PeteD Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Still waiting for Rockford's new post It's the highlight of my day Pete I am honoured :!: Love you too dood Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Still waiting for Rockford's new post It's the highlight of my day Pete I am honoured :!: Love you too dood This is getting... disturbing. =-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Make love, not war!! Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Make love, not war!! Can't argue with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Yes you can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Make love, not war!! Can't argue with that... If you can't beat them join them, so atarians you know what to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 What edges...? i'm talking about just clearing a block of RAM and nothing more there OK, but you were replying to something else. Of course just clearing bytes is fast, I won't deny. But I was telling: "well maybe we can win 50% of cpu time in a general purpose swsprite engine, using a REU". Then you saying, "no I'll win 95%, but I'm not talking about swsprites, but clearing RAM". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Maybe a new challenge is trying if you can post a new reply here with a postnumber that's a multiple of 10 (or 256 for nerds). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Still waiting for Rockford's new post It's the highlight of my day Pete I am honoured :!: Love you too dood This is getting... disturbing. =-) maybe a little bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I often see the same people, also posting in this thread, are top posters of the AA board. Anyway, @ TMR, you're right, it's really time for a A8 v C64 forum. Then we could split up all sub-discussions here into a nice overviewable forum ...or, maybe a chat-channel for this topic would be a great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 (edited) I think Atari Panther version has a little better music, sound effects and good choice of saturation colors. Instead, C64 has better design of sprites. Playability on both are the same, strangely it feels more accurate on Atari version. Other way your Atari screenshots are not right. This game should be declared as a draw, as there is not a clear superiority on one version from another. Allas, I took these pictures from atarimania and Bacardi's site, so they should faithfully depict this game on Atari. Anyway let's check them again (this time I will use your pictures) C64 - realistic ground colour, much better sprites, more colours. Atari - dark red ground, poor (small and one coloured) sprites, less colours. C-64 - again, more natural colours and much better sprites Atari - dark, dirty green, poor sprites, less colours. C64 - more detailed waves, much better sprites, more colours. Atari - all waves are the same, poor sprites. C64 - better colour balance, much better sprites, more colours. Atari - less colours (darker of course), poor sprites. Sound/music and playbality are the same. C64 has better graphics (take a look at your ship destroying sequence - on atari it looks like joke), much better (very well animated) sprites and more colours. Atari has dirty-dark colours and very poor, small, one coloured sprites. Sorry Allas, nice try but the C64 version is better. no, again this has been explained to you.. poor programming on the atari. Try a synapse title called Blue Max that looks very similar from 1982,looks really great and certainly better than this c64 version. Edited September 17, 2009 by atarian63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 Make love, not war!! Can't argue with that... If you can't beat them join them, so atarians you know what to do Yep, since the C64's cant beat us lets get them to write some great software! yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 17 - PANTHER C64 C64 C64 C64 has better graphics, sprites and more colours. C64 wins again. ATARI ATARI ATARI You missed the most (only?) important difference on that budget game...the music! That tune by David Whittaker is one of my all time favourite SID tunes. It's an ok sorta game, if I was an A8 owner I could live with the graphics difference which is mainly the mono control panel but after hearing the SID music I wouldn't be too happy as an A8 owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I think Atari Panther version has a little better music, sound effects and good choice of saturation colors. Instead, C64 has better design of sprites. Playability on both are the same, strangely it feels more accurate on Atari version. Other way your Atari screenshots are not right. This game should be declared as a draw, as there is not a clear superiority on one version from another. Yeah as Rocky Mountains has proven, most UK programmers couldn't program the A8 for toffee, but sometimes they did make an effort, here's UKs Tynesoft: Atari: C64 Atari C64 Phantom looks just as crap on either and compared to Gauntlet on the C64 it is a waste of my time. The second one is a title screen....where's the game graphics to show something useful? And as for Allas he must be tone deaf if he thinks the A8 rendition of panther sounds better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 But test drive is rubbish.. Have some dignity and set your heights higher How about Hard Drivin' ? Surely that can be done on the A8 ? Well, it's rubbish on the C64, guess why .... some more FPS do miracles It's rubbish on the ST (faster than any 8bit) and rubbish on the Amiga even with all the sparkly graphics and lovely sampled engine noises...that game needs one of them things that beeps when you fall asleep at the wheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oky2000 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 But,well, Hard Drivin would run 4 times faster on the A8 and you'd have a 16 colour mode there .... Of course it would.. LOL we can't even get 16 colours on a static Last Ninja screen so he must mean 12 colours via DLIs for the sky and then 3 colours for the rest of it same as every other 8bit version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I think Atari Panther version has a little better music, sound effects and good choice of saturation colors. Instead, C64 has better design of sprites. Playability on both are the same, strangely it feels more accurate on Atari version. Other way your Atari screenshots are not right. This game should be declared as a draw, as there is not a clear superiority on one version from another. Yeah as Rocky Mountains has proven, most UK programmers couldn't program the A8 for toffee, but sometimes they did make an effort, here's UKs Tynesoft: Atari: C64 Atari C64 Phantom looks just as crap on either and compared to Gauntlet on the C64 it is a waste of my time. The second one is a title screen....where's the game graphics to show something useful? And as for Allas he must be tone deaf if he thinks the A8 rendition of panther sounds better actaully it does, maybe you should give the a8 version a listen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) C64 coder? Try, bbc, spectrum, c64, st, amiga, cd-i, psx, ps2, gba, pc, etc etc Oops, sorry, didn't know that Anyway, what is the most cpu-economical swsprite engine should depend on which machine you're coding for, ain't it? In best case scenario yes. But taking the columns method you posted earlier, as I say if you're using the 5 colour mode (sorry, I'm repeating this from earlier posts so just skip to the next post if you read it already) you've got 128 chars, make a background out of those and how many do you have left? say 64 and that's generous so now you want a 16x16 sprite, that needs 2x2 chars BUT you have to allow for max diagonal movement 3x3 9 gone for 1 sprite. You already know all this, so how do you get around it, a8 the easiest way I can see is to do multiple LMS lines, even a new charset for each modeline, you can use the space offscreen for data so it's not wasted then your sprite routine becomes more complex than the column one. Not much more but that's already an overhead. what if you can't do an LMS per modeline for some reason? now you have to start checking the Y pos of your sprite to see if it's gone over one.... etc You can have a good/fast generic routine but I can guarantee you wont use it 90% of the time. Pete well... actually I have 2 routines... ;these are the fonts for the "bitmap screen" font equ $6000 font0 equ font font1 equ font+1*1024 font2 equ font+2*1024 font3 equ font+3*1024 font4 equ font+4*1024 font5 equ font+5*1024 font6 equ font+6*1024 font7 equ font+7*1024 font8 equ font+8*1024 ;"standard font" which contains the gfx background tiles font9 equ font+9*1024 ;text font vram equ font+10*1024 ;1000 max ... linetabl equ $a000 ;line starting adress linetabh equ $a100 h1tab equ $a200 collumtabl equ $a300 collumtabh equ $a340 yptab equ $a400 linetab2l equ $a500 linetab2h equ $a520 linetab3l equ $a540 linetab3h equ $a560 spritetab equ $a600 chartabl equ $a700 ;for 256 tiles chartabh equ $a800 ... spritedata equ $b000 ;preshifted data 64 bytes per spirte per pixel position = 256 bytes per sprite ... here is the code for a split draw ; 3000 PROC DRAW ; 3005 Y=PEEK($7F00+YP) ; 3010 YY=PEEK($7F00+YP)+21 ; 3015 IF YY>24 ; 3020 EXEC DRAW_SPLIT ; 3030 ELSE ; 3040 EXEC DRAW_SIMPLE ; 3045 ENDIF ; 3050 ENDPROC draw: ldx ypos lda #21 clc adc yptab,x cmp #25 bcc draw_simple jmp draw_split ;1000 PROC DRAW_SIMPLE ; 1010 AD=SPR+NO*63 ; 1020 FOR J=0 TO $14 ; 1030 FOR I=0 TO 2 ; 1040 POKE F+J+I*24+Y,PEEK(AD) ; 1045 AD=AD+1 ; 1050 NEXT I ; 1060 NEXT J ; 1100 ENDPROC ;each 4 shifted sprites are in 1 page (64 bytes each) draw_simple: lda xpos tax ldy tempfacing cpy #8 bcc draw_simple00 lda ypos draw_simple00 and #3 ;0-3 ora tempfacing tay ;shifted lda spritetabl,y sta simple0+1 clc adc #21 ;y size per stripe sta simple1+1 adc #21 sta simple2+1 lda spritetabh,y sta simple0+2 sta simple1+2 sta simple2+2 txa lsr lsr tax ldy ypos clc lda linetabl,y adc collumtabl,x sta v1 lda linetabh,y adc collumtabh,x sta v1+1 lda v1 clc adc #24 sta v2 lda v1+1 adc #0 sta v2+1 lda v1 clc adc #48 sta v3 lda v1+1 adc #0 sta v3+1 clear_simple: lda yptab,y tay ;now copy 63 bytes = 3 * 21 bytes ldx #0 simple0: lda $ffff,x eor (v1),y sta (v1),y simple1: lda $ffff,x eor (v2),y sta (v2),y simple2: lda $ffff,x eor (v3),y sta (v3),y iny inx cpx #21 bcc simple0 rts ; PROC DRAW_SPLIT ; 2010 EF=F+1024 ; 2020 H1=24-PEEK($7F00+YP) ; 2030 H2=21-H1 ; 2040 AD=SPR+NO*63 ; 2050 FOR J=0 TO H1-1 ; 2060 FOR I=0 TO 2 ; 2070 POKE F+J+I*24+Y,PEEK(AD) ; 2080 AD=AD+1 ; 2090 NEXT I ; 2100 NEXT J ; 2110 FOR J=0 TO H2-1 ; 2120 FOR I=0 TO 2 ; 2130 POKE EF+J+I*24,PEEK(AD) ; 2140 AD=AD+1 ; 2150 NEXT I ; 2160 NEXT J ;2199 ENDPROC draw_split: ldy ypos lda h1tab,y sta h1+1 lda xpos tax ldy tempfacing cpy #8 bcc draw_split00 lda ypos draw_split00 and #3 ora tempfacing tay ;shifted lda spritetabl,y sta split0+1 sta split00+1 clc adc #21 ;y size per stripe sta split1+1 sta split11+1 adc #21 sta split2+1 sta split22+1 lda spritetabh,y sta split0+2 sta split1+2 sta split2+2 sta split00+2 sta split11+2 sta split22+2 txa lsr ;div 2 lsr ;div 2 tax ldy ypos lda linetabl,y clc adc collumtabl,x sta v1 lda linetabh,y adc collumtabh,x sta v1+1 lda v1 clc adc #24 sta v2 lda v1+1 adc #0 sta v2+1 lda v1 clc adc #48 sta v3 lda v1+1 adc #0 sta v3+1 clear_split: lda yptab,y tay ldx #0 split0: lda $ffff,x eor (v1),y sta (v1),y split1: lda $ffff,x eor (v2),y sta (v2),y split2: lda $ffff,x eor (v3),y sta (v3),y iny inx h1: cpx #21 bne split0 clc lda v1+1 adc #4 sta v1+1 lda v2+1 adc #4 sta v2+1 lda v3+1 adc #4 sta v3+1 ldy #0 split00: lda $ffff,x eor (v1),y sta (v1),y split11: lda $ffff,x eor (v2),y sta (v2),y split22: lda $ffff,x eor (v3),y sta (v3),y iny inx cpx #21 bne split00 rts clear: ldy ypos lda #21 clc adc yptab,y cmp #25 bcc clear0 jmp clear_split clear0 jmp clear_simple ... here is the display list dlist: .byte $70,$70,$f0,$44,<(vram),>(vram) .byte 4,$84 :7 .byte 4,4,$84 .byte $41 .word dlist ;now don't forget the lookup tables... org linetabl ;starting font based on YP (F=(YP DIV 24)*1024+$8008) :256 .byte <[[#/24]*1024+font+8] org linetabh :256 .byte >[[#/24]*1024+font+8] org collumtabl :64 .byte <[#*24] org collumtabh :64 .byte >[#*24] org linetab2l :32 .byte <[#*40+background] org linetab2h :32 .byte >[#*40+background] org chartabl :256 .byte <[#*8+font8] org chartabh :256 .byte >[#*8+font8] org linetab3l :24 .byte <[[#/3]*1024+font+8+#%3*8] org linetab3h :24 .byte >[[#/3]*1024+font+8+#%3*8] ... ;format ;antic E format, each sprite has 64 bytes, even if it is smaller. Good for later c64 port and hardware sprite format ;sprite data is saved in collum mode (first collum, 2nd collum, 3rd collum, each max 24 bytes=64 bytes) org spritetab spritetabl .byte <(spritedata),<(spritedata+1*64),<(spritedata+2*64),<(spritedata+3*64) ; right .byte <(spritedata+4*64),<(spritedata+5*64),<(spritedata+6*64),<(spritedata+7*64) ;left .byte <(spritedata+8*64),<(spritedata+9*64),<(spritedata+10*64),<(spritedata+11*64) ;up .byte <(spritedata+12*64),<(spritedata+13*64),<(spritedata+14*64),<(spritedata+15*64) ;down spritetabh .byte >(spritedata),>(spritedata+1*64),>(spritedata+2*64),>(spritedata+3*64) .byte >(spritedata+4*64),>(spritedata+5*64),>(spritedata+6*64),>(spritedata+7*64) .byte >(spritedata+8*64),>(spritedata+9*64),>(spritedata+10*64),>(spritedata+11*64) .byte >(spritedata+12*64),>(spritedata+13*64),>(spritedata+14*64),>(spritedata+15*64) spriteylength .byte $14,$14,$14,$14,$14,$14,$14,$14 .byte $14,$14,$14,$14,$14,$14,$14,$14 ;spriteylength .byte 16,16,16,16,16,16,16,16 .byte 16,16,16,16,16,16,16,16 ... aehm... I call this little bit "overhead" compared of having 8 hardware sprites for Beyond Evil... and this is done "only" that I can claim I am using softsprite AND gain 1 additional color... Edited September 18, 2009 by Heaven/TQA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sack-c0s Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) Make love, not war!! Can't argue with that... War makes for better games though. Although love only requires 2 sprites (3 if you're feeling kinky) In terms of a c64 vs A8 forum I think you'd need 2. One to act as a 'reach out' for the curious (which is what half of us were doing here in the first place) and the other as a battleground (basically to keep rockford out of the way ) Edited September 18, 2009 by sack-c0s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) In best case scenario yes. But taking the columns method you posted earlier, as I say if you're using the 5 colour mode you've got 128 chars, make a background out of those and how many do you have left? Just use 120 chars for 3 mode lines and use them as "bitmap". You will get C64 bitmap layout btw Edited September 18, 2009 by Lazarus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 That's what "one" of my routines does. lol I've got loads already for different situations. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 What edges...? i'm talking about just clearing a block of RAM and nothing more there OK, but you were replying to something else. Of course just clearing bytes is fast, I won't deny. But I was telling: "well maybe we can win 50% of cpu time in a general purpose swsprite engine, using a REU". Then you saying, "no I'll win 95%, but I'm not talking about swsprites, but clearing RAM". The RAM clearance was just a simpler example that didn't require anyone actually having to sit down and code a soft sprite engine - clearing an 8,000 byte or thereabouts bitmap is a major haul of a job, if you can significantly shorten that it's a serious head start compared to a stock machine and after that you've got the option of a multi-tier system where smaller objects are handled by the CPU and larger ones by the DMA as well. If i were to produce an engine in this way (i wouldn't because that's not the sort of game i like making) i'd drop the vertical panning, plan it as much as possible to have objects sitting on character boundaries anyway and just to totally bonkers on the colours. If i'm being totally honest, part of me even bringing the idea up in the first place was to wind up emkay because i'm getting thoroughly sick of his proclaiming things without having the first clue what he's actually talking about; he hasn't actually written a software sprite routine but tells people how fast they should be able to go, never tried converting a game but is an expert on how much speed they should gain and now he's an expert on C64 coding too (he's predicting that "Hard Drivin would run 4 times faster on the A8" and that's based on what exactly? Fairy dust presumably because it's not technical knowledge on his part is it?). Nah, don't think so... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 In terms of a c64 vs A8 forum I think you'd need 2. One to act as a 'reach out' for the curious (which is what half of us were doing here in the first place) and the other as a battleground (basically to keep rockford out of the way ) The domain is registered, phpBB up and running but i haven't patched it to fully stop bot signups yet and the site templates (which are being shared by the regeneration of Oldschool Gaming) still need work because of that fun way that style sheets collide with each other... looking at this thread, i'm also slightly concerned by the stress it'll put on our server Voidrunner too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 C64 - realistic ground colour, much better sprites, more colours...C-64 - again, more natural colours and much better sprites... Well, at least the colours could be chosen better on A8. Remember, the C64 palette is a subset of the Atari palette (up to some very minor differences). Many times I wonder why in A8 games the programmers chose ugly colour combinations. You need to wait for ATTRACT mode to kick in (like 9 minutes) and then wait a few more seconds for the right colors and then take the snapshot to show people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 18 - BASIL THE GREAT MOUSE DETECTIVE C64 C64 C64 The C64 version has better graphics, more colours and plays faster. C64 dominates Atari again. ATARI ATARI ATARI 1 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