popmilo Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Also someone mentioned Freescape games on A8 would be faster than anything else...I highly doubt that...the Spectrum/Amstrad has a much faster CPU for that kind of thing. Sure maybe better selection of 4 colours out 256 on screen...that maybe 1 or 2 people in the world might notice compared to the 27 colours of the Amstrad CPC 80's Z80 cpu based computers are faster then atari800 and c64 but this is Atari v Commodore thread I would call myself "commodore man" first and then "Atari fan"... But I do think 3D games are faster on Atari then on C64. Simple math says that there are at least 30% more cpu cycles in each frame on Atari, and when you add linear addressing space, and hardware scaled pixels.... Atari is faster for 3d... Look at Numen demo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Also someone mentioned Freescape games on A8 would be faster than anything else...I highly doubt that...the Spectrum/Amstrad has a much faster CPU for that kind of thing. Sure maybe better selection of 4 colours out 256 on screen...that maybe 1 or 2 people in the world might notice compared to the 27 colours of the Amstrad CPC 80's Z80 cpu based computers are faster then atari800 and c64 but this is Atari v Commodore thread Well, the Z80 may be the faster CPU, but depending on the used code it wastes a lot of CPU cycles. On the A8 non of that cycle wasting appears. And using the double(triple ... quad) scanline mode make Antic copying screen content without any CPU usage. Well, in fact, Antic and the CPU do tasks at the same time then. It's a simplified version of voxel space calculations by hardware. How will any other 8-bit computer beat that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 You can't do a direct speed comparison with Z80. Additional to that, most Z80 based computers of that time had pretty shitty graphics and/or sound capabilities, so whatever extra grunt the CPU might have had didn't do them a great deal of good anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 You can't do a direct speed comparison with Z80. Additional to that, most Z80 based computers of that time had pretty shitty graphics and/or sound capabilities, so whatever extra grunt the CPU might have had didn't do them a great deal of good anyway. I was talking only about Freescape 3d games... They are all made in higher resolutions... (160x200 on amstrad and c64, 256x192 on speccy...) So Ataris doubling wouldn't help in that matter... I wouldn't dissmiss Z80 ... it can be great for such graphics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 You can't do a direct speed comparison with Z80. Additional to that, most Z80 based computers of that time had pretty shitty graphics and/or sound capabilities, so whatever extra grunt the CPU might have had didn't do them a great deal of good anyway. I was talking only about Freescape 3d games... They are all made in higher resolutions... (160x200 on amstrad and c64, 256x192 on speccy...) So Ataris doubling wouldn't help in that matter... I wouldn't dissmiss Z80 ... it can be great for such graphics... Iguess, you really don't know what you are writing about Guess why people only remind about the music of "Driller" on the C64. The Movement "resolution" is far below you aimed resolution, which is just used to enhance the view by using transitions. On the Atari they could have used a 4x4 mode with 16 shades of one colour... reaching the 2-3 times of speeds you see on the Speccy version. It really turns out that, if they used the A8 more back in the 80s, the 3D development of today was more than one step ahead.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 You can't do a direct speed comparison with Z80. Additional to that, most Z80 based computers of that time had pretty shitty graphics and/or sound capabilities, so whatever extra grunt the CPU might have had didn't do them a great deal of good anyway. I was talking only about Freescape 3d games... They are all made in higher resolutions... (160x200 on amstrad and c64, 256x192 on speccy...) So Ataris doubling wouldn't help in that matter... I wouldn't dissmiss Z80 ... it can be great for such graphics... Iguess, you really don't know what you are writing about Guess why people only remind about the music of "Driller" on the C64. The Movement "resolution" is far below you aimed resolution, which is just used to enhance the view by using transitions. On the Atari they could have used a 4x4 mode with 16 shades of one colour... reaching the 2-3 times of speeds you see on the Speccy version. It really turns out that, if they used the A8 more back in the 80s, the 3D development of today was more than one step ahead.... I mean to copy 100% graphic from spectrum you would need to do it in hires.... And Atari would have to shift same amount of data as speccy... Most used routine in 3d games is horizontal line draw, and that means putting lot of bytes in a row... That is one reason why I think Atari would be better than c64 in it... linear addressing helps much... And Speccys z80 can do simple push to fill two bytes of mem in 3.14 microseconds... Amstrad can do it in 2.74 microseconds... (but it looses because it needs to put double amount of bytes...) so its 5.48 microseconds... Atari would need couple of STA $xxxx and that is 2.23*2=4.46 microseconds... Poor C64 would take 8.07 microseconds... So spectrum would be the winner p.s. Of course Both z80 micros are worse than c64 and atari And of course Atari programmers would use its strengths for 3d graphic like you said... I'm really sad there isn't any game like freescape adventures on Atari... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxl Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 > And Speccys z80 can do simple push to fill two bytes of mem true, but not so nice, you should prepare tile graphics (2,4,6.. byte wide) or do some buffors and "copy by stack" so not only "push" :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youki Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 You can't do a direct speed comparison with Z80. Additional to that, most Z80 based computers of that time had pretty shitty graphics and/or sound capabilities, so whatever extra grunt the CPU might have had didn't do them a great deal of good anyway. I was talking only about Freescape 3d games... They are all made in higher resolutions... (160x200 on amstrad and c64, 256x192 on speccy...) So Ataris doubling wouldn't help in that matter... I wouldn't dissmiss Z80 ... it can be great for such graphics... Iguess, you really don't know what you are writing about Guess why people only remind about the music of "Driller" on the C64. The Movement "resolution" is far below you aimed resolution, which is just used to enhance the view by using transitions. On the Atari they could have used a 4x4 mode with 16 shades of one colour... reaching the 2-3 times of speeds you see on the Speccy version. It really turns out that, if they used the A8 more back in the 80s, the 3D development of today was more than one step ahead.... I mean to copy 100% graphic from spectrum you would need to do it in hires.... And Atari would have to shift same amount of data as speccy... Most used routine in 3d games is horizontal line draw, and that means putting lot of bytes in a row... That is one reason why I think Atari would be better than c64 in it... linear addressing helps much... And Speccys z80 can do simple push to fill two bytes of mem in 3.14 microseconds... Amstrad can do it in 2.74 microseconds... (but it looses because it needs to put double amount of bytes...) so its 5.48 microseconds... Atari would need couple of STA $xxxx and that is 2.23*2=4.46 microseconds... Poor C64 would take 8.07 microseconds... So spectrum would be the winner p.s. Of course Both z80 micros are worse than c64 and atari And of course Atari programmers would use its strengths for 3d graphic like you said... I'm really sad there isn't any game like freescape adventures on Atari... Few speccy games i would like to see in A800 and C64 . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UI0zdvEtN0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ODNdKanGc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTe_eLZtcqg Hard Drivin exists on c64... but... we can feel limit of the c64 here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetboot Jack Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) Driller - what frame rate is that - 2 or 3 fps?? I think these demonstrate the A8 could do as good/better... (I couldn't find a video for Koronis rift, but wanted to!) Looking at Driller, it uses a small window on the speccy (160 pixels wide maybe) - I see NO reason a better version could not be done on the 800, given something like Numen exists... sTeVE Edited June 15, 2009 by Jetboot Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Few speccy games i would like to see in A800 and C64 . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UI0zdvEtN0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ODNdKanGc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTe_eLZtcqg Hard Drivin exists on c64... but... we can feel limit of the c64 here... Ugh! Those games are just too much for 8-bit hardware, and are not only ugly, but move with piss-poor framerates. I like how the DOOM on the ZX has music but no sound effects when blowing up barrels. I would not like to see these on A8/C64 or ANY 8-bit system. And to think.....I thought DOOM sucked on SNES, and Hard Drivin' sucked on GENESIS. Thanks for showing me those Sinclair games, so I can now appreciate 16-bit console versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) I mean to copy 100% graphic from spectrum you would need to do it in hires.... And Atari would have to shift same amount of data as speccy... Hires is useless. As you might see in those "micro window" full of transition while missing colours... games They are already small and then they got even more reduced to have a recognizable framerate. Just use a resolution of 160x120 and see a fullscreen 3D game on the A8. So you could sit relaxed on your couch and look at yout TV set. Or use the 80x60 resolution with 16 colours for a reliable 3D scene and take advantage of the solid colours that can get zoomed onto a big wall without destroying the field of view. When using transitions, the single pixel will get more to the eye than the wanted "mixing" effect. Most used routine in 3d games is horizontal line draw, and that means putting lot of bytes in a row...That is one reason why I think Atari would be better than c64 in it... linear addressing helps much... Your theory might be correct. But this doesn't explain why many of you posted "3D" games use something like "charmode movement". The gameresolution is horrible. Seems to be something like "40x25" .... And Speccys z80 can do simple push to fill two bytes of mem in 3.14 microseconds...Amstrad can do it in 2.74 microseconds... (but it looses because it needs to put double amount of bytes...) so its 5.48 microseconds... Hm... someone may correct me... the A8 can copy 2 bytes on the screen within 5.5 ms.... In the first line, it has a slowdown of 2 cycles. but at the other lines there is even no dma stealing AND nor calculation by the CPU necessary. In a 2 line mode, this means about 2.6ms for 2 bytes and the CPU can calculate on the game logics at the SAME time. Same with a 4 line mode, but some cycles get lost by scrol-register programming, so it may end in a relative 1.6-1.8 ms for 2 bytes ... Edited June 15, 2009 by emkay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 In case of trying to make exact duplicate of speccy freescape routine speccy has advantage... In case of trying to make best looking 3d filled polygon routine without limitations of original freescape design Atari would win... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 ...So was it a lack of talent? Or because the C64 is just the better compromise. ... Better compromise of what? Atari spent a lot more time/research on hardware for its graphics-- scrolling, display lists, GTIA modes, 60-bits collision detection, WSYNC-based color modifications, etc. Instead of doing color RAM, they had GPRIOR and GTIA modes. I suppose they could have used the upper bits of the char code to get more colors in 160*200 rather than put time into GPRIOR features and linear graphics modes, but I prefer the latter. >By the early-mid 80s most of the useable* tricks the A8 could use had been found...but as late as early 90s we had new tricks in the VIC/SID chipset to exploit like the VSP fullscreen any direction scrolling that works the same way as on a Sega home console or even the Amiga by assigning screen memory to scroll the screen really fast... Most of the tricks were found in both systems by mid 80s. A few were found later on both systems. >...Sure maybe better selection of 4 colours out 256 on screen...that maybe 1 or 2 people in the world might notice compared to the 27 colours of the Amstrad CPC There's one of the common C64 fan's misconception that there are only 4 out of 256 colors on Atari (w/160*200 assumed). I bet the 27 colors are restricted and have a bunch of conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sack-c0s Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) I'm as C64 fanboy as you can get (without being obnoxious about it hopefully) - but even taking into account the Z80-based machines I've got to hand this one to the Atari. The z80 always has twice the clockspeed but tends to consume around twice the cycles doing the same things as a 6502, the machines themselves suffer from a lot of contention and all the best support hardware comes in 6502 machines. The A8 has linear addressing, double buffering is a possibility using DLIs and the CPU is a bit quicker. The BBC (another 6502 machine) could come close, but the palette is a bit rubbish really. For small-ish precalculated stuff on the C64 you can render to sprites and have the 3D translations and rotations update as fast as possible but have the object move in 2 dimensions onscreen in a raster interrupt to give the illusion of smoother movement (like imposters in modern 3D engines), but that's not always going to work. Edited June 16, 2009 by sack-c0s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 ...In a 2 line mode, this means about 2.6ms for 2 bytes and the CPU can calculate on the game logics at the SAME time. Same with a 4 line mode, but some cycles get lost by scrol-register programming, so it may end in a relative 1.6-1.8 ms for 2 bytes ... The scroll-register programming to replicate lines should work in GTIA modes as well. I guess you meant microsecond (us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I guess you meant microsecond (us). Well , I was to lazy to check whether all can read the "µ" sign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Can anyone name some of the Atari games that use filled vector 3d graphics ? So, no Eidolon, rescue on fractalus and such... full 3d polygon drawing game.... I know Numen and vector demos... but is there a game ? Edited June 16, 2009 by popmilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 You can't do a direct speed comparison with Z80. Additional to that, most Z80 based computers of that time had pretty shitty graphics and/or sound capabilities, so whatever extra grunt the CPU might have had didn't do them a great deal of good anyway. I was talking only about Freescape 3d games... They are all made in higher resolutions... (160x200 on amstrad and c64, 256x192 on speccy...) So Ataris doubling wouldn't help in that matter... I wouldn't dissmiss Z80 ... it can be great for such graphics... Also works great for fax machines,answering machines and photo copiers. (Wiki) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Capture the flag Halley comet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 You can't do a direct speed comparison with Z80. Additional to that, most Z80 based computers of that time had pretty shitty graphics and/or sound capabilities, so whatever extra grunt the CPU might have had didn't do them a great deal of good anyway. I was talking only about Freescape 3d games... They are all made in higher resolutions... (160x200 on amstrad and c64, 256x192 on speccy...) So Ataris doubling wouldn't help in that matter... I wouldn't dissmiss Z80 ... it can be great for such graphics... Also works great for fax machines,answering machines and photo copiers. (Wiki) Must be a cheaper chip than 6502 or others at the time since it's clocking it higher didn't seem to give it that much of an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Capture the flag Halley comet Is it this one ? http://www.atarimania.com/detail_soft.php?...;VERSION_ID=888 Can I download it from somewhere ? And I didn't find Halley comet ... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Can I download it from somewhere ? http://atari.fandal.cz/detail.php?files_id=1567 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 my fault... game is called Halley Project http://atari.fandal.cz/detail.php?files_id=4480 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Capture the flag has something like wolfenstein engine... so not exactly full 3d like freescape... In halley project all I have seen is 3d filled comet Are you telling me that in almost three decades there hasn't been a game with 3d filled polygons ? Freescape, Space Rogue, 3d pool,stunt car racer ... None of these have their equivalent on Atari ? Seams like a big gap that needs to be filled... Somebody should start working on something simple like stunt car racer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 With VBXE and a 7.1 MHz accelerator, you'd reckon something like Carrier Command would be pretty easy. The problem with 3D games is that they simply suck if the frame rate isn't quick and constant. I remember the pain of playing Doom on old 286s with the playing window minimised to almost the smallest possible... still sucked. 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