Atari v Commodore

[PeteD]

 

if so it does beg the question:

 

why do the developers of G2F (which u all seem to quote as tho it was the most awesome software available) use these "ugly" c64 images to demo their software of what the Atari should/could/might be able to display?

 

 

I wonder if this question is somehow serious. Many pictures were simply converted to show that it is possible. It also is easier to use available resources. Not all people -using the A8- were as talented as Powrooz.

 

Some clues:

Pictures with more than 200 pixel height or with more than 16 colours are hardly C64 sourced

 

It's a serious question when you take it in the context of Atariksi saying c64 graphics are ugly. I'd think Ste was merely wondering why if that's the case anyone would want to sully the A8 by taking the time and effort to convert them as if somehow uglifying (yeah, I know) the A8 is a feat in itself. There's no question of which pictures Ste is talking about, some clues: not the taller than 200 and more than 16 colours, the one's with STE written on them

 

 

Pete

[Lazarus]

Hahah. that wasn't a Commodore Engineer! That was Carmel Andrews (our token retard)..

No, as far as I remember it was Al Charpentier from MOS.

 

EDIT:

 

Actually it was Charles Winterble:

 

http://www.commodore.ca/gallery/magazines/c64_design/2.jpg

But all that says is they examined the machines to figure out what their machine needed to have. That's just due diligence.

Yes and it's a pretty natural thing to do: If you want to design a new computer, take a look at the existing ones first. I doubt there was any reverse engineering going on. They probably looked at a number of games on each platform writing down features that seemed to be useful. I am pretty sure they didn't even know that A8 had features like display lists or LMS since the games of that time didn't show it, otherwise the VIC-II wouldn't be lacking that much in that department.

[PeteD]

Hahah. that wasn't a Commodore Engineer! That was Carmel Andrews (our token retard)..

No, as far as I remember it was Al Charpentier from MOS.

 

EDIT:

 

Actually it was Charles Winterble:

 

http://www.commodore.ca/gallery/magazines/c64_design/2.jpg

But all that says is they examined the machines to figure out what their machine needed to have. That's just due diligence.

Yes and it's a pretty natural thing to do: If you want to design a new computer, take a look at the existing ones first. I doubt there was any reverse engineering going on. They probably looked at a number of games on each platform writing down features that seemed to be useful. I am pretty sure they didn't even know that A8 had features like display lists or LMS since the games of that time didn't show it, otherwise the VIC-II wouldn't be lacking that much in that department.

 

When I worked for Philips we got asked by the research labs where the boffins worked to tell them what we'd like in a "game addon" they were going to build for CD-i (would plug in where the MPEG cart usually did) to help it compete against ST/Amiga/pretty much anything else out at the time. Sometimes hardware design seems to be no more than asking coders what they'd like

 

 

Pete

Edited October 15, 2009 by PeteD

[TMR]

This thread never ceases to amaze me, and not just by virtue of its astounding longevity. It seems to have turned into an argument about aesthetics, and aesthetics really are subjective.

The bad news is that you're disagreeing with an Atarian and agreeing with me... sorry. =-)

Good grief... I know that. This is exactly the kind of hair-trigger reaction I'm on about. It's also patronising. Most of the (rare) comments I've made on this thread happen to have erred in favour of the C64's graphics. No particular agenda - I just try to be a balanced kind of guy. There's no reason to assume I'm any kind of Atari die-hard fanboy just because I love the machine and write software for it.

 

Don't take to heart fella, that there's TMR's special cheeky =-) at the end. I really don't think he was having a pop, merely having a little chuckle at what usually happens when someone dares agree with someone tarred with the C64 brush

 

i was hoping the wording and smiley (well, those and the second part of the post about all of us ganging up and giving Jeremy Kyle a kicking... although that's actually not a bad idea now i read it back...?) spoke for themselves but yes flashjazzcat, i know you're aware and it was just meant as something of a joke. Probably a badly-judged one but i'm that on half a bag of wine gums and the new season of SJA starting...

[Bryan]

Yes and it's a pretty natural thing to do: If you want to design a new computer, take a look at the existing ones first. I doubt there was any reverse engineering going on. They probably looked at a number of games on each platform writing down features that seemed to be useful. I am pretty sure they didn't even know that A8 had features like display lists or LMS since the games of that time didn't show it, otherwise the VIC-II wouldn't be lacking that much in that department.

I bet they did more than that. They probably collected whatever documentation they could as well. Datasheets on the chips in the TI and Intellivision were available to anyone. I don't know if Atari had yet released their Technical Reference Notes yet or not, but it would have been wise to study competing systems down to the register level.

 

Reverse engineering would have involved popping the tops off the chips and having a look at the actual circuitry, which would have probably been more work than it was worth.

[analmux]

...It's a serious question when you take it in the context of Atariksi saying c64 graphics are ugly. I'd think Ste was merely wondering why if that's the case anyone would want to sully the A8 by taking the time and effort to convert them as if somehow uglifying (yeah, I know) the A8 is a feat in itself. There's no question of which pictures Ste is talking about, some clues: not the taller than 200 and more than 16 colours, the one's with STE written on them

Well, I looked at the G2F gallery, but I can't find any STE picture that fast (can anyone point out which ones ARE?). So, if someone likes to suggest that the majority of G2F pictures were originally done by STE, then I'd like to say that that at least doesn't seem to be the case.

 

So, maybe STE's question is serious, but the answer wouldn't be satisfying. Just because using G2F techniques, we suddenly have C64 pictures available, doesn't mean that's the final direction A8 gfx should go.

 

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

 

Talking about restricted gfx possibilities: Some say that making 16-colour pictures are more interesting than making full 256 colour ones. However, what about just 2-colour pictures (A8 antic F / graphics 8, at 320pix width)...okay, PM underlays are accepted. Then, this colour restriction should be a real challenge for a gfx artist. Even more restrictions than the C64 gfx possibilities. This should result in more interesting artworks?

 

I'm not saying there are no A8 guys with 'double standards', but when some of the C64 guys here start to compare gfx, they say

hah, this isn't possible on A8 due to lack of colour control, so the GFX IS BETTER

However, when the roles are changed, and comparing the 16 colours of C64 vs. 256 colours of Atari (APAC mode or similar stuff), then all this extra colour control is just superfluous, because an artist needs restrictions. I'd call this using double standards.

Edited October 15, 2009 by analmux

[Rockford]

45 - PRO MOUNTAIN BIKE SIMULATOR

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better graphics (hi-res), sprites, handling and works smoothly. The Atari version has ugly graphics (low-res), poor sprites and works slower. C64 rides better.

 

ATARI

ATARI

[PeteD]

...It's a serious question when you take it in the context of Atariksi saying c64 graphics are ugly. I'd think Ste was merely wondering why if that's the case anyone would want to sully the A8 by taking the time and effort to convert them as if somehow uglifying (yeah, I know) the A8 is a feat in itself. There's no question of which pictures Ste is talking about, some clues: not the taller than 200 and more than 16 colours, the one's with STE written on them

Well, I looked at the G2F gallery, but I can't find any STE picture that fast (can anyone point out which ones ARE?). So, if someone likes to suggest that the majority of G2F pictures were originally done by STE, then I'd like to say that that at least doesn't seem to be the case.

 

So, maybe STE's question is serious, but the answer wouldn't be satisfying. Just because using G2F techniques, we suddenly have C64 pictures available, doesn't mean that's the final direction A8 gfx should go.

 

Talking about restricted gfx possibilities: Some say that making 16-colour pictures are more interesting than making full 256 colour ones. However, what about just 2-colour pictures (A8 antic F / graphics 8, at 320pix width)...okay, PM underlays are accepted. Then, this colour restriction should be a real challenge for a gfx artist. Even more restrictions than the C64 gfx possibilities. This should result in more interesting artworks?

 

You've seemingly totally misunderstood the whole thread of this conversation. Atariksi constantly claims that C64 graphics are ugly, Ste asked if that was the case why would anyone want to convert C64 graphics to the A8? emkay made a comment, I pointed out to emkay that even some of Ste's pictures are on there so if anyone knows what were originally C64 pics it's him. Plain and simple, that was what it's all about.

 

There has at no point been anyone (well, me or Ste) say either machine is better, ones graphical output (as in "art") is better than the other or that now it's possible to port C64 pics that it SHOULD be done from now on. Nobody claimed the majority of graphics on G2F are done by Ste either.

 

Please read through past posts carefully because I'm getting bored of having to explain the thread to people I really can't see sometimes how someone can read a post and read so many extra words/meanings into it.

 

Your other point about hires. Of course there can be some nice graphics done with hires 2 colours, if the artist is capable and even then it's still ones own opinion as to the result being "beautiful" or not. It's other people who think otherwise.

 

 

Pete

[analmux]

The C64 version has better graphics (hi-res), sprites, handling and works smoothly. The Atari version has ugly graphics (low-res), poor sprites and works slower. C64 rides better.

Well, except the HiRes sprites, the A8 version COULD have the same graphics. So, this comes done to the question WHY did the gfx guys of the atari version chose other gfx? I wonder if the gfx team was the same for both versions. Maybe not, but IF it was the same guy designing gfx for both C64 & A8 version, we could say he made the A8 version gfx uglier ON PURPOSE (Maybe it's time for a new conspiracy theory)

[PeteD]

The C64 version has better graphics (hi-res), sprites, handling and works smoothly. The Atari version has ugly graphics (low-res), poor sprites and works slower. C64 rides better.

Well, except the HiRes sprites, the A8 version COULD have the same graphics. So, this comes done to the question WHY did the gfx guys of the atari version chose other gfx? I wonder if the gfx team was the same for both versions. Maybe not, but IF it was the same guy designing gfx for both C64 & A8 version, we could say he made the A8 version gfx uglier ON PURPOSE (Maybe it's time for a new conspiracy theory)

 

What's even more astonishing is if it runs slower than the C64 version. Scrolling on A8 is pretty much for free (or very little work compared to the C64), the sprites look like PMGs so no software spriting. So wtf happened? A8 should do that without being powered on.

 

*edit*

It is in fact a different team/artist.. Also I think it's doing a 25hz scroll so the game can actually move the same "speed" as the C64 one, 1 "colour clock" every 25hz Vs 1 "pixel" every 50hz. That's always going to be a problem when converting scrolling games.

 

Pete

Edited October 15, 2009 by PeteD

[Rockford]

...It's a serious question when you take it in the context of Atariksi saying c64 graphics are ugly. I'd think Ste was merely wondering why if that's the case anyone would want to sully the A8 by taking the time and effort to convert them as if somehow uglifying (yeah, I know) the A8 is a feat in itself. There's no question of which pictures Ste is talking about, some clues: not the taller than 200 and more than 16 colours, the one's with STE written on them

Well, I looked at the G2F gallery, but I can't find any STE picture that fast (can anyone point out which ones ARE?). So, if someone likes to suggest that the majority of G2F pictures were originally done by STE, then I'd like to say that that at least doesn't seem to be the case.

 

So, maybe STE's question is serious, but the answer wouldn't be satisfying. Just because using G2F techniques, we suddenly have C64 pictures available, doesn't mean that's the final direction A8 gfx should go.

 

 

There are over 30 C64 rip offs (a quite large number). 2 of them are STE's work.

1st row, 5th from left

12th row, 1st from left

If I haven't missed any

Edited October 15, 2009 by Rockford

[analmux]

...It's a serious question when you take it in the context of Atariksi saying c64 graphics are ugly. I'd think Ste was merely wondering why if that's the case anyone would want to sully the A8 by taking the time and effort to convert them as if somehow uglifying (yeah, I know) the A8 is a feat in itself. There's no question of which pictures Ste is talking about, some clues: not the taller than 200 and more than 16 colours, the one's with STE written on them

Well, I looked at the G2F gallery, but I can't find any STE picture that fast (can anyone point out which ones ARE?). So, if someone likes to suggest that the majority of G2F pictures were originally done by STE, then I'd like to say that that at least doesn't seem to be the case.

 

So, maybe STE's question is serious, but the answer wouldn't be satisfying. Just because using G2F techniques, we suddenly have C64 pictures available, doesn't mean that's the final direction A8 gfx should go.

 

Talking about restricted gfx possibilities: Some say that making 16-colour pictures are more interesting than making full 256 colour ones. However, what about just 2-colour pictures (A8 antic F / graphics 8, at 320pix width)...okay, PM underlays are accepted. Then, this colour restriction should be a real challenge for a gfx artist. Even more restrictions than the C64 gfx possibilities. This should result in more interesting artworks?

 

You've seemingly totally misunderstood the whole thread of this conversation. Atariksi constantly claims that C64 graphics are ugly, Ste asked if that was the case why would anyone want to convert C64 graphics to the A8? emkay made a comment, I pointed out to emkay that even some of Ste's pictures are on there so if anyone knows what were originally C64 pics it's him. Plain and simple, that was what it's all about.

 

There has at no point been anyone (well, me or Ste) say either machine is better, ones graphical output (as in "art") is better than the other or that now it's possible to port C64 pics that it SHOULD be done from now on. Nobody claimed the majority of graphics on G2F are done by Ste either.

 

Please read through past posts carefully because I'm getting bored of having to explain the thread to people I really can't see sometimes how someone can read a post and read so many extra words/meanings into it.

 

Your other point about hires. Of course there can be some nice graphics done with hires 2 colours, if the artist is capable and even then it's still ones own opinion as to the result being "beautiful" or not. It's other people who think otherwise.

 

 

Pete

Pete, please reread the edited version of that post. Maybe I should have made two posts. The 1st two paragraphs are a reply to you, the rest not, so there's not really a relation between these 2 parts. Now I edited and inserted a line.

[Rockford]

The C64 version has better graphics (hi-res), sprites, handling and works smoothly. The Atari version has ugly graphics (low-res), poor sprites and works slower. C64 rides better.

Well, except the HiRes sprites, the A8 version COULD have the same graphics. So, this comes done to the question WHY did the gfx guys of the atari version chose other gfx? I wonder if the gfx team was the same for both versions. Maybe not, but IF it was the same guy designing gfx for both C64 & A8 version, we could say he made the A8 version gfx uglier ON PURPOSE (Maybe it's time for a new conspiracy theory)

But what about speed ? Atari version would still work slower.

[PeteD]

 

Pete, please reread the edited version of that post. Maybe I should have made two posts. The 1st two paragraphs are a reply to you, the rest not, so there's not really a relation between these 2 parts. Now I edited and inserted a line.

 

Ok, I reread the edited post but my points still stand, the reply to the 2nd part of your post was just that, a reply to it (that's why I left it till I'd had a moan and started with, "your other point about"), not a rebuttal of what you had somehow gleaned from today's "ugly" shenanigans and posted in your first 2 paragraphs. I was simply being a little sarcastic about certain peoples attitude towards beauty and who is seemingly allowed to judge it, I wasn't having a pop at what you said, I agree with it totally and I didn't like the recent rants about C64 is better than A8 because someone says so.

 

 

Pete

[analmux]

But what about speed ? Atari version would still work slower.

Well, the HiRes scrolling (as Pete says) would (again) be a problem ...the only way to solve that is to transform the whole game to HiRes and do double buffered scrolling (even/odd gfx frames: only HARD scroll every 2nd frame).

[PeteD]

But what about speed ? Atari version would still work slower.

Well, the HiRes scrolling (as Pete says) would (again) be a problem ...the only way to solve that is to transform the whole game to HiRes and do double buffered scrolling (even/odd gfx frames: only HARD scroll every 2nd frame).

 

Even with the double speed scroll it's only a problem if it seriously effects gameplay. I think using widescreen mode and widening the jumps and other obstacles would give the same gameplay dynamic as the C64 one running at 1/2 the scroll speed. It's also only really a problem on a game like that where you want to scroll faster anyway when you're going purposefully slow. It looks fine at higher speeds, at least to me.

 

 

 

Pete

Edited October 15, 2009 by PeteD

[analmux]

 

Pete, please reread the edited version of that post. Maybe I should have made two posts. The 1st two paragraphs are a reply to you, the rest not, so there's not really a relation between these 2 parts. Now I edited and inserted a line.

 

Ok, I reread the edited post but my points still stand, the reply to the 2nd part of your post was just that, a reply to it (that's why I left it till I'd had a moan and started with, "your other point about"), not a rebuttal of what you had somehow gleaned from today's "ugly" shenanigans and posted in your first 2 paragraphs. I was simply being a little sarcastic about certain peoples attitude towards beauty and who is seemingly allowed to judge it, I wasn't having a pop at what you said, I agree with it totally and I didn't like the recent rants about C64 is better than A8 because someone says so.

 

 

Pete

Yes, but you were starting like "you seemingly misunderstood"...and I don't think I misunderstood anything here.

Just because I'm not totally disagreeing with atariksi doens't exactly mean I misunderstood something.

[PeteD]

 

Yes, but you were starting like "you seemingly misunderstood"...and I don't think I misunderstood anything here.

Just because I'm not totally disagreeing with atariksi doens't exactly mean I misunderstood something.

 

Yes, because if you read my reply to you again I list the things that you seemingly pulled out of thin air. "Ste did the majority of the G2F pics" "we suddenly have C64 pictures available, doesn't mean that's the final direction A8 gfx should go". That's why I replied. Nothing to do with who you agree with, your graphical preferences, machine preferences etc. I just wanted to know how you read my post and previous posts in the thread and somehow came to the conclusion that anyone had ever said those things..

 

 

 

Pete

[analmux]

To go further:

 

Another key word is MORE. You get more beautiful results with more colors and shades. If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are.

if so it does beg the question:

 

why do the developers of G2F (which u all seem to quote as tho it was the most awesome software available) use these "ugly" c64 images to demo their software of what the Atari should/could/might be able to display?...

 

Up till now there's only ONE thing I totally misunderstood:

What does STE's reply have to do with what atariksi was writing?

[PeteD]

To go further:

 

Another key word is MORE. You get more beautiful results with more colors and shades. If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are.

if so it does beg the question:

 

why do the developers of G2F (which u all seem to quote as tho it was the most awesome software available) use these "ugly" c64 images to demo their software of what the Atari should/could/might be able to display?...

 

Up till now there's only ONE thing I totally misunderstood:

What does STE's reply have to do with what atariksi was writing?

 

It has to do with the fact that Ste wanted to know why anyone would convert "ugly" pictures (Atariksi's words) to the A8. Simple. If you don't get what I'm talking about fine. And if that reply of Ste's is the one thing you misunderstood then I can't help you understand the rest of it any better. Read again, you made 2 assumptions about what either I or Ste meant (I keep copying/pasting them), they were wrong, I corrected you. It was after all my post you were replying to and didn't contain any sentiment even close to what you presumed. You obviously "misunderstood" my posts to glean what you said from them.

 

If you want to keep going round and round in circles on this then I'd ask you to explain to me where I posted what you say I did, or presumed I meant, if not then lets agree to leave it..

 

 

 

Pete

[The_Laird]

45 - PRO MOUNTAIN BIKE SIMULATOR

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better graphics (hi-res), sprites, handling and works smoothly. The Atari version has ugly graphics (low-res), poor sprites and works slower. C64 rides better.

 

ATARI

ATARI

 

Actually apart from the title screen the A8 version looks far better. The centre part is clearly much better on the A8 with the nice road in the middle and teh riders look really stupid on the C64 version, like fat little girls on push bikes. The riders on the A8 version actually look like proper cyclists.

 

A8 wins easy here for me. (and yes I have played them too )

[STE'86]

now i am completely at a loss.

 

Atariksi says "If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are."

 

so therefore "64 pictures are ugly"

 

I REPLY "If they are so ugly why do the devs of G2F use them as demos as what u can accomplish with their app on the atari"

 

and you dont get it?

 

seriously?????

 

Steve

[analmux]

To go further:

 

Another key word is MORE. You get more beautiful results with more colors and shades. If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are.

if so it does beg the question:

 

why do the developers of G2F (which u all seem to quote as tho it was the most awesome software available) use these "ugly" c64 images to demo their software of what the Atari should/could/might be able to display?...

 

Up till now there's only ONE thing I totally misunderstood:

What does STE's reply have to do with what atariksi was writing?

 

It has to do with the fact that Ste wanted to know why anyone would convert "ugly" pictures (Atariksi's words) to the A8. Simple. If you don't get what I'm talking about fine. And if that reply of Ste's is the one thing you misunderstood then I can't help you understand the rest of it any better. Read again, you made 2 assumptions about what either I or Ste meant (I keep copying/pasting them), they were wrong, I corrected you. It was after all my post you were replying to and didn't contain any sentiment even close to what you presumed. You obviously "misunderstood" my posts to glean what you said from them.

 

If you want to keep going round and round in circles on this then I'd ask you to explain to me where I posted what you say I did, or presumed I meant, if not then lets agree to leave it..

 

Pete

OK, looks like there's at least some stuff I didn't understand. Anyway, time for bed now. It's already too late here.

[analmux]

now i am completely at a loss.

 

Atariksi says "If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are."

 

so therefore "64 pictures are ugly"

 

I REPLY "If they are so ugly why do the devs of G2F use them as demos as what u can accomplish with their app on the atari"

 

and you dont get it?

 

seriously?????

 

Steve

Well, according to how I understand linguistic logic I'd say atariksi's words "If you had 256 colors, C64 pictures wouldn't be as ugly as they are." contain the word construction "as {adjective} as" , so it is a comparison.

 

Then you made this remark: "so therefore "64 pictures are ugly". This isn't a comparison anymore. It's a statement.

 

However, I might agree, the linguistic 'style' of atariksi's words might be chosen a bit unfortunate. BUT, is he the only one? When Rockford uses the SAME words (see his last comparison) I didn't hear anyone complain (yet).

[analmux]

45 - PRO MOUNTAIN BIKE SIMULATOR

 

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better graphics (hi-res), sprites, handling and works smoothly. The Atari version has ugly graphics (low-res), poor sprites and works slower. C64 rides better.

 

ATARI

ATARI

 

Hmmm, now I see.

The 'clouds' in the C64 version picture are green. In the A8 version they are white. But still the A8 version's gfx is 'ugly' :D