popmilo Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 ...That's a good point-- chasing the C64. That's why some people start thinking C64 is superior because they are trying to map C64-hardware targetted software to A8 (or even other 8-bit platforms) rather than target games for their own hardware. Me for example, I am not trying to map "C64-hardware targetted software" - I am trying to map generalized 2d-jump-n-run-fire-arcade-platform-shooter genre game to A8 ... Yes, I got in love of that genre on C64 because that was the first computer that I had and Turrican is one my favourites... But since then, I played games like that in Arcade, on Amiga, on Atari ST, on Nes, Snes,Sega megadrive, mobile phone, palm, windows, linux... Don't tell me I should dismiss any idea of game for A8, just because there were good games like that on C64. A8 does not have really good game like that... I guess timeframe of its popularity is one of the reasons... I think it can be made but objective limits are there... Amiga has great sprite-based software but they didn't need 24-pixel sprites to make it. Its 8 16-pixel,3-color,dma-channel, copper controlled, reusable sprites + blitter chip did the trick... 16<24 has nothing to do with it... You can not compare that with A8s 4 8-pixel, 1 color, DLI colored, reusable only in certain part of screen only with heavy cpu usage, without blitter chip... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drac030 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 It is more than 7500 posts in this thread. Ever considered to convert this topic into a separate forum? BTW. I wrote that before, but I will repeat, why such discussions simply do not make sense. There is a fact that an Atari is an older machine and C-64 is, consequently, a newer machine. So: 1) C-64 stronger points over Atari (if any) do not count, because it would be natural to a newer machine to have stronger points over an older one. 2) Atari stronger points over C-64 (if any) do count, because an older machine must be really great to outperform a newer one (note that C-64 engineers certainly did some research on existing machines before building own one, and on the other side Atari engineers mostly had the poor 2600 for an existing machine). So, in any case, Atari wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 ...Being narrower doesn't refute that they are shorter. Yes, C64 sprites are shorter. "Cover less area horizontally" means narrower as well and area usually refers to 2D (l*w) so 8*256 is area covered by one sprite. Yes, without multiplexing they do cover smaller area. Atari sprites have different ways to color them-- normally games like Hero, Spy Hunter, etc. use DLIs to color the sprites so they are not necessarily less colorful (in some cases, they are more colorful) and if you don't need that many on a line pairing sprites does give you more colors even horizontally. Yes DLIs can add color in horizontal stripes, but if I want to add detail like for example eye to a character I have to use pair of players... And that means player_covered_width=player_covered_width/2 Like if they weren'r narrow enough... Multiplexing them is easier on A8 -- it's only one HPOS write per sprite. Hpos is same on C64, one write per sprite. Changing Y-position of sprite on C64 in order to reuse it lower, can be done on any line after the first sprite line is displayed. One lda-sta. That means on any part of any of 20 raster lines ... And sprite pointer is also one write per sprite or even better one write per 8 sprites using screen address change. I wouldn't call it more difficult than moving sprite data across player buffer vertically. I already said C64 sprites "not necessarily better in all cases"-- meaning they are better usually. Thanks Sorry I didn't see that subtle differnce in that post... There were some examples given earlier where Atari sprites are better. I'll try to find them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwhyte Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Hm.... An ATARI is a lies spreading Apple guy? I wouldn't go so far as to say that Apple is lies spreading anymore than Microsoft is (have you seen Microsoft's new Win7 vs. Linux campaign at Best Buy?). However, maybe I've missed something. Could you elaborate further? Sorry for the digression, but I merely thought I'd add those pics to inject a little bit of humor to the thread, as it was starting to get a little heated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Sorry, you messed up. C64 sprites are shorter, cover less area, more difficult to multiplex, and not necessarily better in all cases. Sorry, A8 PMgs are narrower, cover less area horizontally, and are less colorfull, and can not be in hires. And in my opinion are more difficult to multiplex, and not better in most of cases. For gods sake, just step away from the keyboard.. You should since there's Popmilos quote right after that but the "\quote" got deleted. Learn how to mind-read before you reply. Fixed that for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Multiplexing them is easier on A8 -- it's only one HPOS write per sprite.Hpos is same on C64, one write per sprite. If you restrict a sprite to one half of the screen, then yes. But xpos on VIC2 is 9bits. So, in general case two writes are needed But, A8 really should give up now. The more multiplexed sprites, or the more independent objects we want to display on A8, the more data must be stuffed. We cannot go on endlessly. If the whole screen is filled with (vertically) moving & shape-changing multiplexed PM objects, there's no CPU time left anymore. POINT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 If you restrict a sprite to one half of the screen, then yes. But xpos on VIC2 is 9bits. So, in general case two writes are needed .T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 TBH many of us who were involved in producing ST/Amiga sw found the amiga's hardware sprites a serious disappointment after being used to the 64. they promised much but delivered little. the blitter was the only useful bit. the hw sprites were generally relegated to the player, bullets and special effects. i would hazard a guess that most software disregarded them completely in order to make ST conversion more straightforward. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 i would hazard a guess that most software disregarded them completely in order to make ST conversion more straightforward. Most ST->Amiga ports also ignored the blitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sack-c0s Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 It is more than 7500 posts in this thread. Ever considered to convert this topic into a separate forum? I think TMR has the domain name ready to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STE'86 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 hmm maybe at first but not later. but most coders that were doing both versions would tend to write the same code as much as possible, with the sprite routines being vectored to the blitter on the amiga and the cpu on the st. that way development times and deadlines were easier to meet. because the code for HW sprites would have been amiga specific they tended to be ignored and the blitter substituted instead. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 but most coders that were doing both versions would tend to write the same code as much as possible, with the sprite routines being vectored to the blitter on the amiga and the cpu on the st. From my experience nearly all ST ports ignored all Amiga special features except for Paula sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 but most coders that were doing both versions would tend to write the same code as much as possible, with the sprite routines being vectored to the blitter on the amiga and the cpu on the st. From my experience nearly all ST ports ignored all Amiga special features except for Paula sound. na...there are some of the ports using at least copper bars in the background... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) Tell me please which horizontal shoot'em up on ATARI I should compare with Armalyte (it was published in 1988 on C64) ??? Not to tease you, just I like to know: Is there a shooter on the C64 which is comparable to 'Vanguard' (released 1983)? Thanks Irgendwer Today is Sunday and I am short of time now, but I'll try to find something on Monday. I've checked it and there is no exact equivalent on C64 (released in 1983). Mainly because Vanguard is an atypical shooter, it's a mix of horizontal and vertical scrolling. The closest thing I found is Skramble, though still a bit different. Skramble C-64 Vanguard ATARI Edited September 7, 2009 by Rockford 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 ...That's a good point-- chasing the C64. That's why some people start thinking C64 is superior because they are trying to map C64-hardware targetted software to A8 (or even other 8-bit platforms) rather than target games for their own hardware. Me for example, I am not trying to map "C64-hardware targetted software" - I am trying to map generalized 2d-jump-n-run-fire-arcade-platform-shooter genre game to A8 ... Yes, I got in love of that genre on C64 because that was the first computer that I had and Turrican is one my favourites... But since then, I played games like that in Arcade, on Amiga, on Atari ST, on Nes, Snes,Sega megadrive, mobile phone, palm, windows, linux... Don't tell me I should dismiss any idea of game for A8, just because there were good games like that on C64. A8 does not have really good game like that... I guess timeframe of its popularity is one of the reasons... I think it can be made but objective limits are there... Amiga has great sprite-based software but they didn't need 24-pixel sprites to make it. Its 8 16-pixel,3-color,dma-channel, copper controlled, reusable sprites + blitter chip did the trick... 16<24 has nothing to do with it... You can not compare that with A8s 4 8-pixel, 1 color, DLI colored, reusable only in certain part of screen only with heavy cpu usage, without blitter chip... Yeah, Amiga has other hardware just like A8 has other hardware so sprite width isn't a big deal if you target the A8 strengths. I am not stopping you from porting things from C64 nor anyone porting A8 to C64 but pointing out how it's better to target the game for the hardware at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Was there a 256kb Atari computer sold EVER? No. Was there a 256kb/512kb/1mb plug in cartridge sold by Atari or anyone from 1979 to 1990? No. Therefore we are comparing two different machines and their expansions AVAILABLE AT THE TIME. You could probably interface a 64bit AMD Phenom to an 8bit computer (the same way a 68xxx CPU controls a PPC CPU in Amiga accellerators) given enough time and money doesn't mean jack shit in this argument and the result is neither a Commodore or Atari. The Atari 400/800 is 48k, 800XL is 64kb and the XE range 64 or 128kb for the purpose of this argument....on all these machines there is no empty RAM sockets so this is the maximum the board is designed for. I never said anything about 64k limit (although actually you are wrong, most 8 bit machines are limited to 64kb and need to use bank switching to access any more any way so it is a limitation of sorts) tough shit if you don't like it, that's what Atari made...they made no Atari 130XEs with blank holes on the motherboard or empty RAM sockets...not my problem really. And why are we doing this? Well you are comparing 8bit Atari machines and hardware to 8bit Commodore machines and hardware (well it is in the 8bit forum section so bit stupid to decide now it is not just for 8bit machines) and well it doesn't really count if it doesn't run on a machine PRODUCED BY ATARI OR COMMODORE. Did Atari sell 320kb 8bit motherboard? nope so therefore no such 'ATARI' machine exists or existed in the history of Atari and is nothing more than a bastard creation of some nerds and geeks 30 years later to be soldered ontop of 1970s/80s hardware. It stopped being an 'Atari' when it was prodded and poked with a soldering iron In that sense the C64/128 wins out anyway as the 1750/51 RAM carts are stock Commodore items you can buy from ebay today and plug into your C64/128 the day it arrives on your door step ........ in fact there were people using 256/512kb C64s and C128s in the 80s too Look at it this way...what's to stop me reverse engineering a 256 colour version of VIC-II using the FPGA from the C64 DTV and engineering it into a pin compatible plug-in for a real C64...does that now mean this now becomes a C64 with VGA graphics? You have to draw the line somewhere and sensible people will draw the line at the maximum capabilities of sound/graphics/memory/cpu OF THE LAST PRODUCTION MODEL MANUFACTURED. Very well said, I couldn't agree more ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 8 - STARQUAKE C-64 C-64 C-64 C-64 version has better sound/music, graphics, sprites and more colours. Another easy win by C-64 ATARI ATARI ATARI 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchman Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) C-64 version has better sound/music, graphics, sprites and more colours. Another easy win by C-64 Aren't you dead yet? It is already established that in the UK the Spectrum and C64 were the top two 8-bit computers. Spectrum was the number one, trailing way behind was the C64 at number two. All other computers were thought of as 'not commercial interesting enough', CPC maybe a bit more so. Atarians in the UK were lucky to even get a A8 converion of any UK-made C64 game, or any other UK-made game actually. Most UK programmers could NOT program the A8 properly, only because they couldn't be bothered (Matthew Smith: no money was to be made with the A8, although it is the best of the 8-bit computers). On the other hand the best C64 games also came from USA, on fdd, not UK. I mean ever played any good games from CRL besides Tau Ceti? Or Elite, Grandslam, Beyond Software, Domark, Ocean, Martech, here's a C64 Martech classic, Nemesis the Warlock, most awful looking sprites, terrible game play: Even the people who knew how to program the C64 got it wrong very often, here's the UK arm of Activision: Galactic Games (1987), basically a piece of shit, just like Rampage on A8: but they did more stinkers on C64: Enduro Racer, Afterburner, Dragon Breed, Galaxy Force II, Knightmare, Ghostbusters 2, Ninja Spirit, Quartet, The Real Ghostbusters, and the David Crane classic on C64: Transformers, to name a few. Edited September 7, 2009 by frenchman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyace Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) I was pretty lazy - the ST/Amiga code I wrote was the same - with IF/ELSE/ENDIF around some of the platform specific stuff. - Sound was a different module for the machines though. ( Luckily, nothing I wrote was that good - unluckily, it didn't pay that much ) EDIT: ( Should have been in responce to this ) View PostLazarus, on Mon Sep 7, 2009 4:43 PM, said: View PostSTE, on Mon Sep 7, 2009 10:40 AM, said: but most coders that were doing both versions would tend to write the same code as much as possible, with the sprite routines being vectored to the blitter on the amiga and the cpu on the st. From my experience nearly all ST ports ignored all Amiga special features except for Paula sound. Edited September 7, 2009 by Crazyace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drac030 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) it doesn't really count if it doesn't run on a machine PRODUCED BY ATARI OR COMMODORE. Did Atari sell 320kb 8bit motherboard? nope so therefore no such 'ATARI' machine exists (...) It stopped being an 'Atari' when it was prodded and poked with a soldering iron So it doesn't exist or stopped to be an Atari? That was already discussed before. It is of course your right to have such a silly religious definition of C-64 (like "expanded C-64 = not a C-64 anymore"), but accept that we simply don't share that definition, and it is silly from your side to come here and speak about it just as if it was a sort of heavenly illumination one cannot but accept. Here we accept different standards, but if you like to sit into mere 64 KB and slow 1541 forever, noone will object, I guess. But, saying truth, I can see why you are trying to deny the existence of 320 KB Ataris etc. (I pass over saying that denying existence of something existing seems rather stupid). The real reason behind it is that we managed to develop a standard for extended memory, and we have software which uses the extension: system software, utilities, demos, games. And you don't. So the only remaining choice for you is to deny the reality. Well, what can I do (not that I would do anythong about it, btw.) Edited September 7, 2009 by drac030 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyace Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Even the people who knew how to program the C64 got it wrong very often, here's the UK arm of Activision: Galactic Games (1987), basically a piece of shit, just like Rampage on A8: Wow, that's pretty bad - but it would be almost impossible to duplicate exactly on the A8 - the sprites are 320 pixel res, and the scrolling as well. The starquake pictures look like a 'quick' conversion though - they could have been improved a bit using player underlays for some of the background areas, but the sprites would still be stuck as monochrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irgendwer Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I've checked it and there is no exact equivalent on C64 (released in 1983). Mainly because Vanguard is an atypical shooter, it's a mix of horizontal and vertical scrolling. The closest thing I found is Skramble, though still a bit different. Thank you for your efforts. I will try "Skramble" soon - inspecting the screen-shot I think there are several games on the A8 side like "Air Strike" (I+II) or "Bellum", without a port on C64 side - strange... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 it doesn't really count if it doesn't run on a machine PRODUCED BY ATARI OR COMMODORE. Did Atari sell 320kb 8bit motherboard? nope so therefore no such 'ATARI' machine exists (...) It stopped being an 'Atari' when it was prodded and poked with a soldering iron So it doesn't exist or stopped to be an Atari? That was already discussed before. It is of course your right to have such a silly religious definition of C-64 (like "expanded C-64 = not a C-64 anymore"), but accept that we simply don't share that definition, and it is silly from your side to come here and speak about it just as if it was a sort of heavenly illumination one cannot but accept. Here we accept different standards, but if you like to sit into mere 64 KB and slow 1541 forever, noone will object, I guess. But, saying truth, I can see why you are trying to deny the existence of 320 KB Ataris etc. (I pass over saying that denying existence of something existing seems rather stupid). The real reason behind it is that we managed to develop a standard for extended memory, and we have software which uses the extension: system software, utilities, demos, games. And you don't. So the only remaining choice for you is to deny the reality. Well, what can I do (not that I would do anythong about it, btw.) You quoted the wrong person. These are not my words, but it's OK, as I said, I agreed with the real author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irgendwer Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 ... Was there a 256kb/512kb/1mb plug in cartridge sold by Atari or anyone from 1979 to 1990? No. ... Hmm - but could could plug a 128k Atari cartridge in your 128k Atari XE and are able to access (nearly)256k of memory. I already mentioned that there where some 128k game carts. These also add memory (ROM) to the 64k machine. It's not a problem to deliver a cart with a huge amount of preshifted software sprites (to refer to that example) which can simply plugged into the machine without soldering! Now what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) Even the people who knew how to program the C64 got it wrong very often, here's the UK arm of Activision: Galactic Games (1987), basically a piece of shit, just like Rampage on A8: Wow, that's pretty bad - but it would be almost impossible to duplicate exactly on the A8 - the sprites are 320 pixel res, and the scrolling as well. ROTFL Another splendid example from frenchman. He slowly specializes himself in showing weak sides of ATARI. We want some more Edited September 7, 2009 by Rockford 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