TMR Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Let's keep it simple was to keep the hardware aspects separate so the arguments can flow objectively not what you think is simple. i was keeping the hardware aspects apart and comparing the differences between moving and colouring of sprites without involving other aspects like software sprites. i'll be honest, i'm using the term "keep it simple" with a heavy degree of sarcasm now because it only seems to apply under certain circumstances... comparing four players making two objects to two hardware sprites is keeping it simple, actually thinking about how much code required to move those players around not so... Your algorithm for moving sprites vertically on the Atari is poor and not the potential of the machine. For vertical motion of 8*16 sprites on the Atari, one could keep the shapes at various heights at different PMBases (say +1, +2, ... +15) and then use the same PMBase and keep same shape 16 pixels down. Thus, by triggering PMBase as well as HPOSn you can simulate the Y-axis without moving memory (although you would use up more memory). Well, i could be wrong and i've not been awake long... but from what i remember that doesn't allow independent vertical movement of the players so in most real world situations it's not exactly going to hold it's own, in fact it doesn't even allow for animation of the objects (which my method does) and chews through a fair block of RAM in the process. What i described is how most people would actually do it when presented with the hardware, so yes there may well be faster systems and, assuming certain conditions are met, things can be cut down to 20 or even 18 bytes per player by having some "dead air" above and below the actual definitions to avoid needing to clean them out each refresh. But even with an unrolled loop that still means it needs to write 76 bytes a frame (18 bytes per player and it's X register, times four) as a bare minimum whilst the C64 uses a fraction of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 please code a sprite multiplexor with free screen positioning for each sprite and look how much you can display... player/missles are good for Mule etc (and time bars) but a pain for fast action games esp. involving repositioning on screen... another detail which gets lost... the 4 missles are encoded in 1 byte so moving them independently means additional code, too again... (masking/or'ing data). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Atari computers were always more stylish, that's all you need. Why do i find the phrase "style over content" springing to mind...? =-) Actually Content and style! Those C64's were Ugggg leeee! i'm sorry, you seem to be offering subjective opinions that are outside the bounds of this discussion. Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 When i got my 800XL for Christmas it didn't work properly, it would throw up a red screen four or five times a day on average so i returned it a few days after new years day, described the fault to the clerk in the shop and he didn't even bother firing it up to test the problem because the chain of stores had already received several hundred returns with the same issue by that point I really dont think you are being accurate, I worked retail at the time in those days and the Atari stuff was rock solid The situation i described is as close to accurate as time and memory allow but i wasn't the only person i knew who'd returned one. Terrible stuff, bad keyboards bad video, bad power bricks, cheap faulty rf modulator switch boxes. It was huge, we used to laugh when someone bought one as to how long it would be till they were back returning it.. Well, i can't say anything negative about the Atari 8-bit from when i was working in retail... it was mid 1980s onwards and we didn't actually sell any. i did shift a significant number of C64s well into the machine's dotage and i suspect we moved more of those than we did STs and, as i said, the returns on them were pretty low and limited to "user error". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fröhn Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Terrible stuff, bad keyboards bad video, bad power bricks, cheap faulty rf modulator switch boxes. It was huge, we used to laugh when someone bought one as to how long it would be till they were back returning it.. Well, i can't say anything negative about the Atari 8-bit from when i was working in retail... it was mid 1980s onwards and we didn't actually sell any. i did shift a significant number of C64s well into the machine's dotage and i suspect we moved more of those than we did STs and, as i said, the returns on them were pretty low and limited to "user error". I guess atarian63 writes about 1983 when C64 was new. Indeed there were starting problems, but the same applies to the Ataris. I got a C64 a bit later and there wasn't any quality problems, not for me and not for all those people I knew who owned a C64. I killed a C64, but that was my own fault (exploring the ports by shortcutting pins ). And finally let's not forget that the C64 was also sold much more, so even at same failure rate ofcourse much more C64s would have been returned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonl Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 As i said previously, the "hybrid" machine that Heaven was asking for nearly exists in the C64DTV - essentially it acts like a C64 but with a 256 colour palette (which is laid out similarly to the Atari) and extra functions to allow window scrolling. It also adds a large block of extra RAM and a memory window system like the Ataris use and a DMA (and two source blitter on the later PAL models) to shunt data to and from expansion RAM like C64 RAM expansions do. Do you know of a link to some programming info on accessing the additional colours etc. on the DTV? Someone gave me one for Christmas last year and I just found out about the keyboard and joystick mods for it so I thought I might build myself a baby C64 out of it over the holidays. I got a copy of the 64 Whole Memory Guide book a while back and I think it's time for me to succumb to the power of darkness for a while Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oswald Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Do you know of a link to some programming info on accessing the additional colours etc. on the DTV? http://picobay.com/dtv_wiki/index.php?titl...fic_Programming THE dtv forum, to ask questions http://jledger.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=dtvhacking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Atari computers were always more stylish, that's all you need. Why do i find the phrase "style over content" springing to mind...? =-) Actually Content and style! Those C64's were Ugggg leeee! i'm sorry, you seem to be offering subjective opinions that are outside the bounds of this discussion. Have a nice day. The Design of the Atari XL series is much desired for good handling the keyboard, while the first breadbins weren't something like that. You'd need a ladder for the wrists to reach the keys easily But later things turned around. The XE series got a horrible (by keystroke) keyboard (like the ST series) and the C64's box got flattened and had some benefits of the Amiga Keyboard. Wherever the Tramiels go ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Atari computers were always more stylish, that's all you need. Why do i find the phrase "style over content" springing to mind...? =-) Actually Content and style! Those C64's were Ugggg leeee! i'm sorry, you seem to be offering subjective opinions that are outside the bounds of this discussion. Have a nice day. Just a fact! Well within the range of discussion (Atari vs Commodore). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Terrible stuff, bad keyboards bad video, bad power bricks, cheap faulty rf modulator switch boxes. It was huge, we used to laugh when someone bought one as to how long it would be till they were back returning it.. Well, i can't say anything negative about the Atari 8-bit from when i was working in retail... it was mid 1980s onwards and we didn't actually sell any. i did shift a significant number of C64s well into the machine's dotage and i suspect we moved more of those than we did STs and, as i said, the returns on them were pretty low and limited to "user error". I guess atarian63 writes about 1983 when C64 was new. Indeed there were starting problems, but the same applies to the Ataris. I got a C64 a bit later and there wasn't any quality problems, not for me and not for all those people I knew who owned a C64. I killed a C64, but that was my own fault (exploring the ports by shortcutting pins ). And finally let's not forget that the C64 was also sold much more, so even at same failure rate ofcourse much more C64s would have been returned. Actually I was am still am in the retail business as part of the overall company. No much changed with C64 until the 64C model, they were returned in droves, It was rare for an Atari to be return. The commodore was cheap that is why people bought it and eventually programmed for it as the numbers increased. Along with cheap came poor quality,poor design,etc. As is often in the world of retail good enough is what sells not what is better or best. I stand by the fact that C64 though highly sold,(due to atari imploding by 84)was a poor quality machine. Look what happened to atari 8-bit after the commodore guy Tramiel took over Atari. Though Tramiel is to be thanked for continueing on and brings tons of new procduct to market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oswald Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 The Design of the Atari XL series is much desired for good handling the keyboard, while the first breadbins weren't something like that. You'd need a ladder for the wrists to reach the keys easily the first atari 8bits werent easy on the wrists either. anyhow I never found it uncomfortable, and I wouldnt have either if I had one of those ataris. this is just nitpicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Ergonomics and OH&S weren't exactly big things in the early-mid 1980s. Just look at the utterly attrocious mice that early Macs had. And PC serial ones too for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oswald Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Actually I was am still am in the retail business as part of the overall company. No much changed with C64 until the 64C model, they were returned in droves, It was rare for an Atari to be return. The commodore was cheap that is why people bought it and eventually programmed for it as the numbers increased. Along with cheap came poor quality,poor design,etc. As is often in the world of retail good enough is what sells not what is better or best.I stand by the fact that C64 though highly sold,(due to atari imploding by 84)was a poor quality machine. Look what happened to atari 8-bit after the commodore guy Tramiel took over Atari. Though Tramiel is to be thanked for continueing on and brings tons of new procduct to market. "I got a C64 a bit later and there wasn't any quality problems, not for me and not for all those people I knew who owned a C64." same here. I got a c64 in 86. it was not a "C" modell. "I stand by the fact that C64 though highly sold,(due to atari imploding by 84)was a poor quality machine." it will be a hard stand. havent heard this claim from anyone else than atarians so far... also: in fact the c64 made the atari go almost bankrupt. a "poor quality,poor design,etc" machine as you describe it. it was a better and cheaper machine, atari couldnt keep up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Just a fact! Well within the range of discussion (Atari vs Commodore). No, it's an opinion. Other people disagree and it's therefore subjective and if we're getting subjective there's always the Atari 400... what the hell were they thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Let's put something "new" into the round You cannot imagine a good looking 3D action game on the A8 with 8-12 fps? Well, I can. The only rule would be to have the screendata on a cartridge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Well, with full overscan the double scanline mode doesn't look that blocky. And the PMG easily can be used for the doors, pictures and some wall enhancement. Double scanline mode means also less cpu cycle stealing....The scoreboard could be done in hires with a PM generated hero and weapon shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogstar_robot Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 No, it's an opinion. Other people disagree and it's therefore subjective and if we're getting subjective there's always the Atari 400... what the hell were they thinking? That has an answer. It isn't a good answer mind you but an answer. ANTIC+GTIA+POKEY were originally intended for the next generation game console after the 2600 and were developed with that in mind. Neither the A8 nor the 5200 were originally intended to happen and I'd be interested in the original plan for that console but I begin to digress. Nonetheless, that thinking colored a lot of the A8's early history. The 400 was primarily intended to play cartridge based games. Game carts from the late seventies and early eighties did not have memory requirements that exceeded the 16K the 400 had. The membrane keyboard was good enough to play games like Star Raiders so the positioning of the machine wasn't unlike the Odyssey2. The keyboard could be wiped clean and wasn't prone to having things fall between the keys. Again, this makes the machine more console-like than computer like. In the following link there is a picture of an "Entertainer" pack that comes with two joysticks and cartridge games which one might get to go with their 400 "Basic Computer" pack. http://www.vintage-computer.com/atari400.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oswald Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 Let's put something "new" into the round You cannot imagine a good looking 3D action game on the A8 with 8-12 fps? Well, I can. The only rule would be to have the screendata on a cartridge... wolf clones even in a8 demos are under 25fps. guess the speed on a 4x bigger screen... +add the sprite handling, AI, yaddayadda, you're at 2-4fps at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonl Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 http://picobay.com/dtv_wiki/index.php?titl...fic_Programming THE dtv forum, to ask questions http://jledger.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=dtvhacking Cool, thanks! Looks like it's quite an upgrade over the original hardware with the blitter etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oswald Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 In the following link there is a picture of an "Entertainer" pack that comes with two joysticks and cartridge games which one might get to go with their 400 "Basic Computer" pack. http://www.vintage-computer.com/atari400.shtml from that page: "It was designed by Jay Minor, an interesting fellow who despised the man who owns Atari Inc. today, Jack Tramiel. Jay had designed chips for the Atari Amiga which he suddenly refused to release to the company, insisting they did not work. In any case, Jay's graphic chip for the Atari 400 enabled tasks no computer can do today. You could see all the non-copyrighted memory in your system. You could divide the video screen into as many as 255 different windows and watch a load/store routine at work." funny history revisionism & boasting here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyace Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 The user comments seem to be a bit random - to say the least If the FCC regs weren't so tight at the time the 400/800 might have been a bit cheaper to make - rather than having insides constructed like tanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogstar_robot Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 funny history revisionism & boasting here I only included that link for the photo. Nonetheless, the A8 and 2600 are Jay Miner designs and Atari once had a contract option to buy the tech that went into the Amiga which Commodore nullified by buying Miner's company outright. This was the subject of a lawsuit. Actual text of that contract here: http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/mickey.html No "funny revisionism" in that. The poster gets it wrong in that it was Miner refusing to deal with Atari. Warner Atari was dithering on the subject so Commodore came up with the cash immediately provoking a contract dispute which had to be settled. Ironically, it was Tramiel in charge of Atari at this point that disputed that contract. And if that hadn't happened this way, I have little doubt you'd be here heaping scorn on the Amiga tech for having the wrong corporate nameplate on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 And if that hadn't happened this way, I have little doubt you'd be here heaping scorn on the Amiga tech for having the wrong corporate nameplate on it. I'm pretty sure. If ATARI sold the AMIGA, today people would also ask "what is an AMIGA", referring to my view last week on a german GAME TV , asking "what is an 800 XL" ... So - beeing a little twisted- I'm happy that Commodore got the rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oswald Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 funny history revisionism & boasting here http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/mickey.html No "funny revisionism" in that. there is: "Jay had designed chips for the Atari Amiga which he suddenly refused to release to the company." No, he didnt design amiga for atari. neither for commodore. the chip/machine design was (almost?) ready when the atari/commodore stepped in. funny atarian boasting in this link aswell: "The Amiga system had always been intended to be a better version of the Atari 800 using the same multi-processor design (one processor for graphics, another for sound, etc.)." no it wasnt to be a successor to the a800, neither the a800 is a multi cpu system. or if it is then about any 8bit computer is. "with some kind of custom "AtariDOS" additions" yeah, sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drac030 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 neither the a800 is a multi cpu system. or if it is then about any 8bit computer is. No and no. Atari has 6502 and ANTIC. Both are processors. Any other 8-bit computer has only one processor (yes, including the C-64, for VIC-II is not a processor, as it doesn't execute programs). Could you at least learn some basics about 8-bit ataris before trolling here, eh? 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