bry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrodegang Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I did not read the whole thread but I am glad to hear Emkay is finally doing a conversion for Atari 8-bit! I am looking forward to Defender of the Crown for little Atari! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Bryan, without looking at the c64 code... I would try to get the mechanics routines over and then rewrite the graphics/io/msx stuff. but important thing here is to get the mechanics over. sometimes it's harder sometimes you will suprised how simple it becomes... but again I never played the game on ST/Amiga nor on C64... so I can not judge. and another notice... target machine should be 64k machine... not 128k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Bryan, without looking at the c64 code... I would try to get the mechanics routines over and then rewrite the graphics/io/msx stuff. but important thing here is to get the mechanics over. sometimes it's harder sometimes you will suprised how simple it becomes... Yeah, from what I remember about the ST version, the gameplay is pretty simple in all parts. but again I never played the game on ST/Amiga nor on C64... so I can not judge. and another notice... target machine should be 64k machine... not 128k. Agreed. It would just be nice if it used extra RAM to reduce the number of loads when available. -Bry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamus Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 It's a trick, in this case an ingenious use of an existing feature and there's nothing wrong with that but when you have to throw that many resources (the hardware sprites and a slab of CPU power) at replicating what the C64 is doing whilst idle, it makes all the boasting about achieving that match seem a bit... well, futile really. The C64 is loading and playing three channel music whilst it's version of that picture is displayed too... This is a bad argument, and tired as well. Why it's a bad argument is left as an exercise to the reader. i've restored the bit of my post that you strategically left out and put it in bold for emphasis; this thread was originally about converting the entire game and not just the pictures, the CPU and other resource overheads should therefore be a major part of that discussion but, since it seems to have boiled down to pretty pictures and cheap shots at me and Oswald, i think i'll keep out of it now. Good luck to anyone brave enough to take on coding something of this size, though. I stand by my original post; it's still a bad argument and pointless to boot since you're comparing apples to oranges. Actually, it's even worse than that: you're mischaracterizing what the A8 is capable of and muddying the waters as far as what is considered "normal" on the A8. I'm not going to point out why as others have already trodden that ground and the argument on its face is, really, quite silly and pointless. And BTW, the A8 is fully capable of playing music while doing disk I/O and showing graphics--The Eidolon comes to mind but I'm sure there were others as well. Just to emphasize the stupidity of this argument: The A8 can do 256 colors on the screen--can the C64? The C64 can do 16 colors in 320x200--can the A8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13matt Posted May 21, 2008 Author Share Posted May 21, 2008 13Matt... yourself? hehe, Not exactly the world's best programmer, though i'm betting you could do the whole thing in turbo basic, if you're not too bothered about it looking perfect. For my sins, i have only been involved in design, art and music. playing around with RMT i might have a go at some choonz Fact is i'd love to collaborate on something for the A8 My games only came out for the Achie and Risc PC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Shamus... not again... please... we should stay to DOTC discussion. And TMR knows the A8 as he has ported over some of his C64 games... He is one of the few guys here who really touched hand on nearly any 8bit console... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13matt Posted May 21, 2008 Author Share Posted May 21, 2008 I don't know, Can't any kind of post be put here without ppl arguing over whose machine is best? Do you argue over whose pizza is better - Domino's or the Hut? I started this topic cause DOTC is just a game i admired from the ST, i only mentioned the C64 cause it makes more sense to convert those images But I'm not going to get all hot under the collar about how much processor time is used, or if the colours aren't quite right Just wait till you get an amstrad user talking about how colourful his/her graphics are lol But then i've got a machine from 1982 that can do stuff the C64 can't I mean it does toast, heats bagels, warms waffles etc That's it new post "my toaster's better than the C64" or would that start an argument over whose toaster is better :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urborg Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Trickery? non-Trickery? Who cares! It doesn't matter. Final user don't see how it was achieved. What really matters is the final result. If we focus on that, we can clearly see that Atari is a winner over C64. On C64 You have 16 colors and there is no way to avoid this limitation. There are no tricks on C64 that can help you with that. You can't display picture like last picture of Emkay with gold letters, because C64 can't display many shades of yellow color like Atari. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Trickery? non-Trickery? Who cares! It doesn't matter. Final user don't see how it was achieved. What really matters is the final result. If we focus on that, we can clearly see that Atari is a winner over C64. On C64 You have 16 colors and there is no way to avoid this limitation. There are no tricks on C64 that can help you with that. You can't display picture like last picture of Emkay with gold letters, because C64 can't display many shades of yellow color like Atari. Before this ignites a 2nd wave of aggression, let me make a couple points. It's possible that certain pictures can actually be rendered better on the Atari but for the scenes where there's action, you're going to be limited by the inability to use the players in the background. The real trick is going to be managing all the resources as well as possible. There are some tricks on the 64 that create the illusion of more than 16 colors. I don't know if anyone's used it in a game. -Bry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13matt Posted May 21, 2008 Author Share Posted May 21, 2008 Trickery? non-Trickery? my toaster manages to do two slices of bread in under three minutes, no trickery there though i don't know if i could tell if there was any cpu heavy nonsense going on when i eat the bread and i'm not sure how many shades of brown i can see either Sorry if it sounds like i'm not taking this seriously :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 my toaster manages to do two slices of bread in under three minutes, no trickery there though i don't know if i could tell if there was any cpu heavy nonsense going on when i eat the bread and i'm not sure how many shades of brown i can see either Sorry if it sounds like i'm not taking this seriously :s I wonder what's you intention? Why do you start a thread and than treating it like a can on the street Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urborg Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Before this ignites a 2nd wave of aggression, let me make a couple points. It's possible that certain pictures can actually be rendered better on the Atari but for the scenes where there's action, you're going to be limited by the inability to use the players in the background. The real trick is going to be managing all the resources as well as possible. There are some tricks on the 64 that create the illusion of more than 16 colors. I don't know if anyone's used it in a game. -Bry Yes you have right. In order to display such a graphic on Atari you have to sacrifice sprites and some CPU time. Nothing comes for free. But this technique give you a possibility to display really colorfull, static pictures. About creating the illusion of more colors you probably mean interlace or dithering. The same can be achieved on Atari, but results are rather poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogstar_robot Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 a machine from 1982 that can do stuff the C64 can't I mean it does toast, heats bagels, warms waffles etc No 8-bit is going to toast bread. It takes a fully tricked out A4000 or a Falcon with a CT63 just to keep bread warm. Now a NetBurst P-IV on the other hand....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogstar_robot Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Trickery? non-Trickery? Who cares! It doesn't matter. Final user don't see how it was achieved. What really matters is the final result. If we focus on that, we can clearly see that Atari is a winner over C64. War-bait right there...... On C64 You have 16 colors and there is no way to avoid this limitation. There are no tricks on C64 that can help you with that. You can't display picture like last picture of Emkay with gold letters, because C64 can't display many shades of yellow color like Atari. That's not entirely true. There are ways of finessing a bigger perceived pallette out of the machine. Of course, these techniques entail tradeoffs the way things like HIP and APAC do: http://www.studiostyle.sk/dmagic/gallery/gfxmodes.htm Of course, at no time is the hardware generating anything but the 16 hard wired colors but mixing them in various ways between frames and lines allows for a greater number of perceived colors and quite impressive displays are possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Of course, at no time is the hardware generating anything but the 16 hard wired colors but mixing them in various ways between frames and lines allows for a greater number of perceived colors and quite impressive displays are possible. This is not true. The PAL decoder indeed does create new colors because it mixes the color carrier of the current rasterline 50% with the color carrier of the previous rasterline. That's also why the Atari 256 color mode works: The color carrier of the dark rasterlines mixes into the color carrier of the luminance rasterlines. For C64 this means you can mix any two colors with the same luminance, but also color bars and dithering looks a lot smoother since color tones which wouldn't fit to each other automatically get much closer to each other. This is an example of an image which explicitely uses PAL decoder color mixing to produce new colors without flickering: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts