PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 What mode was that lizard pic in? It looks a bit MUCSU to me, in which case its no flicker and barely any cpu (just change sprite defs every so often down the screen). IFLI I think.. It's not MUCSU.. I thought you weren't including CPU driven modes Algorithm (on AA as thealgorithm) just released a new update to the MUCSU stuff the other day.. It's even better than before now http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=83041 hehe no, no cpu driven modes allowed from now on That's why I said compare emkays "skull" to the (Mermaid is it?) pic you posted. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 In that case obviously but then you know there are 1000s more C64 pics without any software involved, as Andy posted above for example, so compare that one with Emkay's instead OK, then compare to this one: http://g2f.atari8.info/big/fort_atari_raster&analmux.png (Original artwork/picture by Raster, imported to G2F format by me). There's only a handful of DLIs here & there to reposition some PM underlays....and, it's hi-res. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) I'm sorry, but if you want me to be honest that's not that great but then I never was much of an artist/art fan myself so can't really critique something apart from being honest and saying what I like or don't. To me it really doesn't compare to C64 hires+colour ram stuff and it is using DLIs for colour and pm changing so doesn't match with my "fair comparison" *edit* This comparison stuff is getting all mixed again now. I can see that you're saying if I say mucsu then you say "here, look at this" in which case I think mucsu is a lot better (my opinion). If you say take the last pic Andy posted and compare it to emkay's skull, well... One of the nicest pics I've seen on A8 recently is that static screen in The Shrine. No idea what mode/how it's done, I just like it but it's not exactly stunning compared to what's been done on C64 (again my opinion). Pete Edited October 2, 2009 by PeteD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Well, if you take a closer look you see it contains colours (or a colour resolution) the real C64 doesn't have. Flicker increases colour res. effectively, so it must be flicker. Or PAL blending ? We've only got 5 Luma levels, but it's still more colours.. Or do these not count as 'real' colours ? Sorry if it IS just PAL blending, my fault, of course C64 also has it. However, doesn't it use flicker then? Do you have a link of the .prg for this one? Anyway, IF this is PAL blending then it differs from how it works on A8, and that would be a mystery to me. To me it looks more like colour flicker than PAL blending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 ...I think the fairest comparision of picture modes is what the stock machine can do without any "extras" so c64 bitmap, A8 pick a mode + PMG ORing. No "raster" changes, so no colour changes, PMG position/size shifts etc. Plain old run a program, it displays a picture that the CPU has nothing to do with. Pete You can not really think any of Atari boys will agree to that kind of comparisson ? I think "some" would. Unfortunately for the A8 that "some" are the ones who know all this arguing is pointless anyway The only reason I'll argue is because I don't like to see people try to pull the wool over other peoples eyes, either with nonsense or misconceptions of either machine. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Well, if you take a closer look you see it contains colours (or a colour resolution) the real C64 doesn't have. Flicker increases colour res. effectively, so it must be flicker. Or PAL blending ? We've only got 5 Luma levels, but it's still more colours.. Or do these not count as 'real' colours ? Sorry if it IS just PAL blending, my fault, of course C64 also has it. However, doesn't it use flicker then? Do you have a link of the .prg for this one? Anyway, IF this is PAL blending then it differs from how it works on A8, and that would be a mystery to me. To me it looks more like colour flicker than PAL blending. I don't think it is PAL blending because as you say the X resolution is too fine for that, but I still say it's a good candidate for MUCSU mode, yes a software driven mode, but very little cpu compared to most of the others on either machine. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 hehe no, no cpu driven modes allowed from now on That's why I said compare emkays "skull" to the (Mermaid is it?) pic you posted. It is Mermaids work.. I just think there's no comparison, no matter how many DLIs can be thrown at it.. I mean, without any additional CPU help, this is what you get With a bit of CPU help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.atarimania.com Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Actually I am really surprised it is not on A8...American software house....even Apple II got a version...so why no A8 version even for $40 etc? Honestly it was one of the first games I got that made me sit up and think "wow" when I first played it....probably the best Ariolasoft release on the 64. A prototype supposedly exists. -- Atari Frog http://www.atarimania.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 ... The case of this partly done game does not apply in general. You don't have to toggle modes every line or skip lines. Just simple buffer swaps during VBI gives pretty good results and requires very little CPU time. In fact, you can build some pretty good images with little or zero flicker (if you plan it out by hand); if it's just a general algorithm (automated), it may give some flicker. I wrote this before, but here it is again (for shaded imagery): Original image: 5-bit depth (P=0..31), XRes: 160+ pixels, YRes: whatever Graphics 10 buffer: P(Gr10)=P>>2 Graphics 9 buffer: P-(P(Gr10)<<1)-2 Clip P(Gr9) so zero is minimum. 1. So we can alternate between G10 and G9 buffers - OK.. Understood.. 2. G10 gives us 9 colors ... So when you calculate P>>2 (same as P=P/4 -> P=0..7) you get 8 colors, 1 color remains free ? 3. G9 gives us 16 Luminances ... I know one of these modes is moved one color clock to the right ? What is "P-(P(Gr(10)<<1)-2" ? What is first P in there? Or is it maybe P=(P(Gr(10)<<1)-2 ? So P=(0..7) << 1 -> P=0..14 ? why -2 ? Simply put I think what you ment with those formulas is: separate luminance and color into two 4bit values and fill two buffers with those... It produces kinda 160x200 resolution but colors of pixels depend on pixel left and right of it.... I much more like the idea of mixing one row of 160 luminance pixels and one row of GTIA colored mode... It is 160x100 and pixels square so easy to work with... It does have 80x100 color grid but its better than 40x25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 What mode was that lizard pic in? It looks a bit MUCSU to me, in which case its no flicker and barely any cpu (just change sprite defs every so often down the screen). IFLI I think.. It's not MUCSU.. I thought you weren't including CPU driven modes Algorithm (on AA as thealgorithm) just released a new update to the MUCSU stuff the other day.. It's even better than before now http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=83041 hehe no, no cpu driven modes allowed from now on That's why I said compare emkays "skull" to the (Mermaid is it?) pic you posted. Pete Then it would be simple. Maybe you like/dislike one of these pics, but that's another question. Just look at technical aspects. Emkays pic isn't possible on C64, Andys pic isn't possible on A8. Neither of the two wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Sorry if it IS just PAL blending, my fault, of course C64 also has it. However, doesn't it use flicker then? Do you have a link of the .prg for this one? Anyway, IF this is PAL blending then it differs from how it works on A8, and that would be a mystery to me. To me it looks more like colour flicker than PAL blending. It's not just PAL blending in the one I posted.. It's 'interlaced' as well.. Here's the link.. http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=3148 I was just stating that PAL blending contributes a lot to helping out the the poor wee colour-crippled 64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 What mode was that lizard pic in? It looks a bit MUCSU to me, in which case its no flicker and barely any cpu (just change sprite defs every so often down the screen). IFLI I think.. It's not MUCSU.. I thought you weren't including CPU driven modes Algorithm (on AA as thealgorithm) just released a new update to the MUCSU stuff the other day.. It's even better than before now http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=83041 hehe no, no cpu driven modes allowed from now on That's why I said compare emkays "skull" to the (Mermaid is it?) pic you posted. Pete Then it would be simple. Maybe you like/dislike one of these pics, but that's another question. Just look at technical aspects. Emkays pic isn't possible on C64, Andys pic isn't possible on A8. Neither of the two wins. Isn't that kind of the point I'm making? I give up.. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analmux Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Isn't that kind of the point I'm making? I give up.. Pete Sorry man, didn't mean to make you feel sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Isn't that kind of the point I'm making? No! Your point is that the C64 is the superior machine. Superior implies that it is doing all better.... You wrote: Why don't you just admit the shortcomings of the A8 instead of trying to pass off worse quality stuff than the C64 can do? After putting a less complete version of the A8 to compare with a complete picture of the C64. And I was only showing the direction... In other words, you again hammered on the weak spot of the A8, the intentional reduced colours, to show that the C64 can do better.... every C64 freak comes here and is doing the same. ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Isn't that kind of the point I'm making? No! Your point is that the C64 is the superior machine. Superior implies that it is doing all better.... You wrote: Why don't you just admit the shortcomings of the A8 instead of trying to pass off worse quality stuff than the C64 can do? After putting a less complete version of the A8 to compare with a complete picture of the C64. And I was only showing the direction... In other words, you again hammered on the weak spot of the A8, the intentional reduced colours, to show that the C64 can do better.... every C64 freak comes here and is doing the same. ..... Yes, in that instance I did. And then you showed a "more complete one"? which still shows the shortcomings of that mode, unless you think otherwise? You take that message out of context, then you then take a message from god knows how many posts later totally out of context. That came after everyone starts posting different modes, resolutions, talking about 256 colours and not meaning it etc etc and I'd said to be fair we should compare similar modes (as similar as possible) and then it was a more sensible comparison. Of course you have to take it out of context so you can troll again.... I'm also NOT saying the C64 is the SUPERIOR machine, read my posts, oh you magically edited them. I say the A8 has some superior stuff and that I'm one of the "C64 guys" here who will readily admit that, so you're wrong YET AGAIN. *edit* Thinking about it for a minute it's you who caused this comparison of the "less complete picture" by posting some nasty version that just has some extra colours in big blocks. Once again you use 1/2 done work or 1/2 imagined ideas to try to prove a point then complain when people use what YOU posted as the comparison. If you don't want people to compare it don't post it, if you don't want people to comment on your "ideas" don't post them. It's quite a simple idea and freaking out at "C64 freaks/nerds" etc again just looks like more trolling. As far as you keep classing me as a C64 "whatever" I'm obviously less biased than you as I'm here learning A8 stuff, why aren't you on lemon or somewhere learning about C64 or any other site learning any of the other multitude of hardware I've worked on SINCE C64? Pete Edited October 2, 2009 by PeteD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 hehe no, no cpu driven modes allowed from now on That's why I said compare emkays "skull" to the (Mermaid is it?) pic you posted. It is Mermaids work.. I just think there's no comparison, no matter how many DLIs can be thrown at it.. I mean, without any additional CPU help, this is what you get Totally agreed, but then when I say that it gets shot down. It's very true that the GTIA modes can produce more colours but I think if anyone is truly honest and not trying to just win some imagined war, the C64 bitmap modes are more suited to producing high quality pictures. It's not an attack against the A8, it's just a reasonable conclusion to come to. If GTIA was even 2:1 AR it wouldn't be as bad, but 2:1 is bad enough, 4:1 is terrible, and flickering on either machine is a big nono imho. I know from working on Fist that with some arsing around you can recreate complex bitmaps (ala G2F) but nowhere near as complex as the C64 and you're having to use software to do it. I say again to emkay et al, it's NOT an attack against the A8, if that was my reason for being here I'd be joining Rockford posting screenshots and laughing at you. What I don't think is reasonable is to try to argue every point FOR the C64 down by some convoluted argument involving personal attacks, trolling and nonsense. I'm more likely to listen to someone like analmux who has proved he knows what he's talking about and posts at least finished pictures for comparison. In that case it IS personal taste if one "likes" it or not. Whether it compares to anything similar on C64 (or specturm, or amstrad etc) is another matter. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goochman Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 hehe no, no cpu driven modes allowed from now on That's why I said compare emkays "skull" to the (Mermaid is it?) pic you posted. It is Mermaids work.. I just think there's no comparison, no matter how many DLIs can be thrown at it.. I mean, without any additional CPU help, this is what you get Totally agreed, but then when I say that it gets shot down. It's very true that the GTIA modes can produce more colours but I think if anyone is truly honest and not trying to just win some imagined war, the C64 bitmap modes are more suited to producing high quality pictures. It's not an attack against the A8, it's just a reasonable conclusion to come to. If GTIA was even 2:1 AR it wouldn't be as bad, but 2:1 is bad enough, 4:1 is terrible, and flickering on either machine is a big nono imho. I know from working on Fist that with some arsing around you can recreate complex bitmaps (ala G2F) but nowhere near as complex as the C64 and you're having to use software to do it. I say again to emkay et al, it's NOT an attack against the A8, if that was my reason for being here I'd be joining Rockford posting screenshots and laughing at you. What I don't think is reasonable is to try to argue every point FOR the C64 down by some convoluted argument involving personal attacks, trolling and nonsense. I'm more likely to listen to someone like analmux who has proved he knows what he's talking about and posts at least finished pictures for comparison. In that case it IS personal taste if one "likes" it or not. Whether it compares to anything similar on C64 (or specturm, or amstrad etc) is another matter. Pete Pete - more Fist, less facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Pete - more Fist, less facts lol and of course you're right I've not got much free time as it is. Trying to renovate my house to sell and then I waste what time I have got typing all that! That could've been a 16bpp to A8 2bpp graphic converter or part of the collision box hit system Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 No doubt the C64 can put up some nice 8-bit-era art, but it really illustrates the palette limitations - almost every picture you see is so heavy in same shades of blue and brown that they grow tiresome quickly. They do look good, however - I'll give you that. What resolution would you say those pictures are in? hehe no, no cpu driven modes allowed from now on That's why I said compare emkays "skull" to the (Mermaid is it?) pic you posted. It is Mermaids work.. I just think there's no comparison, no matter how many DLIs can be thrown at it.. I mean, without any additional CPU help, this is what you get With a bit of CPU help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchman Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Isn't that kind of the point I'm making? No! Your point is that the C64 is the superior machine. Superior implies that it is doing all better.... You wrote: Why don't you just admit the shortcomings of the A8 instead of trying to pass off worse quality stuff than the C64 can do? After putting a less complete version of the A8 to compare with a complete picture of the C64. And I was only showing the direction... In other words, you again hammered on the weak spot of the A8, the intentional reduced colours, to show that the C64 can do better.... every C64 freak comes here and is doing the same. ..... Here's a quote what the experts have to say about this subject (from Commodore magazine ZZAP! 64, Issue 10 and Issue 11 Lucasfilm interview). " We're generally of the opinion that the Atari (8 bit) is a better computer for graphics at least, and it's easier to do fairly spectacular things on it." "...the major problem I think with the Commodore version is its lack of high resolution and the graphic presentation. The game dynamics themselves are exactly the same as the Atari version and the two run at exactly the same speed. So, that was of primary importance -- in order to make the gameplay the same as the Atari version. The game originally was not designed with conversion in mind, and so it made extensive use of the advanced hardware in the Atari, so as to perform the animation of the grid and so on." "I think our stuff looks the best on the Atari, but they're fairly close on the Commodore, although the graphics are certainly slower. We've been able to come across on both machines. There are some things you can do on the Atari that you just can't match, like the shading -- if you take a look at Koronis Rift on the Atari." Edited October 2, 2009 by frenchman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 So considering that the Lucasfilm projects were originally envisioned as an Atari experiment, what brought about the decision to market versions for other machines? "That was because the original games group was started through Atari. There were some very close ties to Atari and it wasn't until Atari folded and changed hands really, that we ended up making them for other computers -- although there were some plans early on to make the conversions anyway. The reason that we ended up primarily with Atari games at the beginning was because we were dealing so closely with Atari. We're generally of the opinion that the Atari is a better computer for graphics at least, and it's easier to do fairly spectacular things on it. But of course our Commodore programmers are just as excited about the Commodore 64. It's really a matter of viewpoint. There are things that you can do on each computer that will show it off best, and that's what we've been trying to do -- we're trying to emphasise on each one." Reads a little differently in context. These are guys who were closely tied to Atari, knew the Atari machine inside out and then had "commodore programmers". Also the term "graphics" applies to various different things in this case, animation, speed of rendering etc, not "pictures" like is being discusseed. They're also only the A8 experts No denying of course that the Lucas stuff was better on A8. I'm unfussed about resolutions etc on them because I don't notice when playing either version what res it is, the A8 ones are generally faster and that imho makes them more playable. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 As far as pictures go, you haven't seen many pictures then on A8. Some were posted in this thread and as far as software driven modes go, any images rendered with many shades will tend to look better on A8 even at half horizontal resolution. Well I have, and most (when not 64 knockoffs) the vast majority are bland and fairly boring, and do no favours for the world of Atari graphics.. ... Yeah, they should not be converted from C64 as those wouldn't improve on the colors. But I'm glad that you're happy to settle for 80 pixel horizontal resolution as being okay, because I just think that's a fairly poor show and that people settle for it because it's nice and easy to do, rather than actually put some effort into really using the stuff you've got to push the quality of the pictures.. I mean really, c'mon.. ... I wasn't settling on 80 pixels horizontally. Whether you look at interlaced or non-interlaced, you have more shades to work with and those type of pictures it would look better even at half resolution when compared to C64. You can do GPRIOR mode 0 and use shades there as well and there's hardly any CPU overhead there. You can also combine GTIA and GPRIOR mode 0. That's non-interlaced 160*200 at least. I used to play around with VGA 320*480*256 and 640*480*16 and images requiring lots of shading looked worse at the higher resolution because you had to drop many of the shades to fit into the 16-color range. And if you experiment with scanning images at 320*200 w/no shades and 160*200 w/many shades you will see that the latter looks better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atarigmr Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) hehe no, no cpu driven modes allowed from now on That's why I said compare emkays "skull" to the (Mermaid is it?) pic you posted. It is Mermaids work.. I just think there's no comparison, no matter how many DLIs can be thrown at it.. I mean, without any additional CPU help, this is what you get With a bit of CPU help This just shows that: More colors != Better. IMO it is the same having 256, 512, or 16M colors and being able to put (say) only 4/5 freely on screen it always will be falling short when comparing to 16 on screen freely. Edited October 2, 2009 by Atarigmr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 "...the major problem I think with the Commodore version is its lack of high resolution and the graphic presentation. The game dynamics themselves are exactly the same as the Atari version and the two run at exactly the same speed. So, that was of primary importance -- in order to make the gameplay the same as the Atari version. The game originally was not designed with conversion in mind, and so it made extensive use of the advanced hardware in the Atari, so as to perform the animation of the grid and so on." Out of context again. They're talking about Ballblazer and that because it was designed to use A8 hardware (something nobody sensible is denying is suited to BB) the C64 one had to run at a lower res to keep the speed up, not the C64 is lower res in general. I've got no problem with the statements, they're true, but please keep them in context so people know what the Lucas guys are talking about. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 http://www.zzap64.co.uk/zzap10/lucas_part1.html Just in case anyone wants to read it in full. It's always interesting to see what goes on behind the minds of these Atari guys Pete 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