Project-M 2.0

[+Philsan]

Not bad for a 3.5 KB machine!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o_lPwASqyU

[emkay]

Not bad for a 3.5 KB machine!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o_lPwASqyU

 

21K. 5K RAM + 16K ROM

 

At least , people were doing it.

 

Btw: Not bad for a 1982 Game

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmfNMo6kHpA

[potatohead]

That VIC "demo game" rocks, given it runs on a unexpanded VIC. Very nicely done.

 

Sometimes it's about what got done, not which is better. Sure would be nice to just recognize something bad ass for what it is... Just FYI, that game runs on a unexpanded VIC, not the more roomy spec listed above.

[emkay]

That VIC "demo game" rocks, given it runs on a unexpanded VIC. Very nicely done.

 

Sometimes it's about what got done, not which is better. Sure would be nice to just recognize something bad ass for what it is... Just FYI, that game runs on a unexpanded VIC, not the more roomy spec listed above.

 

 

The interesting part is that the ROM usage of the charset , the simple char movement and the small screen and the tearing and ..... makes people think it "rocks".

 

It's a basic usage of given features. Used by a guy who knows something about the VIC 20. Don't forget, the A800 is years older ..... and no other Platform "for home usage" is able to come any close to "Way out" on the A8 in 1982.

Edited July 26, 2011 by emkay

[Heaven/TQA]

I would prefer:

 

 

[roland p]

That VIC-20 game rocks! Just like 'Project-M'!

[emkay]

That VIC-20 game rocks! Just like 'Project-M'!

 

Could you explain, why? Except the ram usage....

To me it is like a sacrilege to compare this half baked "3d" look alike with the almost perfect depth presentation of Project-M.

Edited July 26, 2011 by emkay

[roland p]

That VIC-20 game rocks! Just like 'Project-M'!

 

Could you explain, why? Except the ram usage....

Because the VIC-20 is such a simple computer. You would not expect it to run something like this.

 

To me it is like a sacrilege to compare this half baked "3d" look alike with the almost perfect depth presentation of Project-M.

They are both nice achievements. Ofcourse, the Atari version does look light-years better than the VIC-20 version.

[emkay]

That VIC-20 game rocks! Just like 'Project-M'!

 

Could you explain, why? Except the ram usage....

Because the VIC-20 is such a simple computer. You would not expect it to run something like this.

 

 

Why would someone not expect it? It's nothing special. Even on the VIC 20.

Edited July 26, 2011 by emkay

[potatohead]

Well, I think it comes down to appreciating old computers for what they are.

 

A VIC comes with a little bit of RAM, and that's where the primary constraint is. A secondary one is the basic VIC display.

 

Why is there screen tearing? Because there isn't room for a double buffer. Maybe somebody, someday will trump that effort with a dynamically drawn version that only requires a single buffer. Expand the VIC, and the tearing goes away, BTW.

 

There is lots of cool stuff going on out there on a lot of machines, with a lot of different attributes. Knowing the various computers and their attributes is part of the fun. Appreciating somebody pushing the edge somewhere is fun too.

 

Really, what's the point of posting up something produced on a superior machine? Need validation that your machine is still cool? Seriously?

 

Take the Atari effort, and put it against other things, and it's gonna look basic, trivial. In fact, that is the EXACT reaction that I got when presenting Project M to somebody who has done a lot of games, on a lot of platforms. They have worked on machines just a bit better than the Atari, way better too, and see it as a nice effort, but nothing special given the computer it's running on. There are a coupla nice visual tricks in the thing, but not much else yet. So it's cool, but not exactly ground breaking, maybe even some what ordinary.

 

Same thing you just did, and it comes down to the differences in machines, and appreciation for where the constraints are, doesn't it?

 

I like Ataris because they punch well above their weight, and there are lots of interesting things they do. But, they really are just old 8 bit computers. Nice ones, but... So somebody decides to see what they can do on a unexpanded VIC, and there you go.

 

Put 4K of RAM in some Atari machine and do the same thing, which totally can be done, and it would be very interesting to compare IMHO.

 

Edit: The point I am making here isn't that this VIC effort is the shit, or that Project M is ordinary. Just perspective, and how it's less than productive at time to post up comparisons where there is no common basis on core constraints.

Edited July 26, 2011 by potatohead

[emkay]

Well, I think it comes down to appreciating old computers for what they are.

 

A VIC comes with a little bit of RAM, and that's where the primary constraint is. A secondary one is the basic VIC display.

 

Why is there screen tearing? Because there isn't room for a double buffer. Maybe somebody, someday will trump that effort with a dynamically drawn version that only requires a single buffer. Expand the VIC, and the tearing goes away, BTW.

 

 

The only thing to appreciate is that someone did it at least.

 

 

There is lots of cool stuff going on out there on a lot of machines, with a lot of different attributes. Knowing the various computers and their attributes is part of the fun. Appreciating somebody pushing the edge somewhere is fun too.

 

Really, what's the point of posting up something produced on a superior machine? Need validation that your machine is still cool? Seriously?

 

 

One computer can do it, one can not. It's the older one that has less problems.

The ridiculous point is that people put a part in those machines as some people do with small children who do their 1st step.

 

 

Take the Atari effort, and put it against other things, and it's gonna look basic, trivial. In fact, that is the EXACT reaction that I got when presenting Project M to somebody who has done a lot of games, on a lot of platforms. They have worked on machines just a bit better than the Atari, way better too, and see it as a nice effort, but nothing special given the computer it's running on. There are a coupla nice visual tricks in the thing, but not much else yet. So it's cool, but not exactly ground breaking, maybe even some what ordinary.

Mixing of the timeline is another point.

Ofcourse the A8 looks infantile , compared to a 2011 PC or Console. But they are of a newer age.

 

 

Same thing you just did, and it comes down to the differences in machines, and appreciation for where the constraints are, doesn't it?

 

...

 

I like Ataris because they punch well above their weight, and there are lots of interesting things they do. But, they really are just old 8 bit computers. Nice ones, but... So somebody decides to see what they can do on a unexpanded VIC, and there you go.

 

 

Using unexceptional hardware features and (possibly) use a preused routine from the C64 .... yeah, very hot

 

Put 4K of RAM in some Atari machine and do the same thing, which totally can be done, and it would be very interesting to compare IMHO.

 

Yeah. Put 4K into the 400 and still have no competitor back in 1979...

Heck. Why should we?

 

 

Edit: The point I am making here isn't that this VIC effort is the shit, or that Project M is ordinary. Just perspective, and how it's less than productive at time to post up comparisons where there is no common basis on core constraints.

 

It's a weird perspective, mixing different times with different marketing strategies. That's what sometimes make me wonder of the "Atari Community".

 

Some games never saw the Atari world, because people wouldn't decide to put such engine on it. Then, on other platforms this is a "great effort" ....

[potatohead]

"The only thing to appreciate is that someone did it at least."

 

Well, that's insulting. Good thing you are not the norm. Would be a major downer.

 

As for comparing "the older one has less problems"...

 

Let's just say I think it's humorous to watch somebody look threatened by some clever effort on a lesser machine to the point where they feel COMPELLED to make damn sure everybody knows their machine IS STILL COOL.

 

Didn't that shit end in High School years ago?

[+darryl1970]

"The only thing to appreciate is that someone did it at least."

 

Well, that's insulting. Good thing you are not the norm. Would be a major downer.

 

As for comparing "the older one has less problems"...

 

Let's just say I think it's humorous to watch somebody look threatened by some clever effort on a lesser machine to the point where they feel COMPELLED to make damn sure everybody knows their machine IS STILL COOL.

 

Didn't that shit end in High School years ago?

 

Didn't that shit end in High School years ago?

No. LOL. But this site kind of about relaxing and taking a trip back down memory lane. I guess it wouldn't be complete without that part.

 

In all seriousness, see some positive in the appreciating that someone did it. It may be a little weak to say the ONLY thing, because I appreciate that somebody made it happen, that the system is doing things 10 years later that nobody thought it could back in the day, that somebody had the intelligence to figure out how to do it (because I am sure it took some seriously tight code to make things run smoothly -- something not as necessary with today's faster computers), and some of the small details that made it more colorful than it would have been.

 

Although many of us appreciate the old systems here, not everybody has programmed for an Atari 8-bit or even a Vic for that matter. Not everybody appreciates the subtle nuances, because not everybody is familiar with the true limitations of the systems. The scrolling is only HALF of what impresses me. Simulated texture maps!!! RED walls in the middle of a 16-shade gray graphic mode (from what I can tell), along with blue and brown doors!!! How did he do that? I can guess, but I am not sure. The small transparent overlay on the screen is cool. MY 16-bit Genesis didn't handle transparencies! LOL.. Throw some kicking music on top of that.. I do not recall much music like that back in 1988 and 1989.. I don't think the potential of Pokey had been realized.

 

Anyway... AWESOME Job. The Vic thing is cool too, but it's the little things that make it BIG! (Something a spoiled PC game designer may not appreciate... I doubt the Atari benefits from openGL or DirectX class routines...LOL)

Edited July 27, 2011 by darryl1970

[potatohead]

I think the Project M demo game is killer! And I think it, precisely for the limitations it's running under, just as I do the VIC one.

 

There comes a point in this where advancing the story of the state of the art on these old boxes needs to be done because it can be done. And that story varies on them, and it's damn cool.

 

So we have that, and it drives a lot of stuff.

 

But then again, we've also got a point where people just want to explore the old machines, maybe complete a project, maybe just be entertained, wondering how it was in the old days, or maybe to just program on something they find accessible or compelling.

 

Truth is, nobody could give a shit, and these fun toys sit in a box somewhere. Nobody wants that right? So then, there is the balance on those two things, and a little thing called consideration. Retro is a great scene, and one I talk up to other people regularly. When I see this kind of shit, I reconsider that because maybe I don't want to talk it up, because maybe it sucks more than it's good. Pretty easy for somebody to come to that value judgement, so why not be excellent to one another? That's a serious question.

 

When we've got screenies being whipped out like Pokemon cards, it gets wierd. Sometimes it's fun! That's the intent. Other times, it seems rather desperate or morbidly insecure, and that just doesn't strike me as being a good thing.

 

I personally was there then, running Apple, Atari, Color Computer II and III computers. To see new works today is kick ass! Back then, there were deffo trade-offs, which made this a special time. Those tend to get forgotten as we look back through very colored glasses at what was. All I know is then, if I wanted to get some business done, I sure didn't use the Atari, just as I didn't use the Apple to play many action games, though I loved it for adventure / ultima / strategy type ones. And the CoCo was computing on things, or controlling things, mostly because the crowd I hung out with used it for HAM radio type activities, and the graphics the CoCo II had were kind of crappy. (CPU was bad ass great though --6809 impacted me like few things have)

 

Today we've got people doing similar things on micro-controllers with similar constraints, and the guy knocking out TV Pong on the little TI chip is bad ass, because that little chip doesn't do much, just like the VIC doesn't do much without some extra goodies on board.

 

So can't that just be cool? Do we have to always whip out those cards, playing our hand, making damn sure of whatever it is? Maybe the guy saw Project M and thought, "Hey, I can make a VIC do some of that" If so, that's how we get a awful lot of new code, written because it can be done, not that it should, and somewhere basic that "not that it should" conflicts with all this lofty "the best" kinds of language out there more than not.

 

Sometimes it's just fun to do, and that's cool --every bit as cool as the mega-project that blows people's minds.

 

Again, I was there, and know what?

 

We thought knocking out some little project, making the pixels move, or the sounds come out, or the relay clicking was damn cool, just because we could do it, not that we should, and really that's never, ever changed. Because of that, I see the VIC effort, and I grin, because it was kinda fun for somebody, and fun is really all we have at the core of this stuff, because what else is there? Seriously?

 

Edit: So I just checked. This VIC thing is actually 3.5K. That's bad ass, because it's small, and it works.

 

Now, the guy that posted up the max VIC specs, along with what he thought was the appropriate "battle card"?

 

Let's parse it:

 

A. Didn't pay attention, just thought "it runs on a VIC"

 

B. Doesn't know enough to understand why "It runs on a UNEXPANDED VIC" is kick ass (likely)

 

C. Just wanted yet another chance to plug the Atari, like it needs it here of all places. (likely)

 

...and so it goes.

 

There isn't anything positive there. There isn't any real value added. It's all downsides, and for what?

 

That's what I mean. It's just not cool, and like I said desperate looking, or something similarly disturbing, in that "Jesus, get a life." kind of way, or maybe "get off my lawn" kind of way too, I don't know. Don't care to, beyond the point that it's generally not cool.

 

...well, and the secondary point that the VIC effort being cool doesn't suck away some of the Project M coolness. There is more than plenty of coolness to go around.

Edited July 27, 2011 by potatohead

[emkay]

So can't that just be cool? Do we have to always whip out those cards, playing our hand, making damn sure of whatever it is? Maybe the guy saw Project M and thought, "Hey, I can make a VIC do some of that" If so, that's how we get a awful lot of new code, written because it can be done, not that it should, and somewhere basic that "not that it should" conflicts with all this lofty "the best" kinds of language out there more than not.

 

 

The chance is more like this: That guy saw Mood on the C64. Looking at the code and the possible character usage. Then looked at some optimised C64 code and made it fitting into the VIC 20.

 

Project-M is a fully "new technical effort" .

[emkay]

Let's face what gamescreensize this really is:

 

 

The biggest border in game history. Let's play it with binoculars on the TV set....

[potatohead]

Looks to me like you are stepping on your dick.

[Kweepa]

Hi,

I'm the author of The Keep.

Not to derail this thread about Project-M... I thought I'd address a few things brought up here.

Obviously I had seen videos of Mood and Project-M (and Doom on the Speccy, HBCC on the Apple II, etc) before starting my game, but I didn't use any code from those projects. It's all brand-new.

You can look at the source code here: http://www.kweepa.com/step/vic20/thekeepsrc.zip

There's about as much code devoted to randomly generating levels as there is for the raycasting and texture mapping. And it took longer to write

 

Thanks for your kind words.

I totally understand your criticism, emkay - this is not the same level of graphical fidelity as Project-M, for sure.

The Keep is 32 raycast columns x 64 texture mapped pixels, @ 10FPS on a 1MHz machine.

Project-M is also 32 raycast columns x 64 texture mapped pixels, but with columns texture interpolated to get to 64x64, @ 20FPS on a 1.8MHz machine. Impressive. I don't know how NRV is getting that speed!

The Atari is also clearly the more capable machine.

[+Philsan]

Hi,

I'm the author of The Keep.

Not to derail this thread about Project-M... I thought I'd address a few things brought up here.

Obviously I had seen videos of Mood and Project-M (and Doom on the Speccy, HBCC on the Apple II, etc) before starting my game, but I didn't use any code from those projects. It's all brand-new.

You can look at the source code here: http://www.kweepa.co.../thekeepsrc.zip

There's about as much code devoted to randomly generating levels as there is for the raycasting and texture mapping. And it took longer to write

 

Thanks for your kind words.

I totally understand your criticism, emkay - this is not the same level of graphical fidelity as Project-M, for sure.

The Keep is 32 raycast columns x 64 texture mapped pixels, @ 10FPS on a 1MHz machine.

Project-M is also 32 raycast columns x 64 texture mapped pixels, but with columns texture interpolated to get to 64x64, @ 20FPS on a 1.8MHz machine. Impressive. I don't know how NRV is getting that speed!

The Atari is also clearly the more capable machine.

Steve, I am glad you posted here.

Your game is awesome.

Vic 20 was my first computer in 1983 and I still have it.

Back then I was unhappy with it. Where were you in 1983?

[emkay]

Hi,

I'm the author of The Keep.

Not to derail this thread about Project-M... I thought I'd address a few things brought up here.

Obviously I had seen videos of Mood and Project-M (and Doom on the Speccy, HBCC on the Apple II, etc) before starting my game, but I didn't use any code from those projects. It's all brand-new.

You can look at the source code here: http://www.kweepa.co.../thekeepsrc.zip

There's about as much code devoted to randomly generating levels as there is for the raycasting and texture mapping. And it took longer to write

 

Thanks for your kind words.

I totally understand your criticism, emkay - this is not the same level of graphical fidelity as Project-M, for sure.

The Keep is 32 raycast columns x 64 texture mapped pixels, @ 10FPS on a 1MHz machine.

Project-M is also 32 raycast columns x 64 texture mapped pixels, but with columns texture interpolated to get to 64x64, @ 20FPS on a 1.8MHz machine. Impressive. I don't know how NRV is getting that speed!

The Atari is also clearly the more capable machine.

 

Nice to read your statement. How about a A8 port of your engine. I'd like to see how it runs there.

Btw: it's nice to have the "strafe" function in the engine. It makes thing more "real" to play

[snicklin]

Hi,

I'm the author of The Keep.

Not to derail this thread about Project-M... I thought I'd address a few things brought up here.

Obviously I had seen videos of Mood and Project-M (and Doom on the Speccy, HBCC on the Apple II, etc) before starting my game, but I didn't use any code from those projects. It's all brand-new.

You can look at the source code here: http://www.kweepa.com/step/vic20/thekeepsrc.zip

There's about as much code devoted to randomly generating levels as there is for the raycasting and texture mapping. And it took longer to write

 

Thanks for your kind words.

I totally understand your criticism, emkay - this is not the same level of graphical fidelity as Project-M, for sure.

The Keep is 32 raycast columns x 64 texture mapped pixels, @ 10FPS on a 1MHz machine.

Project-M is also 32 raycast columns x 64 texture mapped pixels, but with columns texture interpolated to get to 64x64, @ 20FPS on a 1.8MHz machine. Impressive. I don't know how NRV is getting that speed!

The Atari is also clearly the more capable machine.

 

For the machine that you've programmed for, you've produced an excellent bit of software.

 

I could take a look at a PC game and say that the Atari is bad in comparison, but lets be honest, both the Vic-20 and the Atari 8 bit are old technology. There's no point comparing them - they're both old hat.

 

To me, anyone that programs anything half decent for an old machine has done a very good job. The reason I say that is that we all have to fight with constraints which PC programmers do not have to compete with. When I write my (interpreted) Perl scripts, I do not care about efficiency - when I program for the Atari, this is so so important.

 

Well done on the Keep, it's amazing that 8 bit machines can raycast at all.

[Heaven/TQA]

as the source is public maybe I will have a go... as a 3,5 kb game is not too much complicated for me to understand and the source seems to be readable...

[Heaven/TQA]

Hi,

I'm the author of The Keep.

Not to derail this thread about Project-M... I thought I'd address a few things brought up here.

Obviously I had seen videos of Mood and Project-M (and Doom on the Speccy, HBCC on the Apple II, etc) before starting my game, but I didn't use any code from those projects. It's all brand-new.

You can look at the source code here: http://www.kweepa.com/step/vic20/thekeepsrc.zip

There's about as much code devoted to randomly generating levels as there is for the raycasting and texture mapping. And it took longer to write

 

Thanks for your kind words.

I totally understand your criticism, emkay - this is not the same level of graphical fidelity as Project-M, for sure.

The Keep is 32 raycast columns x 64 texture mapped pixels, @ 10FPS on a 1MHz machine.

Project-M is also 32 raycast columns x 64 texture mapped pixels, but with columns texture interpolated to get to 64x64, @ 20FPS on a 1.8MHz machine. Impressive. I don't know how NRV is getting that speed!

The Atari is also clearly the more capable machine.

 

Thanks to read that... I have just ideas in my head... look... a 3d game engine running on a 3,5 RAM machine which leaves enough space on a 64k machine like the A8 for example to implement my RPG engine...

 

it would even leave more RAM than the damned soft sprite engines around...

[Kweepa]

Thanks to read that... I have just ideas in my head... look... a 3d game engine running on a 3,5 RAM machine which leaves enough space on a 64k machine like the A8 for example to implement my RPG engine...

Yeah, I was thinking about an RPG for an expanded VIC

If you need any help with the source give me a PM. Extending the map should be easy, but adding textures will require a bit of care (since currently they have to live on the same 256 byte page), as will making the textures larger than 8x16 (the texture mapping inner loop is optimized for a texture shorter than the screen - I have another texture mapper that works better when the texture is a bit taller, that I've been using in my VIC Doom port).

[Heaven/TQA]

yeah. I will do. are you available about some realtime chat system like Skype et al? easier than PMs...

 

I could offer you an item generator which can generate more than 24k different items and I have an realtime Diablo-battle system already done. the map generator is not for use as it works for rooms and not mazes...

 

some infos here... http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/88809-diablo-look-a-like-possible-on-a8/page__st__775

 

and here...

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/109206-beyond-evil-now-playable/

 

but sorry for side tracking...