Atari v Commodore

[emkay]

What are the limitations of the Atari800's Hires Mode.

 

Possible max. resolution is 352x239 for hires. Monitoring devices show up to 336x239.

The colours got restricted intentionally to have a different brigtness of the background colour. It was done by the fact that NTSC is not able to show real colours in hires.

Using the PMs you get additional colours, but they were restricted to "colour clocks" which means 2 hires dots. You also can do some colour changes somewhere on every scanline.

An interesting find of Rybags is the "real" interlace which gives a visual resolution of 352x478... and it works fine....

 

 

[emkay]

We can all clearly see who is dumb one, the one who constantly resorts to insults in EVERY post because they can't discuss like an adult.

 

 

 

Personal attacks is one of your favors. So, yes, people may see...

Edited October 4, 2009 by emkay

[PeteD]

We can all clearly see who is dumb one, the one who constantly resorts to insults in EVERY post because they can't discuss like an adult.

 

 

 

Personal attacks is one of your favors. So, yes, people may see...

 

I don't make personal comments unless it's done to me first and mine tend to be as harsh as "you're talking nonsense" so far over the last few days you've called me a freak, a nerd, dumb, and accused me of lying on at least 2 occasions. I hope you enjoy your oblivious state of mind..

 

To continue the "C64 is easier to code on that A8" here's a favourite of the A8 crowd, lets quote one of the "Gods"

 

What was your favorite part of "Dropzone," on a technical level?

 

Squeezing the hardware in the Atari 800 to its limits and making it better than anything else then available. What was more amazing to me was the challenge of making it work on the less capable Commodore 64. It was a real nightmare implementation, but I did it.

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

 

Actually Pete, though you might like to diminish just "selling" or "using" that's mainly just crap.

I have attended more developement conferences that I care to go over. Manufacturer demos and have flown around the country for various forums and symposiums in the industry over the years. Met Tramiel in both commodore and Atari iterations. EA,Activison,etc, met with them all back in the hey day.Was a chain store level buyer at CES during the 80's and early 90's and was wined and dined by all these companies. So to try to diminish my view as you have written a couple lines of code here and there is just silly.

Technical specs are very well known over the years and experience shows when "poor programming" takes place.

No one including most users back then were blind(though I think some coders thought so). Kind of like shovelware today,there were many titles I would refuse to recommend or even carry to customers or to the store locations we had.

In other words we reviewed what we bought and sold, in order to assist customers and store managers.

We listened to customers as well including user groups of the day for input on the quality of items.

I'll stand by may statements here in this thread.

Time and experience,were you in the trenches selling and dealing with this stuff?

Games are written for the players and who would know better than the supplier back in the day? Unlike now there were few sources that were up to the minute.

Not to mention we ran 2 service departments and board level hardware work was our specialty.

 

Sorry, missed this one.

 

Don't take it so personally. I'm in no way trying to diminish your roles in the industry, simply pointing out that if anyone has the right to judge other peoples code to the level where emkay says something is technically much better, it's another coder. I also don't see what me being in the trenches selling games would have to do with it either. I'm not talking someone's ability to judge quality or playability, or trying to do the best by their customers, that's your reading of it. This stuff started over emkays post and that's all I'm replying to apart from saying as a coder I know if something is "technically" far better or not.

 

*edit*

I also somehow missed your comment about me writing a couple of lines of code here and there. Well, another person who will make comments like that while having no clue what the person they're talking about has done. Certainly written more than "a couple" lines of code, or "a couple" games. What else can be expected on this forum though? You post something, it gets someones back up and this crap starts.

 

 

 

Pete

Edited October 4, 2009 by PeteD

[analmux]

:love: :love: WHO WILL GET POST NUMBER 10000!!!!! :love: :love:

[potatohead]

The colours got restricted intentionally to have a different brigtness of the background colour. It was done by the fact that NTSC is not able to show real colours in hires.

 

Not true at all.

 

Simple NTSC signals, where the color reference is consistent across all scan lines, combined with a non-vertically interlaced frame yields the color limitations. The 160 pixel mode is consistent with these limitations, and is commonly referenced as the "color clock". Better NTSC signal characteristics are possible, and with them comes better color at higher resolutions.

 

The Atari video system is based off the simple NTSC signal. This is exactly why all the scrolling, PM graphics, etc... are keyed to it. A half pixel shift with that signal, would throw all the colors off.

 

That leads to why the 320 pixel mode is limited in the way it is. Changing the intensity of a pixel won't significantly impact the color of it. The color is impacted though, just depends on the base color chosen. In monochrome, the Atari resolution is 320 pixels. In color, it's 160, assuming the 40 byte DMA setting.

 

The C64 video system outputs a better NTSC signal. Color is interlaced horizontally. It's video system can address color at 320 pixels, and do so without significant color changes. That's where all the 320 pixel smooth scrolling comes from. Because of this, there really is no color limitation at 320 pixels, other than the usual smearing and such that would occur, depending on the display used.

 

To be clear here, this is not "because NTSC cannot display". This is simply a video signal implementation difference between the two machines. The Atari way of doing things is older than the C= way of doing things, and the resolution differences are a direct reflection of that. IMHO, this was a leading edge thing done by the C= team. As time passed, more devices output the better signal, and their detail capabilities were notably improved over those that didn't.

 

At the time the machines were in production, it was questionable as to whether or not a given TV would be capable of resolving the improved color. The C64, with the very nice C= monitors was notably clearer than most of the other offerings out there.

 

Atari used static color timing, Color Computer I, II, III used it, Apple ][ used it, I think the VIC 20 used it too, along with the TI, which over drove this a bit to 256 pixels addressable color. The C64 was first out of the gate with a great video signal, and should be recognized for that.

 

To me, this explains a lot about the ongoing focus on resolution and detail. Of course! Those were primary selling points of the machine!

 

The Color Computer III really should have gone the C64 way with it's composite video signal, as it had 64 addressable color capability. The fact that it didn't meant poor quality color TV display capability, but on the up side today, 256 color artifacting capability, that went unused throughout the life of the machine...

 

Some consoles used better video signals, and did well in the market place. The most notable from that time period has to be the NES, which took the same overall approach. Not too deep of a color palette, but nice detail. I think time has told us that is a winning combination.

 

This is one of the questions I always wanted to ask Jay. At the time he was designing graphics systems, the average TV really wouldn't benefit from the better signal. Plus, a nice, stable display was easier for reading and such. Right about that time, a whole bunch of stuff got better, leaving Ataris at a disadvantage color / detail wise. Wonder if he ever looked back on that, thinking a bit more effort on the signal end of things would have played out a lot differently.

 

I've always thought the VCS influenced the home computers in a negative way because of this. Don't get me wrong, I like the look, and enjoy gaming and such, but do miss the resolution needed for good looking color text.

[Rockford]

Run that game on NTSC, or without S-video, and it looks a whole lot better. Artifacting is used on the Atari and Apple ports of AUTO DUEL.

 

"Lord British" -- Origin systems, made heavy use of artifacting because Apple was one of their supported platforms. Many of their titles could have been better on both Atari and C64, had the hardware been used a bit more. BTW: Many of the better screens in their titles looked great on Apple, because of how it did color.

 

When a title is meant to be monochrome, something other than the vertical stripes is normally used to texture the screen, just FYI for future (false) comparisons. Neither machine (Atari or C64 is used to anywhere near it's potential on this particular title.)

As usual atarians tend to complicate simple things, so let's make it simple again. This game looks the same (HAS REAL COLOURS) on all C64 computers (doesn't matter PAL or NTSC). On Atari it uses "artifact trick" (only NTSC) that blinks and the game doesn't look nearly as good as on C64. So these are not TRUE COLOURS. This comparison isn't false at all, the only false thing is that "Atari artifact trick". It proves that C64 is better and more flexible computer. Simple as that.

[analmux]

SID, no, you don't just use notes and it plays correctly, go write a SID music routine.

Hmmmm, might be interesting....Suppose the SID routine is finished (by no matter who), then try to adapt it to a Pokey routine. You'll find out about the real Pokey troubles...

[PeteD]

:love: :love: WHO WILL GET POST NUMBER 10000!!!!! :love: :love:

 

Todays post stats say the front runners (in order of most likely based on post rate) are emkay, atariski, TMR, Rockford, me

 

 

Pete

[emkay]

 

 

 

You really should get grownup. You know that english isn't my native language. But you put all of my written words on the scale. In your case just to feel insulted and to tell people how dumb I am.

It seems, you don't even know how small minded you look.

All based on the fact that we have different opinions.

 

Well, it seems, I have to learn more, but you have learn from scratch.

As most of the C64 contingent that doesn't understand that their opinions and taste do not suite to all humans on the world.

Today no one cares about the C64 for real. 3D is gaming of today and music is based on multisynth/orchestral sounds.

The A8 is for me like some puzzle, but nothing to defend.. Except against people who don't accept the opinion of others ...

[analmux]

...As usual atarians tend to complicate simple things, so let's make it simple again. This game looks the same (HAS REAL COLOURS) on all C64 computers (doesn't matter PAL or NTSC). On Atari it uses "artifact trick" (only NTSC) that blinks and the game doesn't look nearly as good as on C64. So these are not TRUE COLOURS. This comparison isn't false at all, the only false thing is that "Atari artifact trick". It proves that C64 is better and more flexible computer. Simple as that.

Rockford....any other hobbies?

[PeteD]

SID, no, you don't just use notes and it plays correctly, go write a SID music routine.

Hmmmm, might be interesting....Suppose the SID routine is finished (by no matter who), then try to adapt it to a Pokey routine. You'll find out about the real Pokey troubles...

 

That's not the argument though. emkay says c64 games are easier to write and says thats true because SID has a more accurate frequency range and an adsr. That doesn't equate to writing a game. Once you write your pokey playing code, you use it over and over, not try to port a C64 one. If you're a cross platform musician you write core code that shares the notation across platforms. None of that makes "games" harder to code.

 

 

Pete

[potatohead]

LOL @ "True Colors"

 

Well, I suppose the average Apple ][ user would disagree with the statement that their machine is really just monochrome.

[analmux]

SID, no, you don't just use notes and it plays correctly, go write a SID music routine.

Hmmmm, might be interesting....Suppose the SID routine is finished (by no matter who), then try to adapt it to a Pokey routine. You'll find out about the real Pokey troubles...

 

That's not the argument though. emkay says c64 games are easier to write and says thats true because SID has a more accurate frequency range and an adsr. That doesn't equate to writing a game. Once you write your pokey playing code, you use it over and over, not try to port a C64 one. If you're a cross platform musician you write core code that shares the notation across platforms. None of that makes "games" harder to code.

 

 

Pete

Yes, you're right, but to do f.e. sawtooth & triangle waves on Pokey, we suddenly need a whole different approach, compared to pokey standard square waves. Another point: There's, even nowadays, no pokey tracker supporting the correct pulsewave handling, as it was never correctly explained in any official Atar manual. We still need somebody to find out ( ). That was never the case for SID. From the start people knew how to manage music on SID. It was an open book, compared to pokey.

[+MrFish]

Run that game on NTSC, or without S-video, and it looks a whole lot better. Artifacting is used on the Atari and Apple ports of AUTO DUEL.

 

When a title is meant to be monochrome, something other than the vertical stripes is normally used to texture the screen, just FYI for future (false) comparisons.

On Atari it uses "artifact trick" (only NTSC) that blinks and the game doesn't look nearly as good as on C64. So these are not TRUE COLOURS.

Where did you get the idea that artifacted colors "blink"? They don't.

Edited October 4, 2009 by MrFish

[PeteD]

 

 

 

You really should get grownup. You know that english isn't my native language. But you put all of my written words on the scale. In your case just to feel insulted and to tell people how dumb I am.

It seems, you don't even know how small minded you look.

All based on the fact that we have different opinions.

 

Well, it seems, I have to learn more, but you have learn from scratch.

As most of the C64 contingent that doesn't understand that their opinions and taste do not suite to all humans on the world.

Today no one cares about the C64 for real. 3D is gaming of today and music is based on multisynth/orchestral sounds.

The A8 is for me like some puzzle, but nothing to defend.. Except against people who don't accept the opinion of others ...

 

Dude, please, where have I taken you been a non native English speaker as an advantage? You HAVE insulted me and others over and over, I wouldn't use any word I might think could be insulting in a language that wasn't my own so that's no excuse.

 

If you think I look small minded, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I'm the one here learning and coding on A8, where is your C64 contribution? Go back over the thread, read my posts, read how often I DO defend the A8.

 

I'm also not one of the "c64 contingent" as I've said many many times (even said I was going to get a tshirt printed with it on one time). I'm cross platform, worked on nearly everything apart from A8, until now.

 

I also will accept anyone's opinion and will even often agree as long as it's not just blatantly, provably, wrong.

 

The problem I have is when you (and others) seemingly post without thinking first, then you get defensive instead of just saying ok, my bad or just that you don't agree, all this bullshit starts again, that gets me riled up so I reply. I don't want to just block people because everyone has good things to say at some point.

 

 

Pete

[PeteD]

SID, no, you don't just use notes and it plays correctly, go write a SID music routine.

Hmmmm, might be interesting....Suppose the SID routine is finished (by no matter who), then try to adapt it to a Pokey routine. You'll find out about the real Pokey troubles...

 

That's not the argument though. emkay says c64 games are easier to write and says thats true because SID has a more accurate frequency range and an adsr. That doesn't equate to writing a game. Once you write your pokey playing code, you use it over and over, not try to port a C64 one. If you're a cross platform musician you write core code that shares the notation across platforms. None of that makes "games" harder to code.

 

 

Pete

Yes, you're right, but to do f.e. sawtooth & triangle waves on Pokey, we suddenly need a whole different approach, compared to pokey standard square waves. Another point: There's, even nowadays, no pokey tracker supporting the correct pulsewave handling, as it was never correctly explained in any official Atar manual. We still need somebody to find out ( ). That was never the case for SID. From the start people knew how to manage music on SID. It was an open book, compared to pokey.

 

But then look at the advances in SID stuff even recently. "real" echo, samples played on channels with filtering not just the volume altering samples. I understand totally what you're saying that the possibilities of the POKEY still haven't been fully tapped BUT a) that's STILL not the point, you write a pokey player, use it in your games, job done and b) surely if the players don't do what you know they can, that's A8 coders fault? I'd be happy to help write a new tracker with you guys help when I'm done with Exploding Fist. I think it also needs a better pokey emulation though? so maybe a native tracker?

 

 

Pete

[Rockford]

LOL @ "True Colors"

 

Well, I suppose the average Apple ][ user would disagree with the statement that their machine is really just monochrome.

So, we are talking about Apple computers now What's next ? BTW, tell euoropean and australian Atari users this "colour story". They will be pleased at how it works

Edited October 4, 2009 by Rockford

[analmux]

I'd be happy to help write a new tracker with you guys help when I'm done with Exploding Fist. I think it also needs a better pokey emulation though? so maybe a native tracker?

Any help is appreciated. Consider me as the one who took many hours to study the chips sound features. I've been thinking of writing a new pokey tracker, but time is my limit.

[oky2000]

Actually Rockford has a point about artifacting, it's a piece of $hit idea that limits the Apple II and A8 in non NTSC countries.

 

PAL is already superior to NTSC in all ways except frame rate so to base your multicolour modes on some weird colour inaccurate crap TV system is a bit dumb and half the world won't like your graphics on their TVs.

 

NTSC/PAL should only be an issue of frame rate, and at 50/60fps coding slick routines is more important on 2D arcade games than the 15% difference in speed...Uridium sure as hell doesn't need extra speed nor does Alleykat

[PeteD]

I'd be happy to help write a new tracker with you guys help when I'm done with Exploding Fist. I think it also needs a better pokey emulation though? so maybe a native tracker?

Any help is appreciated. Consider me as the one who took many hours to study the chips sound features. I've been thinking of writing a new pokey tracker, but time is my limit.

 

Well any planning you've done and knowledge you have (which is light years beyond mine for pokey) will be great. We need this Wiki still. I set one up as a test on a free wiki site the other day but being free it was far too bloated with ads. I think some free hosting (there's plenty of good ad free places around) with some wiki software installed would be better. Then people can get invited to dump info in one place.

 

 

Pete

[Rockford]

...As usual atarians tend to complicate simple things, so let's make it simple again. This game looks the same (HAS REAL COLOURS) on all C64 computers (doesn't matter PAL or NTSC). On Atari it uses "artifact trick" (only NTSC) that blinks and the game doesn't look nearly as good as on C64. So these are not TRUE COLOURS. This comparison isn't false at all, the only false thing is that "Atari artifact trick". It proves that C64 is better and more flexible computer. Simple as that.

Rockford....any other hobbies?

Yeaaah, you know...space flights, liver surgeries, nuclear physics and so on

[analmux]

Rockford....any other hobbies?

Yeaaah, you know...space flights, liver surgeries, nuclear physics and so on

Hmmmm, interesting. Can you tell me more about the difference between the open and closed superstring spectrum?

Edited October 4, 2009 by analmux

[PeteD]

Liver surgeries?! no waaaay! I could've done with you a few years ago during my "drinking" phase. lol

 

 

Pete

[Rockford]

Actually Rockford has a point about artifacting, it's a piece of $hit idea that limits the Apple II and A8 in non NTSC countries.

 

PAL is already superior to NTSC in all ways except frame rate so to base your multicolour modes on some weird colour inaccurate crap TV system is a bit dumb and half the world won't like your graphics on their TVs.

 

NTSC/PAL should only be an issue of frame rate, and at 50/60fps coding slick routines is more important on 2D arcade games than the 15% difference in speed...Uridium sure as hell doesn't need extra speed nor does Alleykat

EXACTLY !