Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

You still have not explained how you can have a 160*240 sprite overlay and a bitmap behind it (or in front of it).

Ofcourse I have explained that. But I will explain again: By setting up new Y-positions every 21 rasterlines. Doesn't need to be accurate, VIC2 will only look at the Y-positions after the currently displayed sprites are finished. And ofcourse by updating sprite vectors too.

 

That was the point that I was trying to get to-- changing the shape ptrs. You can't do that with 2 screen RAMs so I wanted to hear your approach.

[youki]

Any particular machines in mind?

 

About machine better than C64 and Atari which didn't have commercial success.?

 

I thought about the lansay 64 for instance. Very impressive machine for its time.

 

but also the Exel 100 from Exelvision and the serie of Thomson M06 , TO8 , TO9 that cames a little bit later that are technically very good in fact but never exploited.

 

Do you mean the Enterprise ( I guess Lansay was another name for it ) - that was nice hardware, but it didn't actually come out till nearly 1985 - when the ST and Amiga were entering the market

The Exel 100 looked pretty cool? How fast was it in practice?

Did the Thomson machines have sprites - a lot of the game screenshots look similar to zx spectrum screens

 

as i said here : http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1720155

 

the lansay 64 (enterprise later) appears in 1984 . I bought my C64 for christmas 1983 and i still have magazine from that time where the lansay 64 was tested . I wanted one but too expensive for our budget.

 

The Exel 100 was really really cool (i have one) , unfortunaly there is not lot of game on it and the few that exists didn't really exploit the machine but are already quite nice (look Match point for instance , this tennis game was first create on EXEL 100 then ported on all other plateform)

 

 

It also featured speech in game thank to the integrated speech synthetiser .

 

Concerning thomson, the screen shot you saw are probably some MO5 and TO7 games or some "lazy" port.

 

here few screen shot of MO6 & co :

 

 

 

I'm not sure about sprite. But sprite are not necessary for good game. The St didn't have hardware sprite i think..

[atariksi]

Nowadays I'd just use a 3D card and get subpixel scroll accuracy

 

Actually, the 140ns (half color clock) scroll would be more useful on Atari 8bit since it has a lot more luminance levels.

[atariksi]

...of the two machines, the one that isn't dropping 25 frames out of 50 is going to be producing the smoother movement. 25FPS is perfectly workable yes and the minimum speed to fool the human eye if memory serves (but not the maximum speed as i've seen people on other forums say previously), but that doesn't make it as smooth as 50FPS; many can see the difference, some to a surprisingly high level.

 

Atari doesn't drop frames. You are confusing things again. I can scroll at 60fps easily on Atari and it has a lot more cycles to do 60fps.

[Bryan]

I think you mean the PET rather than the Vic 20 - i not sure a 1981 computer can really be seen completely as contemporary

 

Everything I've seen places the introduction of the VIC-20 in 1980, maybe six months after the 400/800 started shipping.

 

http://www.commodore.ca/products/vic20/commodore_vic-20.htm

 

"The VIC-20 debuted in June of 1980 at the Computer Electronics Show but its development started almost by accident two years earlier."

 

Much as i have a fondness for some of these, more so than for Atari, I'll still admit the 800 WAS very a significant step, and regardless of this massive thread and whether or not the C64 is better, it bloody well should have been, coming so many years down the line.

 

Right. You can demonstrate that the 64 has advantages over the 800 just as the Amiga and ST have advantages over the 64. The biggest problem with Atari is that while they spent all their budget on feature-laden vaporware they let their core design get stale.

 

-Bry

[Crazyace]

as i said here : http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1720155

 

the lansay 64 (enterprise later) appears in 1984 . I bought my C64 for christmas 1983 and i still have magazine from that time where the lansay 64 was tested . I wanted one but too expensive for our budget.

 

I almost had a contract to convert either Frak or Boulderdash to Enterprise ( I think it was called Elan when I saw it ) - the resolution was nice ( 16 colours at 160 )

 

 

The Exel 100 was really really cool (i have one) , unfortunaly there is not lot of game on it and the few that exists didn't really exploit the machine but are already quite nice (look Match point for instance , this tennis game was first create on EXEL 100 then ported on all other plateform)

 

 

It also featured speech in game thank to the integrated speech synthetiser .

 

That looks interesting - I'd never heard of that machine before... I'll probally waste most of this evening finding technical manuals for the cpu and graphics chip now

 

 

Concerning thomson, the screen shot you saw are probably some MO5 and TO7 games or some "lazy" port.

 

here few screen shot of MO6 & co :

 

..........

 

I'm not sure about sprite. But sprite are not necessary for good game. The St didn't have hardware sprite i think..

 

The wiki says 16 colours with limitations - what were the limitations on the M06?

[Crazyace]

ok - I was looking at the M05 - which was attributes per 8x1 group of pixels - which explains why things look a bit spectrum like. The m06 was 16 colours at 160.. but didn't it come out in 1986?

[atariksi]

Yes, there was a lot of great computers on 1985. Basically, with the technical enhancing on industry.

I would prefer a 8bit computer with 320x200 with at least 16 colors, 128K, but the great C64 success keep the 8bit industry on his standards.

 

I like Atari 1979 tech, with a little memory enhancements was very competitive hardware. There is no computer on his time that could be compared, only C64 that came on 1982 was built on competitive tech.

 

They never even upgraded the custom chips since 1979 (or 1978 design) and it still outdoes C64 overall:

 

CPU speed: 1.79Mhz vs 1Mhz

Colors: 256 vs 16

Graphics modes: a whole variety vs. some text mode extensions labeled as graphics modes

Scrolling: much more flexibile vs. 3 bits/axis

Color depth: GTIA modes + DLI + Overlays vs. color RAM based cellular blocks

I/O speed of joystick ports or SIO

OS ROM: bootable devices

Higher resolution timer irqs

Even sprites when optimized for boundaries or vertical use.

Higher quality and better thought out (keyboard w/warm reset, device IOCB, etc.)

[Heaven/TQA]

Yes, there was a lot of great computers on 1985. Basically, with the technical enhancing on industry.

I would prefer a 8bit computer with 320x200 with at least 16 colors, 128K, but the great C64 success keep the 8bit industry on his standards.

 

I like Atari 1979 tech, with a little memory enhancements was very competitive hardware. There is no computer on his time that could be compared, only C64 that came on 1982 was built on competitive tech.

 

They never even upgraded the custom chips since 1979 (or 1978 design) and it still outdoes C64 overall:

 

CPU speed: 1.79Mhz vs 1Mhz

Colors: 256 vs 16

Graphics modes: a whole variety vs. some text mode extensions labeled as graphics modes

Scrolling: much more flexibile vs. 3 bits/axis

Color depth: GTIA modes + DLI + Overlays vs. color RAM based cellular blocks

I/O speed of joystick ports or SIO

OS ROM: bootable devices

Higher resolution timer irqs

Even sprites when optimized for boundaries or vertical use.

Higher quality and better thought out (keyboard w/warm reset, device IOCB, etc.)

 

agreed and to a certain extend "non-biased" except for the sprite hardware and the colour ram... and you have not mentioned SID or POKEY...

[TMR]

Again missed the point. Analogies are used to help you dull-headed people understand things. Bitplanes work the same way as the multicolor players do on Atari. (period).

 

Still takes two hardware sprites and they're still not called a multicolour sprite when working together so it is, has never ceased to be and will always remain an unfair comparison. (Full stop.)

 

No, you got the resolutions wrong and then falsely accused me of bringing overlay into the picture.

 

Overscan. And i notice you ignored where i explained how to use just two sets of sprite data pointers by the way, you didn't understand it presumably... you could just have said you know.

 

...of the two machines, the one that isn't dropping 25 frames out of 50 is going to be producing the smoother movement. 25FPS is perfectly workable yes and the minimum speed to fool the human eye if memory serves (but not the maximum speed as i've seen people on other forums say previously), but that doesn't make it as smooth as 50FPS; many can see the difference, some to a surprisingly high level.

 

Atari doesn't drop frames.

 

i was replying specifically to the line you didn't quote where Allas said "C64 1/320 scroll with 1/50 updating is the same (on speed) with 2/320 Atari scroll with 2/50 updating" and in that context yes it is dropping frames and i've highlighted where Allas says it does for the hard of thinking. It seems you're rather desperately just replying to bits of what i say in order to deliberately drag them out of context and, since it's not worth the effort trying to discuss anything with someone who does that, i won't bother.

[atariksi]

Yes, there was a lot of great computers on 1985. Basically, with the technical enhancing on industry.

I would prefer a 8bit computer with 320x200 with at least 16 colors, 128K, but the great C64 success keep the 8bit industry on his standards.

 

I like Atari 1979 tech, with a little memory enhancements was very competitive hardware. There is no computer on his time that could be compared, only C64 that came on 1982 was built on competitive tech.

 

They never even upgraded the custom chips since 1979 (or 1978 design) and it still outdoes C64 overall:

 

CPU speed: 1.79Mhz vs 1Mhz

Colors: 256 vs 16

Graphics modes: a whole variety vs. some text mode extensions labeled as graphics modes

Scrolling: much more flexibile vs. 3 bits/axis

Color depth: GTIA modes + DLI + Overlays vs. color RAM based cellular blocks

I/O speed of joystick ports or SIO

OS ROM: bootable devices

Higher resolution timer irqs

Even sprites when optimized for boundaries or vertical use.

Higher quality and better thought out (keyboard w/warm reset, device IOCB, etc.)

 

agreed and to a certain extend "non-biased" except for the sprite hardware and the colour ram... and you have not mentioned SID or POKEY...

 

SID/POKEY can go either way-- when you use DACs (like I do) POKEY clearly gives advantage with four DACs vs. one and higher sampling rate whereas SID has more hardware for musical notes.

 

When they shrink the line size to get more colors on C64, they don't get more color ram so it's still restricted to 40*25.

[atariksi]

Again missed the point. Analogies are used to help you dull-headed people understand things. Bitplanes work the same way as the multicolor players do on Atari. (period).

 

Still takes two hardware sprites and they're still not called a multicolour sprite when working together so it is, has never ceased to be and will always remain an unfair comparison. (Full stop.)

 

...

It's a multicolor sprite with 4 possible choices-- 3 colors and BAK just like 2 bitplanes. I don't compare B&W TVs with Color TVs. Nor do I confuse Daffodils with Roses even if the names are different.

 

>i was replying specifically to the line you didn't quote where Allas said "C64 1/320 scroll with 1/50 updating is the same (on speed) with 2/320 Atari scroll with 2/50 updating" and in that context yes it is dropping frames and i've highlighted where Allas says it does for the hard of thinking. It seems you're rather desperately just replying to bits of what i say in order to deliberately drag them out of context and, since it's not worth the effort trying to discuss anything with someone who does that, i won't bother.

 

You keep stating "I am changing the subject", "I changed my mind", "Dragged overlay into the picture", etc. If your replying to Allas, don't mention me because I know EXACTLY what I stated.

[youki]

ok - I was looking at the M05 - which was attributes per 8x1 group of pixels - which explains why things look a bit spectrum like. The m06 was 16 colours at 160.. but didn't it come out in 1986?

 

Yes, may be the mo6 was in 1986 but the first of this family (said 2nd thomson generation ,first being Mo5 and TO7) started in 1985 with the TO9 . MO6,TO8,TO9 hardware are identic.

[youki]

The wiki says 16 colours with limitations - what were the limitations on the M06?

 

In fact the mo6 has a palette of 4096 colours.

 

there is 8 "official" graphique mode :

 

320x200, 16 col with constraint (in fact it is the MO5 mode , same constraint 8x1)

320x200, 4 col, non constraint

160x200, 16 couleurs

640x200, 2 couleurs

320x200, 2 couleurs, 2 pages

320x200, 2 pages superposed 3 colors

160x200, 4 pages superposed, 2 colors

160x200, 4 pages superposées, 5 colors

 

But as always, you could manage with programming trick to do better. And display 4096 on screen for instance.

 

Few other caracteristics.

 

CPU: Motorola 6809E, 1 MHz

RAM: 128 KB (y compris la RAM vidéo)

ROM: 64 KB pour le BIOS, le BASIC 1.0 et le BASIC 128

Son: buzzer 1-bit + 1 DAC 6-bit + speach synthetiser(optionnal)

mouse

light pen

[Jetboot Jack]

Like the Elan the Thomson etc came out after the ST and Amiga were already revealed, even on sale - so their contemporaries on a world stage were light years ahead of them...

 

Unlike the 800's contemporaries...

 

They are interesting curios, but too late and underpowered to challenge the rise of the 16bit systems.

 

sTeVE

[emkay]

SID/POKEY can go either way-- when you use DACs (like I do) POKEY clearly gives advantage with four DACs vs. one and higher sampling rate whereas SID has more hardware for musical notes.

 

When they shrink the line size to get more colors on C64, they don't get more color ram so it's still restricted to 40*25.

 

Colours on the C64 will never exceed the count of 16. Only if they find a hidden register which activates the forgotten 16M colours palette. Even a 4GHz CPU will not help out of the misery. On the A8 -YES, IT CAN- produce endless Players and missiles. Ok. OK. With a 4GHz CPU you can switch VIC off and put the graphics via software on the screen..... but it will never exceed 16 colours. On the A8 you would gain something like a 256 colour mode with 168x240 pixel.... without interlace.

 

 

If just only one would write a full POKEY supporting tracker. But this time, SID clearly wins in most cases.

 

OK. POKEY doesn't have 3 fully independing 16 bit voices and other music enhancing stuff.

But, even SID needs software to be handled correctly.

POKEY has several independent noise generators and full flexibility.

If you want, you can use four different voices.... or, if you want, you can have a 16 bit 10 octaves multi oscillator soundchip with analogue waveforms.

And all steps between those... plus the possibility of having 3 additional digi voices at the same time... right in your old A8...

Ask someone from the A8 "scene" or a Wall "Why does no full Pokey supporting tracker exist". Well, perhaps the Wall knows the answer better. But I'd say that it refers to the smaller sized community since 198x.... and it ends up by the fact that polish people only like what polish people do (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

1.In the 70s no one knewed about the possibilites

2.In the 80s no one took care about the possibilities

3. In the 90s no one needed those possibilities

4. In the past 10 years no one wanted those possibilities

 

So, thank goodness, we still can dream about, how good the Pokey can be. I know, many people need dreams for their life

 

 

Well, even Nazareth will not live forever

[Heaven/TQA]

Atariski... as an Atarian I have to admit that you are sometimes not following the line what others say...

 

I am on TMR track... enabling multicolour bit you still have 2 players to mimic 1 multicolour "sprite". you can not change the hardware, can you? move that multicolour sprite 1 pixel to the right... you need to alter 2 hardware registers... don't you? so... nothing changed except gtia is interpreting the information...

 

nothing more TMR said... that neverless what kind of bits are enabled you still have 2 players...

[emkay]

Just to make clear, what people try to compare

 

In 1980 The C64 was not there. The Atari lived already on the market

 

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defender_(Computerspiel)

 

In this year "Defender" came to the Arcades.

 

This machine is inferior to the A800, in all cases. And, hey, it's named the first Arcade game with sidescrolling.

But the Atari was there before...

 

 

Now a similar comparision with the C64...

 

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Lair

 

All Arcades that were released in 1983 were all in all better than the C64.

Even in 1982 many arcades were better than the specs of the C64.

 

Thanks for reading and good night

[Bryan]

I also agree with TMR on this one. It is two players working in tandem. It is a feature of GTIA to use players together in this way, just like it is a feature to use the Missiles as a 5th Player.

[atariksi]

I also agree with TMR on this one. It is two players working in tandem. It is a feature of GTIA to use players together in this way, just like it is a feature to use the Missiles as a 5th Player.

 

It is two players working in tandem. But thanks to his chewbacca defense, you also missed the point. Two bitplanes also work in tandem and give four colors only when bitplanes are set to two otherwise they are two monochrome bitplanes.

 

By the way, when do you intend to prove that C64 is superior to Atari 800 -- rather than some blind statement with no factual evidence to back it up.

[atariksi]

Atariski... as an Atarian I have to admit that you are sometimes not following the line what others say...

 

I am on TMR track... enabling multicolour bit you still have 2 players to mimic 1 multicolour "sprite". you can not change the hardware, can you? move that multicolour sprite 1 pixel to the right... you need to alter 2 hardware registers... don't you? so... nothing changed except gtia is interpreting the information...

 

nothing more TMR said... that neverless what kind of bits are enabled you still have 2 players...

 

If you have experience with bitplanes, you can see that two bitplanes can also have two independent positions (like in Amiga). That interpretation bit (53275 bit 5) is what makes it just like two interdependent bitplanes or two independent bitplanes. As I stated, rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. That's a philosophical concept that if the essence of something is the same, it's name is irrelevent. In early computer age, many terms we use now did not exist or were scarcely used. So they did not use the word "bit planes", but in essence it's doing the same thing.

 

Regardless of what you put into BPLCON0 of Amiga, you still have to set bitplane ptrs independently. The basic point is there are two ways to generate colors-- chunky mode or planar mode. Once you enable bit 5 of 53275, you have two bitplanes being interpreted to 4 combinations.

[Bryan]

By the way, when do you intend to prove that C64 is superior to Atari 800 -- rather than some blind statement with no factual evidence to back it up.

 

Why would I want to try to prove that the C64 is superior? I simply said it has advantages. You'd have to be nuts to not think it has its advantages.

 

I'm an Atari fan, but I'm not crazy enough to try to argue away the 64's strengths.

[atariksi]

By the way, when do you intend to prove that C64 is superior to Atari 800 -- rather than some blind statement with no factual evidence to back it up.

 

Why would I want to try to prove that the C64 is superior? I simply said it has advantages. You'd have to be nuts to not think it has its advantages.

 

I'm an Atari fan, but I'm not crazy enough to try to argue away the 64's strengths.

 

Thanks for clarifying. Just saying "It has advantages" can be interpreted in different ways.

[Bryan]

Thanks for clarifying. Just saying "It has advantages" can be interpreted in different ways.

 

Let me clarify the sprite thing too.

 

Bit-planes means you have a graphics engine in which layers of DMA can be added or removed to control the number of colors available and the amount of RAM and bus cycles used. Adding planes usually means you can read further into a color register table. This means the graphics engine has modes. Each mode will require a different use of memory, but usually in an orthogonal way.

 

What GTIA has is a feature more than a mode. When 3rd color overlapping is enabled, GTIA still generates Players the way it always does with the same amount of data. The only difference is that an OR gate is enabled when two players exist in the same pixel. There is no extra color register and no additional DMA, just a modification to the way color is determined.

 

This is why it really isn't like bit-planes, but is rather a thoughtful feature.

 

-Bry

Edited April 6, 2009 by Bryan

[atariksi]

SID/POKEY can go either way-- when you use DACs (like I do) POKEY clearly gives advantage with four DACs vs. one and higher sampling rate whereas SID has more hardware for musical notes.

 

When they shrink the line size to get more colors on C64, they don't get more color ram so it's still restricted to 40*25.

 

Colours on the C64 will never exceed the count of 16. Only if they find a hidden register which activates the forgotten 16M colours palette. Even a 4GHz CPU will not help out of the misery. On the A8 -YES, IT CAN- produce endless Players and missiles. Ok. OK. With a 4GHz CPU you can switch VIC off and put the graphics via software on the screen..... but it will never exceed 16 colours. On the A8 you would gain something like a 256 colour mode with 168x240 pixel.... without interlace.

 

...

Actually, that's what I thought they did-- find some undocumented register like being able to set 0..159 position on sprites instead of using two registers to set 0..319 or updating all the sprite ptrs in one shot using only 2 screen RAMs. Vertical sprite multiplexing (for overlays or for other uses) is easier on Atari since you only have to set HPOS whereas C64 has to update Y positions and shape ptrs and some HPOSes.

 

>If just only one would write a full POKEY supporting tracker. But this time, SID clearly wins in most cases...

 

I am not too much into making musical notes on Atari nor C64. Supposedly, the envelopes simulation would eat up too much Atari CPU time.