Atari v Commodore

[Heaven/TQA]

to be honest... the lucasfilm games are the only ones imho which use a lot of A8 features...

 

- GTIA modes (intro, space ship intro of RoFL, Koronis Rift ingame, player overlays)

- mixing of different resolutions plus different LMS

- SIO streaming technlology plus music (eidolon)

- sound fx (laser, explosions, knocking in RoFL, starting sequenze in RoFL)

- 3d

- scanline based hscrolling like in ballblazer

 

and considering that the team was only 4 guys... not bad at all...

[emkay]

to be honest... the lucasfilm games are the only ones imho which use a lot of A8 features...

 

- GTIA modes (intro, space ship intro of RoFL, Koronis Rift ingame, player overlays)

- mixing of different resolutions plus different LMS

- SIO streaming technlology plus music (eidolon)

- sound fx (laser, explosions, knocking in RoFL, starting sequenze in RoFL)

- 3d

- scanline based hscrolling like in ballblazer

 

and considering that the team was only 4 guys... not bad at all...

 

That's why I wrote they did a well job there. But, particular Ballblazer is overrated imho. Dimension X (for example) plays faster, is graphically more complex, and was done years before.

 

The only real innovating (in A8 terms) is the SIO loader in The Eidolon.

 

The real outstanding stuff is missing.

[snicklin]

I'd never heard of "Dimension X", so I just loaded it up to take a look. In my own opinion, it's not as as good as Ballblazer. Yes, it plays quicker than BB, but that only seems to be because the squares on the ground are smaller. And as for being more graphically complex, yes, there are more colours but where are the boundaries, unless I missed them, it seems to go on and on. BB must have to have itself set up so that you can hit the sides on any side of the square that you're on. BB to me is a masterpiece, but everyone's opinions are welcome.

[atariksi]

You're comparing and apples and oranges. Chunky to planar is a conversion software. If you were writing shapes on Amiga, you would keep them in planar format. The amount of time to write to 8 planes is more if you just write one pixel but for blocks, it takes the same time (assuming the processor speeds, memory speeds are equal).

No I am not comparing apples to organges. Planar was a stupid decision to make. Planar ALWAYS means more action for CPU. And the smaller the object is, even the blitter will work more (but the CPU will work much more so blitter waits weren't needed).

...

You mentioned chunky to planar conversion-- that doesn't contribute to your biased view that planar is inferior. You are just expressing your opinion and an unproven one. You haven't proven "Planar is ALWAYS more action for CPU." nor that it's stupid decision. I just gave you an example of 3 bit planes (or try even the more common 5 and 6 bitplanes as used on Amiga). Even in my own application, I update HAM or half-bright images (6-bit planes) and if I want to update text, I just update the two bitplanes (for four color mode) and just write to BPLCON0 to update # of bitplanes being used. If I were to do this with VGA, I always have to update 64K. Whereas now I send 48K per frame or just 16K. In fact, if there's no colors in the text, I can just transmit one bitplane (8K) and modify BPLCON0. Now go and calculate which has more CPU useage.

 

But as I stated with bitplanes you can optimize the memory useage better.

No, memory usage would be exactly the same:

 

1 bitplane? 1+0 chunky!

2 bitplanes? 2+0 chunky or 1+1 chunky!

3 bitplanes? 2+1 chunky!

4 bitplanes? 2+2 chunky!

5 bitplanes? 4+1 chunky!

6 bitplanes? 4+2 chunky!

 

As I said: 2 chunky bitmap channels would have been much better than that bitplane crap.

 

First of all, you are mixing bitplanes with chunky in some sort of hybrid model. Now you have more complex hardware and software since you are dealing with both methods. Even then you have more CPU useage in cases where you just want to update one plane when two are enabled.

[atariksi]

...

And that's before you even consider how bad the Amiga would cope with the new 'craze' of texture mapped pseudo 3D games like Doom and Descent which ran OK on 2nd hand £400 PCs. A1200...released 1992...Doom appears...instantly AGA is obsolete even in the A4000 which costs more than any other PC for sale BUT would run Doom at best like a 16mhz 286 due to the Amigas 8 bit planes per 256 colour screen compared to the 800% faster to manipulate VGA byte per pixel screen on PCs.

I never understood that bitplane thing. It only has disadvantages.

...

Back to your own statement-- you are right: you NEVER understood the bitplane thing. The second line is wrong-- it does have its advantages. Of course, don't compare it to some hybrid hypothetical models that don't exist.

 

Of course, that bit about 800% faster from OKY is also speculation (when compared to 286-16Mhz w/VGA).

[sack-c0s]

8x faster? possibly more actually. For planar modes you have to load, OR a bit in (or AND it out) and store 8 times, that's 3 operations per bit, 24 operations total (excluding how you get the and/or masks to start with). chunky is a load and store to get a pixel onscreen. potentially it could be up to 20 times faster like-for-like.

[Rybags]

IIRC, all the Lucasfilm games use the SIO + music system.

 

Fractalus while loading the game, same with Ballblazer.

Eidelon while loading the game, plus levels.

Koronis Rift while loading levels (?)

 

But don't forget others like Seven Cities of Gold... it does (mostly) seamless SIO during actual gameplay.

[PeteD]

Chunky Vs Planar

 

Planar:-

 

Better for odd bit depths, in general (I think I have seen one machine that allowed stuff like 3bpp 5bpp etc).

 

Better for ram usage if the above is followed.

 

Good for doing stuff like 1/2 bright modes/transparencies, eg 5 bitplanes, 4 used as a 16 colour palette, 1 as another 16 colours 1/2 bright.

 

Better extensibility (eg base Amiga/ST games tended to be 16 colour, when ram expansions became more popular it was easy to say right, add a bitplane or two)

 

 

Chunky:-

 

Much easier sprite drawing especially when it's up to 8bpp. No more storing offset sprites ala A8, just runlength the gaps out of your sprites and draw pixels to the screen. The efficiency of that greatly outweighs having to load a word/long, rotate it, mask it, OR it, draw it back to the screen (* No bitplanes) so much so that in the same cpu time you could probably do 8bpp chunky vs 4bpp planar.

 

Generally easier scrolling without hardware assistance, depending of course on the number of planes (see above).

 

 

So, in "real world" usage chunky is generally better within limitations (and not too bad ones) of say 4bpp/8bpp. Ignore which machine has a blitter because not all do, ignore how VGA does it because it's different to all the others and wasn't originally mentioned when the planar vs chunky nonsense started, just take the facts that if you're writing a game the stuff you're likely to be doing most of (scrolling and spriting) is easier in chunky mode. I've even had the much vaunted Archer Maclean say to me, "you lucky bugger", when I was talking to him about writing games on CD-i (like a shite Amiga, google it if you never heard of it. lol) because it had a chunky mode.

 

I'm sure someone will disagree, but as a coder/producer who has worked on all these machines and been surrounded by other people who have those are the facts, mam No real point arguing about it all in a thread about C64 vs A8 apart from peoples unwillingness to let something lie.

 

 

Pete

[frenchman]

I'd never heard of "Dimension X", so I just loaded it up to take a look. In my own opinion, it's not as as good as Ballblazer. Yes, it plays quicker than BB, but that only seems to be because the squares on the ground are smaller. And as for being more graphically complex, yes, there are more colours but where are the boundaries, unless I missed them, it seems to go on and on. BB must have to have itself set up so that you can hit the sides on any side of the square that you're on. BB to me is a masterpiece, but everyone's opinions are welcome.

 

Lots of UK people don't really know many USA made games, Synapse made many classics for Apple 2, A8, and C64. Or ever played any Sirius classics? eg Blade of Blackpool, Gruds in Space? Or Broderbund? Mask of the sun, The Serpent's Star, The castles of Dr Creep?

 

Thing about Dimension X is, it has the generic A8/C64 loading instructions, and when C64 users ask for a Dimension X version for their machine, Synapse said 'sorry, can't be done, the C64 cannot cope with the speed as the A8 can. True story

Edited September 24, 2009 by frenchman

[PeteD]

 

 

Thing about Dimension X is, it has the generic A8/C64 loading instructions, and when C64 users ask for a Dimension X version for their machine, Synapse said 'sorry, can't be done, the C64 cannot cope with the speed as the A8 can. True story

 

 

Bad coders

 

 

Pete

[Heaven/TQA]

I'd never heard of "Dimension X", so I just loaded it up to take a look. In my own opinion, it's not as as good as Ballblazer. Yes, it plays quicker than BB, but that only seems to be because the squares on the ground are smaller. And as for being more graphically complex, yes, there are more colours but where are the boundaries, unless I missed them, it seems to go on and on. BB must have to have itself set up so that you can hit the sides on any side of the square that you're on. BB to me is a masterpiece, but everyone's opinions are welcome.

 

Lots of UK people don't really know many USA made games, Synapse made many classics for Apple 2, A8, and C64. Or ever played any Sirius classics? eg Blade of Blackpool, Gruds in Space? Or Broderbund? Mask of the sun, The Serpent's Star, The castles of Dr Creep?

 

Thing about Dimension X is, it has the generic A8/C64 loading instructions, and when C64 users ask for a Dimension X version for their machine, Synapse said 'sorry, can't be done, the C64 cannot cope with the speed as the A8 can. True story

 

But don't see why Dimension X should not be possible on c64... the illusion is done via rasters... but well... maybe horizontal distortion not possible as you would need an LMS per line... but maybe via preshifting the checkboard.

[Lazarus]

Chunky Vs Planar

 

Planar:-

 

Better for odd bit depths, in general (I think I have seen one machine that allowed stuff like 3bpp 5bpp etc).

As I already explained that can be easily done with that 2 sources chunky stuff.

 

Better for ram usage if the above is followed.

The same as the 2 sources chunky stuff.

 

Good for doing stuff like 1/2 bright modes/transparencies, eg 5 bitplanes, 4 used as a 16 colour palette, 1 as another 16 colours 1/2 bright.

That has nothing to do with bitplanes or chunky, that's how the palette is organized and how pixel bits are used.

 

Better extensibility (eg base Amiga/ST games tended to be 16 colour, when ram expansions became more popular it was easy to say right, add a bitplane or two)

And chunky can be extended too. In my example above I had 1/2/4 + 1/2. Now extend that to 1/2/4 + 1/2/4 for 8 bits maybe or even further. You would even have the two modulo and scroll registers which now are for even/odd bitplanes but then ofcourse would be for source A and B.

[PeteD]

But I'm talking real world here and afaik there aren't any machines that have a 2 source chunky mode? In which case everything you've replied above goes out the window. I'm talking existing stuff here, Amiga/ST vs chunky PC modes and as I concluded chunky imho is a lot better for real world uses. Saying "could be" when there's nothing existing that CAN is kind of useless.

 

The 1/2 bright thing has everything to do with planar when it comes to wanting to change 1 bit to make a transarent/half bright object. In planar you effect that 1 plane, in chunky you've got to fiddle with bytes at a time ORing bits in.

 

 

Honestly I don't know why people have to argue so much on here. I kind of thought you were in favour of chunky, I am too in case you didn't notice the conclusion to my post but it seems people can't give up on "what if's" and "could've been's". There are enough people on here already who won't give an inch when it comes to their opinion being correct even when it's all based on made up stuff

 

 

Pete

Edited September 24, 2009 by PeteD

[Lazarus]

In which case everything you've replied above goes out the window. I'm talking existing stuff here, Amiga/ST vs chunky PC modes and as I concluded chunky imho is a lot better for real world uses. Saying "could be" when there's nothing existing that CAN is kind of useless.

Atleast hardware support for scrolling and dual playfield was major advantages on Amiga. And it would have been possible to join the advantages of both worlds.

 

The 1/2 bright thing has everything to do with planar when it comes to wanting to change 1 bit to make a transarent/half bright object. In planar you effect that 1 plane, in chunky you've got to fiddle with bytes at a time ORing bits in.

To the hardware it doesn't matter where that bit 5 comes from. At that point it doesn't know anymore if it's source was chunky or planar, it just knows that it is bit 5. EHB was mostly useless anyway.

[PeteD]

In which case everything you've replied above goes out the window. I'm talking existing stuff here, Amiga/ST vs chunky PC modes and as I concluded chunky imho is a lot better for real world uses. Saying "could be" when there's nothing existing that CAN is kind of useless.

Atleast hardware support for scrolling and dual playfield was major advantages on Amiga. And it would have been possible to join the advantages of both worlds.

 

The 1/2 bright thing has everything to do with planar when it comes to wanting to change 1 bit to make a transarent/half bright object. In planar you effect that 1 plane, in chunky you've got to fiddle with bytes at a time ORing bits in.

To the hardware it doesn't matter where that bit 5 comes from. At that point it doesn't know anymore if it's source was chunky or planar, it just knows that it is bit 5. EHB was mostly useless anyway.

 

I know it doesn't matter to the video hardware where the bit comes from, what I posted was if you want to draw something halfbright/transparent etc it's a case of updating 1 plane vs reading/ORing/writing ram. If it's useless or not, that's not the point, the point is out of the few things I can see in favour of planar, that's one of them.

 

 

Pete

[TMR]

You got what you asked for -- you are specifying more restrictions (rules) now. Yeah, it's lower resolution but that's not the restriction or pertinent to the point.

 

Hang on, i was talking about games like Red Max and Zybex, you said that a DLI every eight scanlines would balance the colour RAM on the C64 and i questioned how. Then we got onto GTIA modes and i found it interesting because i've thought about running a game at that res previously, but in the context we started with the GTIA modes were pretty much a moot point when they were introduced really... if i asked for anything (and at the moment it seems that we're talking about your interpretation rather than anything i may have actually asked for, indirectly or otherwise) it was how that DLI could make a significant difference.

 

It translates to "ugly" by saying it stands out like sore thumbs or doesn't look good. And I'm not insulting-- I'm saying don't be dumb as in don't pretend not to have said something like that.

 

No it means exactly what was said and i didn't use the word ugly or anything directly equivalent so if anybody is being dumb here it's the person reading their own meaning into what i've written. Of course that's not an insult either, just like telling someone that they're "full of bullcrap" for not agreeing with you wouild be, obviously...

 

Of course, your full of bullcrap if you think total colors available for a sprite does not have an real objective value to make them beautiful. You yourself argued about how you have more colors for your sprites than Atari does. Was that also just your subjective perspective? It doesn't matter-- because the real world is MORE beautiful with MORE colors and shades.

 

Yes, of course i'm wrong! Having lots more colours about the place is always more beautiful; that's why a red skip full of garden waste, a couple of blue plastic lawn chairs and the carcass of a purple leather sofa crammed halfway in at one end is truly a sight to behold and a landfill, with the sunlight glistening off the bright yellow of a JCB as it playfully churns through the multicoloured garbage, why that has to bring a tear to even the most jaded eye. i understand now and it's no wonder that Picasso's blue period is ridiculed and reviled to this day, doing paintings without it looking like Rainbow Brite had vomited on the canvas? What was the man thinking for crying out loud?! It could never be as beautiful as a photo of all the Care Bears together...

 

(Hmm... there might be just a teeny little degree of sarcasm in the above paragraph... thought i'd best point it to be on the safe side, you know what people around here are like for "interpreting" stuff! Back in a day or two. =-)

[oky2000]

8x faster? possibly more actually. For planar modes you have to load, OR a bit in (or AND it out) and store 8 times, that's 3 operations per bit, 24 operations total (excluding how you get the and/or masks to start with). chunky is a load and store to get a pixel onscreen. potentially it could be up to 20 times faster like-for-like.

 

Finally someone gets what I am talking about!

 

For the rest............I was only talking about screen memory format in terms of displaying frames in Doom style games, planar is nothing but a disadvantage IN THIS CASE when after spending 10000s of cycles calculating what your next frame should look like in 256 colours the Amiga then has to mess about generating this 256 colour screen by manipulating 8 separate bit planes independently as opposed to one single 8bit value to be written somewhere to set the same single pixel.

 

Sure planar is great for virtual parallax or highlights/lowlights stuff like that but we are talking 3D CPU intensive calculations as in the Doom engine and anything that slows you down on a machine with an already slower CPU and no custom hardware in sight to help you run that game engine means you are in trouble, and if the world and his dog wants to play Doom style 3D games and not 2D platforms/scrollers any more then as a company you made a bad choice not including it as an extra mode in the chipset. VGA was around for over half a century before the Amiga A1200 was released so they had plenty of time to examine it and test it out but Commodore being Commodore (and skint by 1992) they just tacked on two extra bitplanes to get the magic '256 colour graphics' on the tech specs If you think bitplanes are great try running a 1280x512 screen in 256 colours and see how far you get

 

Also if chunky mode is so redundant for the Amiga and planar is not a problem then why then did 2 companies make their own chunky mode upgrades to the system? Why did many talented programmers write their own chunky to plannar routines to try and speed it up? And why would Commodore spend the last of their cash producing a complex custom chip to give the Amiga CD32 a virtual chunky mode (which is about 60-70% faster) and kludge it into the planar 8bit/pixel of the AGA chipset at the last second in hardwired firmware of the Akiko chip? Clearly when all the games programmers mentioned this obvious flaw after the launch of the A1200 Commodore listened and tried to address it as best they could without a complete redesign from scratch of the Amiga AGA chipset (which they didn't have the time or money for considering their financial situation).

 

Bit planes were kept for compatability and it was cheaper to expand and clean up the original chipset than redesign it again to add completely alien screen modes like chunky pixel VGA style. AAA and other chipset prototypes do not use bitplanes except for legacy Amiga screen modes and there's a good reason why

[potatohead]

I totally agree with the bitplane -vs- chunky conclusion expressed here.

 

A while back, I tried doing bit planes for the Propeller. After getting the core video driver up and running, the cycle cost for display manupulation was rather high, with the upsides not balancing out the many downsides. The driver was to be a component video driver, with bitplanes for each of the components. (that device has 8 video generators in it, each capable of outputting just about any signal one feels like coding. This makes that chip a lot of fun for those wanting to try this stuff out.)

 

IMHO, the ideal world would have the two combined. Chunky of some nice power of two bit per pixel depth, sprites on top of that, and perhaps a bit plane or two for HUD, transparency, occlusion, logical display attribute operations, and other display effects that operate on the chunky plane, ideally with the bitplane pixel resolution capable of being different than the main chunk display. That way, somebody could take good advantage of the bit plane upsides, while not being locked in to it for all operations.

 

Some of this discussion has been interesting and educational. Thanks.

 

Edit: One other upside to bitplanes occurs where the system can make use of multiple processors, or they are hybrid chunky / bitplane. In the hybrid mode, it's really multiple chunky screen buffers, all rendered to the display at the same time. Objects on each one can have priority, and or be manupulated without having to consider the others. Where multiple processors are concerned, this kind of design would permit graphics in parallel rather easily, in that very little display draw order management would need to occur. One processor could be scrolling, another moving sprites, another drawing bullets, etc... All of that gets rendered to the display as one, eliminating all the masks, ordering and such normally required.

Edited September 24, 2009 by potatohead

[desiv]

VGA was around for over half a century before the Amiga A1200 was released so they had plenty of time to examine it and test it out

 

er...

 

My math may be shaky, but.. 1992 (1200 release) - 50 (half a century) = 1942.

 

Wow! VGA was way ahead of its time.

 

desiv

[sack-c0s]

I think he was exaggerating. I've done it millions of times

[desiv]

I think he was exaggerating. I've done it millions of times

True, hence the winking smiley.

 

It was just the most incredible hyperbole I've ever seen!!

 

Ok, thinking about this realistically, VGA came out in 87, so 87-92 is 5 years.

In computer technology lifetime, that is pretty extreme.

Yeah, I think it definitely is half a century, if you consider a "technological era" century.

 

desiv

[atarian63]

I meant on the Amiga AGA 256 colour screens you have to do 8x writes...one for each bitplane = 256 colours instead of just writing out 1 calculated byte to video memory on VGA. Whether you do it or it is a refresh by the system something somewhere needs to update 8 bitplanes to give you 256 colours. That was a serious problem which is why the CD32 had a chunky<>planar botch in the Akiko custom chip, I think it's still 2-3 slower than manipulating a true chunky pixel mode but better than what you had on the A1200 or A4000 without AKIKO.

On a fast Amiga with 68030++ CPU you lose one frame. It's not that bad, but the problem was: People had to develop such stuff first and that again took years. I still remember the days when people were discussing a hell lot about chunky to planar merge speeds: "i got a merge in 24 cycles"... "hey but mine is 22 cycles" and then finally: "here's my 18 cycles merge". In the end you could play Doom on an Amiga in 386/486 speed, but it was years too late.

 

Anyway enough about the poor old miggy's problems at Commodore back to the 8bits. I doubt very much comparing budget games is worth the effort, no budget game is going to be utilising the full potential of either machine because they are cheap games developed in a very short space of time, there is simply not enough time/money to devote to doing anything like the advanced coding in full price game so I don't see the point of Rockfords repeated budget crap game comparisons. Sure one might be better than the other but neither is using the machine properly and so proves very little about either machines capabilities.

It's still some kind of benchmark. "What can be achieved with little time and money on this computer"

Actually, it's just a cash cow, just throw any old thing(if anything) to Atari,then spend a little more time on C64 since we already have programmers who can do that. Pretty much a waste of time and just shows they still had some c64 programmers around. The good Atari guys were long gone.

[Jetboot Jack]

Except that the PET was never designed to do anything other than display business applications on its monochrome 80-column screen.

 

That seems irrelevant to my post - fact is the PET was the FIRST generation Commodore computer in 1977, a contemporary of the Atari 800 (1979), TRS 80 (1977) and Apple 2 (1977)...

 

It's abilities were not in question - just that it was a machine (like those other 1977-1979 systems) that was sold to real people not electronics engineers...

 

sTeVE

[atarian63]

I think he was exaggerating. I've done it millions of times

True, hence the winking smiley.

 

It was just the most incredible hyperbole I've ever seen!!

 

Ok, thinking about this realistically, VGA came out in 87, so 87-92 is 5 years.

In computer technology lifetime, that is pretty extreme.

Yeah, I think it definitely is half a century, if you consider a "technological era" century.

 

desiv

Yep, Standard "renaisance ISA VGA card" it was the first we carried and the stills were stunning. Still the pc was a crap games machine for quite some time. Better to buy a NES for games in 87.

[atariksi]

You got what you asked for -- you are specifying more restrictions (rules) now. Yeah, it's lower resolution but that's not the restriction or pertinent to the point.

 

Hang on, i was talking about games like Red Max and Zybex, you said that a DLI every eight scanlines would balance the colour RAM on the C64 and i questioned how. ...

 

You can stop right there. I said the comparison would be more fair since you are using 40+ cycles to get the additional colors.

 

>Then we got onto GTIA modes and i found it interesting because i've thought about running a game at that res previously, but in the context we started with the GTIA modes were pretty much a moot point when they were introduced really...

 

Sorry, you claimed that GTIA couldn't do 1 color clock scroll. I also mentioned GPRIOR mode 0 so if resolution was important I would have talked about that rather than GTIA scrolling and color re-use.

 

It translates to "ugly" by saying it stands out like sore thumbs or doesn't look good. And I'm not insulting-- I'm saying don't be dumb as in don't pretend not to have said something like that.

 

No it means exactly what was said and i didn't use the word ugly or anything directly equivalent so if anybody is being dumb here it's the person reading their own meaning into what i've written.

Sorry, you specifically stated stands out like a sore thumb and looks wrong. That means ugly if you know your dictionary definitions. You are twisting things ON PURPOSE now rather than playing dumb.

 

>Of course that's not an insult either, just like telling someone that they're "full of bullcrap" for not agreeing with you wouild be, obviously...

 

That came recently after you disagreed on something obvious. Don't relate the two.

 

Of course, your full of bullcrap if you think total colors available for a sprite does not have an real objective value to make them beautiful. You yourself argued about how you have more colors for your sprites than Atari does. Was that also just your subjective perspective? It doesn't matter-- because the real world is MORE beautiful with MORE colors and shades.

 

Yes, of course i'm wrong! Having lots more colours about the place is always more beautiful; that's why a red skip full of garden waste, a couple of blue plastic lawn chairs and the carcass of a purple leather sofa crammed halfway in at one end is truly a sight to behold and a landfill, with the sunlight glistening off the bright yellow of a JCB as it playfully churns through the multicoloured garbage, why that has to bring a tear to even the most jaded eye. i understand now and it's no wonder that Picasso's blue period is ridiculed and reviled to this day, doing paintings without it looking like Rainbow Brite had vomited on the canvas? What was the man thinking for crying out loud?! It could never be as beautiful as a photo of all the Care Bears together...

Chewbacca defense. Take your bullcrap elsewhere. The point is pretty self-explanatory except for those who are emotionally biased and want to twist things into them.

 

>(Hmm... there might be just a teeny little degree of sarcasm in the above paragraph... thought i'd best point it to be on the safe side, you know what people around here are like for "interpreting" stuff! Back in a day or two. =-)

 

Yeah, I know you too well to know that you argued about the subjectivity of palette earlier in this thread. You are the one making no sense.