atariksi Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 This will be an unpopular statement with at least half the people participating in this most epic of debates, but the recent posts show - to me - that the C64's hi-res bitmap images wipe the floor with many of the A8 offerings. I'm Atari through and through, but I wish the Atari had that level of control of colour at that resolution. It's pretty futile offering anything in the GTIA modes as a response to those C64 pics. Atari with VBXE2 - yes, naturally that's going to blow the C64 away. But we should expect that with such a fundamental hardware enhancement. First he has yet to make up his mind why he's posting spatially dithered images and claiming they are blended into single colors on the real machine. Secondly, just having twice the horizontal resolution does not make images better without regard for color content. Take a look at this example (original 24-bit 320*480, 256-color at half resolution, and 16-color at same resolution and then GTIA picture in gray-scale w/8-pixel sprite overlay) and I have worked with thousands of such images and they all show up better in 256 colors at half resolution than 16-colors: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atariksi Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 ... but why would it want to be a replica of that? ... Maybe you like a replica of this: That is horrible quality. Are you sure you have not seen what the C64 has to offer? I am sure if you did, you would not post a picture like this. The below is from my MUSC converter (and bear in mind that this only has sprite underlay) FLI in combination with this would look FAR better. It looks terrible and can't be compared to REAL colors. This is a spatial dither job (worse than temporal dither) and if you see it the way it is meant to be seen (full screen on TV), you will see those dithered colors. Now if you shrink it and see it as a small window, you don't see the ugly dither patterns. I would think the one posted in post #9499 looks better and that can also be enhanced further. The point I am making is you can't real colors with dithered colors. Wrong. Display on TV set and the colors will mix. It would actually be vice versa on TV set (Will look better) I would prefer dithering over blocky pixels anyday. I have yet to see any atari gfx mode look better than what is offered on the c64. The recent example pics have nice color selection of course, but so darn blocky. C64 images win hands down. But not to say that Atari does not have potential. I am sure its capable of something but I have not seen it yet You are wrong and just speculating like a C64 fanboy. If colors will mix, then show the color mixed version why are you posting an image that's non-representative of the actual image. You are just blurting out C64 wins hands down because you are PASSING JUDGEMENT according to what you think it should be like. You don't even understand that having REAL colors is better than spatially dithered colors. Perhaps, you need to pick up some books on image processing rather than speculate. You have shown images when their representative on A8 don't exist and you haven't even shown the exact image. People have to guess whether it's PAL mixing, artifacting, or emulator snap-shot. Stop the rubbish "I am sure it's capable of something." You are misjudging the paintings-- they look more beautiful with the bigger palette. Of course, you have not seen better results on A8 because you are NOT looking at the painting but complaining about whether it's hi-res or not and discarding the color content. By the way, your images are spatially dithered on both axes-- don't you think that is self-contradictory to your remark that you are looking only for hi-res images? You are like some clown who claims he's digging for gold, but already has made up his mind that it must be in the Sahara desert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyace Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 This will be an unpopular statement with at least half the people participating in this most epic of debates, but the recent posts show - to me - that the C64's hi-res bitmap images wipe the floor with many of the A8 offerings. I'm Atari through and through, but I wish the Atari had that level of control of colour at that resolution. It's pretty futile offering anything in the GTIA modes as a response to those C64 pics. Atari with VBXE2 - yes, naturally that's going to blow the C64 away. But we should expect that with such a fundamental hardware enhancement. First he has yet to make up his mind why he's posting spatially dithered images and claiming they are blended into single colors on the real machine. Secondly, just having twice the horizontal resolution does not make images better without regard for color content. Take a look at this example (original 24-bit 320*480, 256-color at half resolution, and 16-color at same resolution and then GTIA picture in gray-scale w/8-pixel sprite overlay) and I have worked with thousands of such images and they all show up better in 256 colors at half resolution than 16-colors: That last picture shows 253 colours - and seems to have detail at 320 pixel resolution, That's pretty amazing for an A8 image? How do you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 BTW, the remaining copies of Uridium on A8: Astromeda, Vanadium and Thunderfox. All of them are shity Thunderfox is from Atari themselves isn't it? Yes, even Atari programmers were not able to make it properly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.atarimania.com Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 It was an independent creation first released on tape by Atari's UK division so no cigar... Also, pretty sure you'd be taken a lot more seriously without all the silly emoticons. I like the comparisons myself, it's just too bad you write like a ten-year old... -- Atari Frog http://www.atarimania.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Err Rockford, wait - you should not compare a commercial game (Uridium on the C64) with a PD/freeware game (Oxygene) on the A8... Why not ? The atari game library is so thin and after all, when an PD/freeware game is very good on Atari (Yoomp, Crownland), all atarians brag about it and make comparisons. Besides, the problem with an A8 equivalent of Uridium is that, there are many imitations. I checked all of them and had to choose Oxygene because it's the closest to original (they tried to make a carbon copy). All in all, C64 Uridium is much better than all A8 imitations, even Thunderfox mady by Atari is poor. It proves what I said before, Atarians have tried very hard to copy or imitate this game but never managed to do so properly. Why not compare Uridium (C64) with Uridium (A8, Rino marketing or something similar completely unknown). The C64 will easily win here too... http://www.mushca.com/f/atari/index.php?dl=092 The game you linked to is Astromeda (which I mentioned already), but somebody renamed it into Uridium. Last not least there is also "The Last Guardian" a follow-up to Mirax Force, scrolling vertically. As you said The Last Guardian is a different game than Uridium, so there is no use comparing them. ..... or to give all your comparisons a halt: All C64 games are better..... Let's not exaggerate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) ... Poor programming again, probably some c64 programmer not knowing A8. You have a talent for finding the few that exist. You have to be carefully with his reviews since he is biased fanatic of C64 so sees nothing advantageous on Atari's side even the palette and CPU. So some games although rated by him as poor are actually better technically than C64 versions. You are right,even when the issues on both side have been covered here endlessly he continues on. Indeed very sad... So, Castle Wolfenstein is better on A8.... LOL atariksi can even prove that water isn't wet and grass isn't green and even that Rocford is a biased idiot... What a distinct sign of helplessness I love you too Just the facts He over-did it and gave himself away with "ugly colors on A8" and other incorrect statements as if it was better for Atari to use the C64 palette. Any sane person will do his own review rather than listen to his biased fanatical views. So, in Atari land water isn't still wet and grass isn't still green. Keep on dreaming guys.... ROTFL Edited October 4, 2009 by Rockford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miker Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Maybe tell something that really impress us. And yes we do dream - angry why not about Commies? :-] Still prefer Atari - sorry, you can't do better then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym00 Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) Looks like you had lots of spare time today and shamelessly picking on non-programmer with your biased incorrect views of Atari hardware capabilities. If you are so much into higher resolution, you were better off with a PC CGA machine that does 640*200 and 320*200 in linear fashion. You also would have gotten a bigger color RAM in 80*25 text extendible to graphics modes and 16 color palette. As a bonus, you would have gotten linear graphics. One graphics mode does not make a machine. And your graphics mode isn't exactly 16 colors for any pixel not even at 160*200. You are wrong here as already demonstrated many times-- Atari can do more than 2 colors in Graphics 8. Leaving aside, DLI-based changes, here's a simple BASIC example that even you can understand: Obviously your sense of humour box needs a total reboot again.. If you can't see the irony in what I posted then god help you.. Anyway, I'm done with you now once and for all.. You're a tedious man with a penchant for twisting the words of others to meet your agenda.. Auf wiedersehen.. Edited October 4, 2009 by andym00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Also, pretty sure you'd be taken a lot more seriously without all the silly emoticons. I like the comparisons myself, it's just too bad you write like a ten-year old... -- Atari Frog http://www.atarimania.com Contrary to most atarians I prefer more hi-res graphics than less low-res on screen. Therefore, I use a lot of emoticons. Love me or hate me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Maybe tell something that really impress us. And yes we do dream - angry why not about Commies? :-] Still prefer Atari - sorry, you can't do better then. Well, C64 users live in the real world. We don't need to dream about great games or demos, because we already have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Looks like you had lots of spare time today and shamelessly picking on non-programmer with your biased incorrect views of Atari hardware capabilities. If you are so much into higher resolution, you were better off with a PC CGA machine that does 640*200 and 320*200 in linear fashion. You also would have gotten a bigger color RAM in 80*25 text extendible to graphics modes and 16 color palette. As a bonus, you would have gotten linear graphics. One graphics mode does not make a machine. And your graphics mode isn't exactly 16 colors for any pixel not even at 160*200. You are wrong here as already demonstrated many times-- Atari can do more than 2 colors in Graphics 8. Leaving aside, DLI-based changes, here's a simple BASIC example that even you can understand: Obviously your sense of humour box needs a total reboot again.. If you can't see the irony in what I posted then god help you.. Anyway, I'm done with you now once and for all.. You're a tedious man with a penchant for twisting the words of others to meet your agenda.. Auf wiedersehen.. Damn you andym00...you did it again and I almost died laughing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Well, C64 users live in the real world. We don't need to dream about great games or demos, because we already have them. Oxymoron, this is called Show me just one "great" demo. The only "demo" to talk about is "edge of disgrace" because it fits together from the start to the end. Every demo on the C64 stops being interesting after the watcher misses some nice lightning FX, clean "realtime" animations without flicker, interlace or else.... the "off" colours also show the low limits of that machine very fast, and depending on the low CPU speed, you see often "reused" graphics parts, resulting in an off the place caleidoscopic effect that also kills the fun of watching . C64 sometimes has good parts inside the shown demos. Just the presentation is mostly better than in A8 demos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 ...Secondly, just having twice the horizontal resolution does not make images better without regard for color content. Take a look at this example (original 24-bit 320*480, 256-color at half resolution, and 16-color at same resolution and then GTIA picture in gray-scale w/8-pixel sprite overlay) and I have worked with thousands of such images and they all show up better in 256 colors at half resolution than 16-colors: Ehhhrrmmm... I can see vertical stripes 2 or 4 pixels wide and I guess they come from combination of GTIA mode and sprite overlay. But I also see hires pixels in there ? Did you use some PC tool for resizing image or something else because it doesn't look like its possible on A8 ? And how do you use that sprite overlay ? Gprior 0 effect ? 40 pixels wide ? Did you use some custom converter ? And is GTIA-part mix of two modes ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Well, it'd be more an ease thing for myself going for 80x96 to be honest; i've been trying to get some game graphics working in 80x192 and, despite what atariksi thinks, drawing anything that actually works is seriously fecking difficult at 4:1 pixel ratios! Thing is, i've got most of the damned back engine working with 4:1 ratio and know that if i switch to 2:1 it doesn't even need to do half the work i spent so long unrolling and optimising... and part of me is rather pleased with the work done so far and is trying to talk the rest of me into shutting the feck up and getting on with drawing something to use it! i'm going to have to write some custom tools for this job anyway because there really isn't anything out there to do what i need doing... so i have to settle on the resolution before i write those tools. Can you use the free time somewhere else? If so, seems to me preserving the optimising with the 2:1 ratio might pay off. On the current engine no, with some recoding possibly but it'd need juggling (and me to remember how to do a few things i've not coded in a while) to find out; certainly i can throw some of that extra time at cosmetic details (a nice 2:1 ratio sixteen luma status panel perhaps, possibly something a bit busier even). That said, i'd almost lay money that this thing is going to die on it's arse on an NTSC machine even after i've unrolled the sprite rendering so perhaps i should think about going to 2:1 just to leave a bit of free time for that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Well, C64 users live in the real world. We don't need to dream about great games or demos, because we already have them. Oxymoron, this is called Show me just one "great" demo. The only "demo" to talk about is "edge of disgrace" because it fits together from the start to the end. Every demo on the C64 stops being interesting after the watcher misses some nice lightning FX, clean "realtime" animations without flicker, interlace or else.... the "off" colours also show the low limits of that machine very fast, and depending on the low CPU speed, you see often "reused" graphics parts, resulting in an off the place caleidoscopic effect that also kills the fun of watching . C64 sometimes has good parts inside the shown demos. Just the presentation is mostly better than in A8 demos. What's the point? Just got to csdb or Pouet and you'll find hundreds of great demos but of course you'll disagree because you're so biased so why should anyone waste their time. If I thought for one second you'd be unbiased I'd point you in the right direction.. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 ...Secondly, just having twice the horizontal resolution does not make images better without regard for color content. Take a look at this example (original 24-bit 320*480, 256-color at half resolution, and 16-color at same resolution and then GTIA picture in gray-scale w/8-pixel sprite overlay) and I have worked with thousands of such images and they all show up better in 256 colors at half resolution than 16-colors: Ehhhrrmmm... I can see vertical stripes 2 or 4 pixels wide and I guess they come from combination of GTIA mode and sprite overlay. But I also see hires pixels in there ? Did you use some PC tool for resizing image or something else because it doesn't look like its possible on A8 ? And how do you use that sprite overlay ? Gprior 0 effect ? 40 pixels wide ? Did you use some custom converter ? And is GTIA-part mix of two modes ? Cheating? oh my!!! And of course it's not even cheating to choose a picture that's all grey apart from one blob of colour in the middle just the right size for some PMG overlay, no, not cheating? highly selective maybe and not applying to many more cases than that one.. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popmilo Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Show me just one "great" demo. The only "demo" to talk about is "edge of disgrace" because it fits together from the start to the end. Every demo on the C64 stops being interesting after the watcher misses some nice lightning FX, clean "realtime" animations without flicker, interlace or else.... the "off" colours also show the low limits of that machine very fast, and depending on the low CPU speed, you see often "reused" graphics parts, resulting in an off the place caleidoscopic effect that also kills the fun of watching . C64 sometimes has good parts inside the shown demos. Just the presentation is mostly better than in A8 demos. I love Numen on A8 for its 3d stuff but I don't think its better demo then these: Natural Wonders 2 http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=72560 Desert dream http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=48039 Deus Ex Machina http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=11585 Maybe its just me but these are damn good IMHO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchman Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Also, pretty sure you'd be taken a lot more seriously without all the silly emoticons. I like the comparisons myself, it's just too bad you write like a ten-year old... -- Atari Frog http://www.atarimania.com Contrary to most atarians I prefer more hi-res graphics than less low-res on screen. Therefore, I use a lot of emoticons. Love me or hate me. What was your comparison? Milk Race. Oh yes, as printed in ZZAP! 64 issue 28: "blocky cyclists, Legoland backdrops, awful collision detection, badly animated riders, poor joystick control....etc; overall 34 out of 100%" You stick to your low-res C64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchman Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Looks like you had lots of spare time today and shamelessly picking on non-programmer with your biased incorrect views of Atari hardware capabilities. If you are so much into higher resolution, you were better off with a PC CGA machine that does 640*200 and 320*200 in linear fashion. You also would have gotten a bigger color RAM in 80*25 text extendible to graphics modes and 16 color palette. As a bonus, you would have gotten linear graphics. One graphics mode does not make a machine. And your graphics mode isn't exactly 16 colors for any pixel not even at 160*200. You are wrong here as already demonstrated many times-- Atari can do more than 2 colors in Graphics 8. Leaving aside, DLI-based changes, here's a simple BASIC example that even you can understand: Obviously your sense of humour box needs a total reboot again.. If you can't see the irony in what I posted then god help you.. Anyway, I'm done with you now once and for all.. You're a tedious man with a penchant for twisting the words of others to meet your agenda.. Auf wiedersehen.. Damn you andym00...you did it again and I almost died laughing Wow, you seem to laugh about anything Andym00 says, joined at the hip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteD Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) Speaking of A8 demos, is there a definitive (or at least decent) list of "top" demos? Atarimania I noticed has THREE listed in the top 25 (as voted by visitors) !? Of course I already know Numen, Joyride, Illusia, The Shrine which are all great, some better than others of course but a nice list of prods would be cool. *edit* Seems the pouet list is a lot more complete than the last time I checked so I've got prods to keep me happy now Having said that and replying again to emkay's post, how many of THOSE have repeated bits? nearly all of them, oo look a 3D object, and another 20 and ooo a chessboard zoomer again and again and again There are some great prods on A8 but there are a hell of a lot that are equally as boring as emkay seems to think all the C64 ones are. And of course none of the A8 routines are, let's say "homages" to the C64 ones are they? Pete Edited October 4, 2009 by PeteD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Umm c64 looks terrible, typical of the time period. Amazing it ever caught on.. Assuming you're still talking about Uridium at this point, it's so "terrible" in fact that there are no less than four A8 games trying to copy it pretty much directly in some form (Astromeda doesn't try to duplicate the gameplay exactly because it's unidirectional, but there are Vanadium, Thunderfox, Mirax Force and Oxygene), one taking the graphics directly from Andy Braybrook's original and Chris Murray has openly stated that the C64 game was his inspiration (i'd always assumed he'd nicked some of the deck graphics anyway, but they're not identical...) AtariMania even classifies all four of those games as "Shoot'em Up! - Uridium" so it's extremely difficult to argue that Uridium didn't have an impact on gamers generally back in the day, so whilst you personally may feel it looks terrible with hindsight (and there's that good ol' subjectivity argument bubbling under again, don't tell atariksi!) at the time there were several people trying to clone it on other platforms such as Psycastria on the BBC Micro and at least four A8 developers and indeed Atari themselves (and indeed the multiple publishers who put out Mirax Force) disagreed with you pretty strongly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMR Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) What was your comparison? Milk Race. Oh yes, as printed in ZZAP! 64 issue 28: "blocky cyclists, Legoland backdrops, awful collision detection, badly animated riders, poor joystick control....etc; overall 34 out of 100%" You stick to your low-res C64. Sorry, your logic just totally collapsed there... the Zzap! review was pointing out the blockiness in Milk Race because what it was doing wasn't the norm on the C64, so your comment about the "low-res C64" when the mag you're quoting are lambasting that game specifically for being a lower res than the C64 would usually offer takes a severe kicking; even if it struggled back to it's feet, the A8 version of Milk Race being a lower resolution than the C64 one floors it a second time... Edited October 4, 2009 by TMR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockford Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Also, pretty sure you'd be taken a lot more seriously without all the silly emoticons. I like the comparisons myself, it's just too bad you write like a ten-year old... -- Atari Frog http://www.atarimania.com Contrary to most atarians I prefer more hi-res graphics than less low-res on screen. Therefore, I use a lot of emoticons. Love me or hate me. What was your comparison? Milk Race. Oh yes, as printed in ZZAP! 64 issue 28: "blocky cyclists, Legoland backdrops, awful collision detection, badly animated riders, poor joystick control....etc; overall 34 out of 100%" You stick to your low-res C64. You still don't get any hints, do you ? but that's okay, I guess we shouldn't expect too much from you in that department LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Ehhhrrmmm... This suites more to gr.9 without a single cycle of cpu help: 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