atariksi Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I'd love to see that - a game at say 30hz with that many colors per scanline, that is more than pong, albeit colorful pong... Again I would settle for an ambition screen-shot, carefully annotated so I could understand the "goal" quality and the way it could be done. I can see 23 colors per line being possible, not very useful, but possible, ideally I would like a "do-able" image of a game - something I could see how to code up... Ideally though something coded game like, to prove the theory from yourself would be great... sTeVE Wasn't someone doing a model of Tetris with the 23 colors/scanline method... For the 45 colors/scanline, overscan can be enabled to spread out the sprites a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxl Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 > Few demo of what a "C64" can do ... no C64 but C64DTV ASIC running at 32 MHz internally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=48418 The clue is in the name. "Hello DTV World". It's for the C-64 DTV. So, it would only be fair to compare it against something on the Atari running under VBXE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Tetris - why on earth would you need 23 per line to colors to make tertis - I guess a pretty border? I meant something a bit more action orientated, a 23 color tetris would not be a great comparison to a 16 color arcade game like turrican IMHO... I think flower is an awesome game on the A8 - very colorful and plays VERY well - but I would not use it to challenge Turrican as a proof of hardware ability/flexibility - they are too diverse... I guess I am just keen to see people demonstrate the things they claim are possible in practical situations rather than gum flap about unproven theoretical possibilities... And before certain people get all uppity and angry, I am only asking for clarity - I have several old projects I am looking to resurrect and making them better would be great... sTeVE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 > Few demo of what a "C64" can do ... no C64 but C64DTV ASIC running at 32 MHz internally. And the palette isn't restricted to 16 colour colour RAM... And the "SID sound" has lost it's "harmonics" due to the missing filters. It sounds partly annoying in the DTV... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youki Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 (edited) I know it is DTV , i just posted that for fun! In addition i think the DTV has a blitter too . No? Edited June 9, 2009 by youki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I know it is DTV , i just posted that for fun! You mean just for beating around the bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youki Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I know it is DTV , i just posted that for fun! You mean just for beating around the bush. Actually , just to see your reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 > Few demo of what a "C64" can do ... no C64 but C64DTV ASIC running at 32 MHz internally. And the palette isn't restricted to 16 colour colour RAM... And the "SID sound" has lost it's "harmonics" due to the missing filters. It sounds partly annoying in the DTV... That would make it terrible if it was another incompatible piece of hardware. I think Plus4 was a bad enough upgrade path. I thought they did some hardware tricks to make it work on C64 since the first link didn't seem to be showing anything special-- it should be doable in software on A8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 I liked what you wrote previously where each machine should target it's games for its own hardware rather than try to port them over. I agree on that... So Atari is better for CPU intensive (3d..) games, and can show many many colors... C64 is better for 2d sprite based games (shmups, platformers)... I would love to see 3d game like "freescape" games (driller, dark side, castle master) on Atari 800! It could beat any other 8bit port.... it could be faster and with more colors... Is there anything like that on Atari 800? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 So Atari is better for CPU intensive (3d..) games, and can show many many colors... C64 is better for 2d sprite based games (shmups, platformers)... I mostly agree. But in vertical scrolling 2D games, there is a clear Par between the machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Are you saying that there are better games on Atari than C64s: SWIV, Ikari warriors, Led Storm,Fernandez must die, Licence to kill .......... etc... One that I found is this (I mentioned it previously...): Samobojcy http://www.atarimania.com/detail_soft.php?...ERSION_ID=21005 This one is "something else", rare occasion that someone dared to use interlace in a atari game... In my opinion very interesting... I just wonder why didn't they made it in the color ? Maybe because its complicated enough like it is? or to reduce flickering... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Are you saying that there are better games on Atari than C64s: SWIV, Ikari warriors, Led Storm,Fernandez must die, Licence to kill .......... etc... ??? Par doesn't mean something is better or worse But several features are better on the A8. Many game on the C64 don't even use 160 pixel width, where the A8 can still use ~180 pixel. I guess you know this one: It's what is "done". Games like Ikari Warriors or LED Storm should be possible too. Perhaps with some smaller moving objects here and there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
José Pereira Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 It's possible. Allmost all is possible. For Jet Boot Jack: In your site Menace's screens: If you do put ship as player-missile1 and overlap with PF0 and PF1. All the enemys with P2/P3/P4 overlaped with the correpondant PFs, eachone will have different colours. And, with DLIs, above 3 colours+1 for background at the top, on middle 3+1 backgr. and bottom more 3 and 1 for backgr. ( and you can put players overlap playfiels in top and bottom to get more colours). Another example: R-Type and Armalyte, with this technic you can put for example, 4 lines of enemys (3 in eachone) with Players and your ship beeing the other player (all this overlaped with the correspondant PFs), the other player ship can be PF0/PF1 with PF3 without overlap. Top 3 enemys and more 3 on bottom. And the same to top and bottom ground area. When enemys change line, just turn on/off the correspondant player number on the same line. I can put 89 colours on same screen with this example. Go to lemon64.com and visit this games. You understand what I'm saying. José Pereira. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmel_andrews Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Tetris - why on earth would you need 23 per line to colors to make tertis - I guess a pretty border? I meant something a bit more action orientated, a 23 color tetris would not be a great comparison to a 16 color arcade game like turrican IMHO... I think flower is an awesome game on the A8 - very colorful and plays VERY well - but I would not use it to challenge Turrican as a proof of hardware ability/flexibility - they are too diverse... I guess I am just keen to see people demonstrate the things they claim are possible in practical situations rather than gum flap about unproven theoretical possibilities... And before certain people get all uppity and angry, I am only asking for clarity - I have several old projects I am looking to resurrect and making them better would be great... sTeVE Steve....perhaps you can give us those very two games that are 'impossible' to do on an A8 Namely Turrican and Giana Sisters....now that would make me wet my pants moreso then you trying to ressurect pacland, menace or beast (good games way back when but hardly worth ressurecting) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Are we still comparing computers from 1979-1982? I guess not, since those are from the DTV, a 2004 release. How is this at all relevant to Atari vs. C64? Just curious. Few demo of what a "C64" can do ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqHiYrAm2Qc...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFilVEkTCjg...feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 >>Par... Sorry, missunderstood... >>"But several features are better on the A8. Many game on the C64 don't even use 160 pixel width, where the A8 can still use ~180 pixel." Agree... >>Commando I knew someone would mention commando ! Great game, shows what a man with a vision can do Are those character based sprites for soldiers ? I don't have a screenshot but I think There were at least two more enemy soldiers in the same line as player and it couldn't be done with players and missiles ? And they are same color as background ? And grenades and bullets look like missiles to me ? (one color and two pixels wide...) And use of DLI can be seen on parts with water... last line of water region colors the top of the green grass region bellow into green I think, C64 is still better Screenshot from Ikari Warriors: There are 17 sprites on this shot. There are max 8 sprites in one horisontal line... all of them can have one unique color. Each of them is at least 8-12 multicolored pixels wide... There are 6 more colors in background... I think you could maybe simulate that in a static screenshot... But it would be a totally different matter to make it move around ... I think main problem is not what is possible and what is impossible..... Main fact is that making game for C64 is rather simple and streamlined process.... C64: "These are the rules for background, sprites,music and player input controls..." And thats it... You have static objects and they have their own colorspace... you have moving objects... they have their own colors... And thats pretty much enough for 99% of games out there... There are tricks to make more of this and more of that... But mostly that is enough.... And I feel like this: Atari: I hear something like this from an Atari programmer : ".......If you do put ship as player-missile1 and overlap with PF0 and PF1. All the enemys with P2/P3/P4 overlaped with the correpondant PFs, eachone will have different colours. And, with DLIs, above 3 colours+1 for background at the top, on middle 3+1 backgr. and bottom more 3 and 1 for backgr. ( and you can put players overlap playfiels in top and bottom to get more colours)...... " And I feel like this: (José, no pun intended ) Hey, don't get me wrong, I find these features extremely interesting (especially from engineering perspective.. atari guys are legends ) They are just to much for an average programmer.... I guess that means you guys are all crazy and way above average ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 ...C64: "These are the rules for background, sprites,music and player input controls..." And thats it... You have static objects and they have their own colorspace... you have moving objects... they have their own colors... And thats pretty much enough for 99% of games out there... There are tricks to make more of this and more of that... But mostly that is enough.... And I feel like this: Atari: I hear something like this from an Atari programmer : ".......If you do put ship as player-missile1 and overlap with PF0 and PF1. All the enemys with P2/P3/P4 overlaped with the correpondant PFs, eachone will have different colours. And, with DLIs, above 3 colours+1 for background at the top, on middle 3+1 backgr. and bottom more 3 and 1 for backgr. ( and you can put players overlap playfiels in top and bottom to get more colours)...... " And I feel like this: (José, no pun intended ) ... I think he explained it as more complicated than it is. It's just OR of various things you enable add another color. I think similar things can be said about the linear graphics mode vs. char based graphics mode when explaining it to someone and in implementation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 I think he explained it as more complicated than it is. It's just OR of various things you enable add another color. That is just one example that sounds complicated on first read... If you get your mind into it, its ok. There are rules to be followed and features to be used... Its just "more" complicated... Even if its just a bit more... Effects of that are exponential... One guy during 80s starts developing game for atari... he reads documentation and sees that its complex... Starts reading C64 documentation... and sees that he can port game to c64 a bit easier than on Atari... Be it because of few more sprites or because of bit more color on 2d cell based games (what most of the games were in those days)... And if one gives up... One more will... and than it rolls... That slows development, and that is the reason why there were less and less games available during 80s for Atari than for c64... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroovyBee Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 That slows development, and that is the reason why there were less and less games available during 80s for Atari than for c64... I don't agree. The reason that Atari A8s had less games developed for them was due to volume of sales. The C64 had a massive user base, the Atari did not. More users=more games=more money for the developers. Simple economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) José Pereira - what you suggest would not work - the game runs with up to 9 software sprites - the overhead of your suggestion would... Cost too many frames to keep the gameplay pace Reduce the main ship graphic considerably (its 16 pixels wide) Steal sprites we use for power ups and shots - so that system would have to change Look at all the different versions of menace we did - they include some with full background parallax, some at 25fp, some with less sprites, some at different resolutions etc etc - I think we hit a good compromise given the 3 months development time we were allowing for the full game - otherwise it would not have been cost effective to produce... sTeVE Edited June 10, 2009 by Jetboot Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youki Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 That slows development, and that is the reason why there were less and less games available during 80s for Atari than for c64... I don't agree. The reason that Atari A8s had less games developed for them was due to volume of sales. The C64 had a massive user base, the Atari did not. More users=more games=more money for the developers. Simple economics. This equation is not exact too because, that one can be true too. More GOOD game = More User = More money for the developers = even More GOOD game A8 have been released in 79 .. Developper didnt manage to really exploit the machine to produce killer game. they were stucked on "out of the box" feature , they didn't go further. The result are average quality games. for the C64, the "out of the box" feature were better and easly exploitable, so with no effort you could manage to make a a relatvly good game. The good game helped to sell the machine , as the machine sold well, more developper comes to the machine, more game were produced , and as if you want sell your game , your game must be better than competitor game , developper invest time in the machine, find new techniques and games becomes better and better. This chain reaction didn't occurs on the A8 , because the "killer" features was not enough accessible/documented at this time. I read an article recently (i think in Retro Gamer magazine) where the creator of Drop Zone said something like "When it discovered the "hidden" feature of the A8 , it changes its world. It discovered that only after having managed to get an Atari Internal document , before that it was doing just 6502 code it wasn't aware about DLI , Antic etc..." He has been lucky enough to discover, that was not the case of lot of other developpers i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 A8 have been released in 79 .. Developper didnt manage to really exploit the machine to produce killer game. they were stucked on "out of the box" feature , they didn't go further. The result are average quality games. And for the sake of compatibility, most games were developed to run on a 16K/48K machine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goochman Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 That slows development, and that is the reason why there were less and less games available during 80s for Atari than for c64... I don't agree. The reason that Atari A8s had less games developed for them was due to volume of sales. The C64 had a massive user base, the Atari did not. More users=more games=more money for the developers. Simple economics. This equation is not exact too because, that one can be true too. More GOOD game = More User = More money for the developers = even More GOOD game A8 have been released in 79 .. Developper didnt manage to really exploit the machine to produce killer game. they were stucked on "out of the box" feature , they didn't go further. The result are average quality games. for the C64, the "out of the box" feature were better and easly exploitable, so with no effort you could manage to make a a relatvly good game. The good game helped to sell the machine , as the machine sold well, more developper comes to the machine, more game were produced , and as if you want sell your game , your game must be better than competitor game , developper invest time in the machine, find new techniques and games becomes better and better. This chain reaction didn't occurs on the A8 , because the "killer" features was not enough accessible/documented at this time. I read an article recently (i think in Retro Gamer magazine) where the creator of Drop Zone said something like "When it discovered the "hidden" feature of the A8 , it changes its world. It discovered that only after having managed to get an Atari Internal document , before that it was doing just 6502 code it wasn't aware about DLI , Antic etc..." He has been lucky enough to discover, that was not the case of lot of other developpers i guess. You are missing a bigger point in the slow A8 development - Atari held back releasing tech specs for the computer. Commodore was much more open day 1 with the C64. Once info leaked about the 800 things started to improve, but that took a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GroovyBee Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 You are missing a bigger point in the slow A8 development - Atari held back releasing tech specs for the computer. Commodore was much more open day 1 with the C64. Once info leaked about the 800 things started to improve, but that took a few years. If you don't get tech specs you can reverse engineer, however that takes time too. 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