Atari v Commodore

[analmux]

Turrican is 25FPS

 

Are you sure about that? I just tried it out to refresh my memory. I would bet money it is scrolling at 50fps.

I Just checked, it seems like it IS 50 fps, even Turrican I.

 

However, at least T1&2 need to scroll the screen by hand, i.e. move all chars, after scrolling 8 (hires) pixels.

 

F.e. walking left: seems 2 (HiRes) pixels scrolling per frame. So, every 4 frames it needs to update the screen memory (±800 bytes IIRC), thus, 200 bytes per frame, when spreading the activity, and using double buffering.

 

...by the way, you (B.B.) seem to have prepared for this, the 10000th post.

Still means nothing ...this is REPLY #10000

Edited October 7, 2009 by analmux

[PeteD]

Why every 4 frames? unless of course it's scrolling 2 pixels/frame, I can't remember how fast the Turricans scroll.

 

ahh ok, I see your edit now

 

 

Pete

Edited October 7, 2009 by PeteD

[TMR]

Turrican is 25FPS

 

Are you sure about that? I just tried it out to refresh my memory. I would bet money it is scrolling at 50fps.

I Just checked, it seems like it IS 50 fps, even Turrican I.

 

It's been a while since i last played it, but my memory said 25FPS because it remembered some fuss over Turrican 2 going at twice the frame rate... still, more than happy to be wrong for a change. =-)

 

F.e. walking left: seems 2 (HiRes) pixels scrolling per frame. So, every 4 frames it needs to update the screen memory (±800 bytes IIRC), thus, 200 bytes per frame, when spreading the activity, and using double buffering.

 

It moves twice as many bytes in total because the colour RAM is being shifted as well and, as Pete said, it's can't be relocated in memory so the best double buffering can offer is having a back buffer and crash dumping from there to the actual colour RAM.

Edited October 7, 2009 by TMR

[frenchman]

...by the way, you (B.B.) seem to have prepared for this, the 10000th post.

Still means nothing ...this is REPLY #10000

 

No don’t be like that.

 

It’s excellent, me and ATARI, the 10000s post, what could be better.

 

Barnacle Boy I am truly honored, it is a great privilege for me to be the participant of the 10000s post.

 

And,Barnacle Boy I truly know that you do not discriminate against someone else's appearance, so that makes it double special.

 

 

Many grateful kisses from me to you, and long may ATARI lead (as in cheerleader)

 

 

10000 post....ATARI 8-bit RULES.....10000 post

Edited October 7, 2009 by frenchman

[atariksi]

...

The talk about screen modes is interesting as is the technical background of the collision detection. Someone here has already defined technically what I "feel" about the CD above and ironic that A8 could have better CD if more of the games had been programmed more like the C64 that way.

...

No, Atari collision detection is far superior. Any software algorithms can be done by both systems (although somewhat faster on Atari). You only have to check the bit for the collision you are interested in and it's all done for you automatically. C64 collision detection is minimal and mostly requires software algorithms to do the complex scenarios easily done with A8 hardware. C64 is simpler and vague and not as good. I can say the sprites are easy to handle with 8-bit width. You can't have it both ways-- duplicity. I even talked about doing a GUI earlier in the thread using just collision detection since there's so many combinations. You have:

 

Missile 0 to player 0..3 (4 bits)

Missile 1 to player 0..3 (4 bits)

Missile 2 to player 0..3 (4 bits)

Missile 3 to player 0..3 (4 bits)

Missile 0 to playfield 0..3 (4 bits)

Missile 1 to playfield 0..3 (4 bits)

Missile 2 to playfiled 0..3 (4 bits)

Missile 3 to playfiled 0..3 (4 bits)

Player 0 to playfield 0..3 (4 bits)

Player 1 to playfield 0..3 (4 bits)

Player 2 to playfield 0..3 (4 bits)

Player 3 to playfield 0..3 (4 bits)

Player 0 to Player 0..3 (4 bits - 1 bit = 3 bits)

Player 1 to Player 0..3 (4 bits - 1 bit = 3 bits)

Player 2 to Player 0..3 (4 bits - 1 bit = 3 bits)

Player 3 to Player 0..3 (4 bits - 1 bit = 3 bits)

--------------------------------------------------

Total: 60 bits

 

In any event, at the end of the computing day, A8 technology kicks arse for what it is and was (I'm not ditching my 8-bits). But it was '77-'79 technology. Much of the C64 technology was '81-'83. Pros and cons going on for both for sure.

That's a lame argument made previously also. Thinkpad 770ED (266Mhz) had genlock capability and MPEG in hardware and live-video window whereas faster machines coming out a few years later had slower MPEG, no genlocking, etc. since they relied more on the processor and less on custom hardware. So a 600Mhz machine coming out later without the custom hardware had inferior features. I prefer the bigger palette of the older technology, I prefer the older technology of 1.79Mhz processors vs. 1.0Mhz, etc. etc.

[frenchman]

That was so nice of Barnacle Boy I had to put up this dedication again. Added some nice powerful Atari fuji symbols

 

 

It’s excellent, me and ATARI, the 10000s post, what could be better.

 

Barnacle Boy I am truly honored, it is a great privilege for me to be the participant of the 10000s post.

 

And,Barnacle Boy I truly know that you do not discriminate against someone else's appearance, so that makes it double special.

 

 

Many grateful kisses from me to you, and long may ATARI lead (as in cheerleader)

 

 

10000 post....ATARI 8-bit RULES.....10000 post

Edited October 7, 2009 by frenchman

[atarian63]

Are you supposed to win something if you get post #10,000? Maybe some marshmallows?

 

The prize is a copy of the US version of Ikari Warriors on the C64

Now that is funny! Maybe give a copy of A8 gauntlet to the opposing side?

Edited October 7, 2009 by atarian63

[atarian63]

I see I have 2 to poke at now,so much fun! Rockey the dullard in mama's basement and Barnacle butt, the bottom dweller sneaking around and occasionally popping up with non-sensical statements. Oh this will be fun!

I suggest both Rockey and Barnicle butt go back to an activity more suited to thier level of intelligence like this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnH2pgtt7_I

Edited October 7, 2009 by atarian63

[atarian63]

Here is a nicely colored game from 2008 on A8. Animal Party. (the purple character kinda looks like Rockey)give him a Whack!

Edited October 7, 2009 by atarian63

[Rockford]

37 - JINXTER

 

C64

 

The C64 version has very nice and colourful graphics. On Atari all the graphics and text are monochrome (no artifacting this time ). Many atarians claim that Atari is famous for great and colourful graphics.... well, this example isn't convincing. C64 is better again.

 

ATARI

 

Hey, atarian63 would you like to say something nice and sweet ?

[atarian63]

Atari 2600 version Chuck Norris Superkicks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOwSAoxbDio

 

Vs C64 Chuck Norris Superkicks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdDKo9rmwKw

 

Gotta give this to the Atari 2600 I think Atari earlier generation wins again!

[emkay]

37 - JINXTER

 

C64

 

The C64 version has very nice and colourful graphics. On Atari all the graphics and text are monochrome (no artifacting this time ). Many atarians claim that Atari is famous for great and colourful graphics.... well, this example isn't convincing. C64 is better again.

 

ATARI

 

Hey, atarian63 would you like to say something nice and sweet ?

 

What to say ?... C64 colours were there , but nice?

The A8 gfx? How is it named ? FUBAR?

[PeteD]

lol I'm with emkay on this one. That C64 colour usage looks like someone ate a load of Skittles then puked on a B&W picture OK the A8 has NO colour, but in this case I'm wavering towards saving my eyesight

 

 

Pete

[frenchman]

Here's Glider Rider (1986) for C64 from top UK software house Quicksilva

Man, those UK software houses produced 90% of graphical shit on C64 (As I said before, Thalamus, Level 9, System 3, Hewson, Rainbird, but that was it concerning competent UK software houses working on C64)

Edited October 7, 2009 by frenchman

[emkay]

lol I'm with emkay on this one. That C64 colour usage looks like someone ate a load of Skittles then puked on a B&W picture OK the A8 has NO colour, but in this case I'm wavering towards saving my eyesight

 

 

Pete

 

 

Looking at the AMIGA pictures (64 possible colours easily) , the graphicians seem to be some kind of trainees, but no proffessionals

 

 

... this explains much.

[+SpiceWare]

Atarian63, this thing you're doing where you run off to Lemon64, search for low-rated games, and then post pics of them here is pretty dumb, honestly. You must know that anyone with the inclination could post an absolute boatload of shots of extremely crappy looking Atari games from your so-called golden age. But what would that prove? That there were crappy games released even during the system's best years?* OMG, say it aint so!

 

At least Rockford is actually comparing games that appeared on both systems, rather than just digging out shots of any crappy game he can find. Meanwhile, you're starting to look like a guy with a full-body skin condition who is trying to point and laugh at the odd patch of scaly skin on somebody else's elbow.

 

*I say 'best years', but the way you're carrying on, I'm starting to wonder if your so-called Atari 'Golden Age' is actually maybe three weeks somewhere near the start of 1983. Except, funnily enough, although you'll immediately insist that a game like Gauntlet is unfit for comparison due to coming after this mythical 'Golden Age', I have a feeling that somehow we wouldn't hear a peep out of you on that score when it comes to certain other '85 releases being put on the comparison table: Rescue on Fractalus, for example. The Eidolon, maybe? Alternate Reality?

 

you are so right.

Nice to see you're wising up

[frenchman]

 

I say 'best years', Atari 'Golden Age'

 

you are so right.

Nice to see you're wising up

 

I am the wisest here already (BTW when I do that it's witty, when you do it, it's not)

Edited October 7, 2009 by frenchman

[+SpiceWare]

when I do that it's witty, when you do it

You sound like a politician. And that's not a good thing...

[atarian63]

 

I say 'best years', Atari 'Golden Age'

 

you are so right.

Nice to see you're wising up

 

I am the wisest here already (BTW when I do that it's witty, when you do it, it's not)

so true!

[Barnacle boy]

...by the way, you (B.B.) seem to have prepared for this, the 10000th post.

Still means nothing ...this is REPLY #10000

 

Heheh. I was wondering who would snag that (dubious) honour. NEXT STOP 20,000!!!

 

 

 

I truly know that you do not discriminate against someone else's appearance, so that makes it double special.

Sure, I try not to discriminate against appearances. I also try to be tolerant of dumbasses.

 

It's not easy.

 

 

 

I see I have 2 to poke at now,so much fun! Rockey the dullard in mama's basement and Barnacle butt, the bottom dweller sneaking around and occasionally popping up with non-sensical statements. Oh this will be fun!

Hey, you. Yeah, you! Instead of just dribbling out witless jibes, how about you answer my question:

 

 

It just shows how bad the system was during the period. There are many examples.

But does it? I mean, really? If I post one hundred screenshots from crappy looking Atari games released in '82-'83, would you say "Well yes, that just shows how bad the Atari was during that period".

 

Or would you start up with the "Yeah but, no but, see, the thing is... they were just bad programmer jobs, etc etc."

 

Or would you prefer to lie low until we're on a new page and then start gibbering again, like last time?

Edited October 7, 2009 by Barnacle boy

[TMR]

Here's Glider Rider (1986) for C64 from top UK software house Quicksilva

Man, those UK software houses produced 90% of graphical shit on C64

 

Actually, the game was developed by Binary Design and a lot of their projects were led by the Spectrum version; they weren't really C64 developers, after Glider Rider they bottled out of even trying to get Amaurote going in iso 3D.

 

(As I said before, Thalamus, Level 9, System 3, Hewson, Rainbird, but that was it concerning competent UK software houses working on C64)

 

i'd have also included Firebird for things like Druid, The Sentinel or Io, Hewson's budget arm Rack It (which was run by Mastertronic for at least it's earlier years and published the rather spiffy Slayer at three fecking quid!!), Gremlin for Bounder, Thing on a Spring and their sequels, Hero Quest, the Monty Mole series or Dark Fusion (even if they set the difficulty too high on a couple of those), Novagen (for Mercenary and Encounter) and even the less consistent companies like Ocean had their moments, Parallax, Wizball or Salamander for example, and the budget houses were about half and half with little gems like Motos (Binary Design again, coincidentally), Kinetix, Warhawk, the BMX Simulator series, Kikstart 2...

[atarian63]

Hey Barnacle butt! Nice to see you! Still up to no good as usual! Your posts lack any substance...

You still did not reply to my posts earlier..other than try to twist issues with a biased slant

C'mon you can do better.

I think I hear Lemon64 calling you.

Edited October 8, 2009 by atarian63

[oky2000]

Man, seeing that you were on here and posting, I waited something like fifteen minutes just to see what you had to say...

 

And that ramble the best you could do? Disappointing. I won't bother sticking around next time.

 

It just shows how bad the system was during the period. There are many examples.

But does it? I mean, really? If I post one hundred screenshots from crappy looking Atari games released in '82-'83, would you say "Well yes, that just shows how bad the Atari was during that period".

 

Or would you start up with the "Yeah but, no but, see, the thing is... they were just bad programmer jobs, etc etc."

 

Do you not see how dumb (and hypocritical) your position is here? Come on. Be honest with yourself.

 

Exactly! All it shows is how pathetic some programmers were or how greedy and incompetent some companies were. As I said before unless a game is doing something unique and showing off some technically clever routine utilising the hardware games are of limited point in here (on both systems).

 

Look at it this way....if you played Gauntlet 1 on the ST then Gauntlet 2 on the Amiga which machine would you buy in the shop? Hardly a good idea really unless you look at all games on each system all at once (at which point Albert would have a heart attack as the server falls over with some 15,000 links posted in one thread )

[Barnacle boy]

You still did not reply to my posts earlier..

 

Where did you make post a that required a reply? What question did you put to me? Hmm?

 

I don't mind a bit of mud-slinging, a few digs... it's all in fun. But come on, you have to be at least a little clever with it. Otherwise you just wind up looking like a doofus.

 

So anyway, how are you going with answering that question. Do you need to phone a friend?

[oky2000]

Today another classic copyrighted by Atari !!! as always especially for number 63

 

36 - GAUNTLET

 

C64

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better graphics, handling, more colours and plays smoothly. The Atari version is anemically slow and it has limited number of colours (all monsters, chests etc. are always in the same colour as the background ). C64 defeats Atari again. BTW, It's really amusing how an Atari game looks and plays better on C64.

 

ATARI

ATARI

ATARI

 

Hey atarian63, what happened this time ?

 

Whilst Gauntlet is an Atari arcade game, Jack Tramiel's Atari had nothing to do with it so really they are not related. Old stuff like Battlezone and Asteriods etc was the same company as the makers of the home computers yep but by this time (1985 onwards) it was a totally separate company.

 

C64 Gauntlet is actually pretty good for US Gold, they're UK output was pretty pathetic half the time on the C64...probably the best 8bit version (better than Amstrad, not seen it on MSX)

 

As fun as this is I don't think looking at games UNLESS they are games with a clear technically stunning bit of programming in them (regardless of what ports of it look like on other machines) is going to tell you which machine is better. Look at Gauntlet 1 on the Atari ST and then try not to piss your pants when you look at Gauntlet II running on the Amiga

Since it is closely related to the A8 series it should look good.

 

Erm no, the Gauntlet arcade PCB specification exceeds that of even the Amiga so it has nothing to do with Atari home computers. IF you were an amazingly talented programmer you could do a 99% perfect port on the Amiga...sadly because US Gold sucked balls we got the shit that came out of their stinking office(orifice?) LOL but anyway I'm not sure how the C64 version turned out so speedy, some cunning char based programming there as clearly sprites are a dead end for a game with 64+ enemies on screen at a time in some cases.