Creature XL Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Personally, i wouldn#t be too obsessed with flickering players. At least the main character is not often in the top 8 or 10 scan-lines, so it would flicker very seldom. I guess. As Heaven said: complete the game and make such fine-tuning when its done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 remember the game on Atari ST Enchanted Land? The nice main horizontal parallax smooth scrolling background? I don't know how many of you have ever spotted that the 16 color background switches back to 8 colors when the text is overlayed as some bitplanes are used for the overlay? so actually stuff in motion will not be recognised too much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 as more as I am thinking of I am with Emkay... the score panel needs to be an overlay somehow as a separate line will disturb the overall "overlaid gfx" impression. so when the game code is finished I would sacrifice cycles for DLI and for pasting the panel into the game. Emkay... will the "sprites will not cross the panel and disappear" not disturb that impression and will it not look cheap then again? Imho it will not look "cheaper" then a "separate scoreline"? In many games the goodies sometimes disappear. Blink blink.... gone . Does it look cheap. Keeping the Protagonist with 2 player (8 or 9 pixel 3 colours )... the "freak" looks good so far , and keeping the goodies the same way, there still will a player or the missiles be available for the overlay. Put that same player on top of the screen for some "L" , and add some dots for the lives, everything would get fine. Highscore isn't needed in the gamescreen. Showing it in the title, suits to 99% of all games ever seen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 actually you can have DLIs "fading" the PMs out so there is no "heavy visible cut off". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) OK. Seems the changing from my defective PC to the Notebook took it's part It's indeed the opposite. It also means to continue the "growth" of the program, not turning back Hence the need to stay in hi-res More pixels = better since we gain no additional color. We sacrifice resolution and scrolling resolution which looks inferior. Double scanline modes are not that bad. Just by the fact that the aspect ratio is 1:1 . If you want to have proper graphics, you'd have to draw all pixel twice in single scanline modes, or everything looks like a whale's child GR. 7 resolution... Edited June 29, 2011 by emkay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 You dont have any need for the pickups in the top rows of the screen, as if you were there you'd be "dead" anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 OK. Seems the changing from my defective PC to the Notebook took it's part It's indeed the opposite. It also means to continue the "growth" of the program, not turning back Hence the need to stay in hi-res More pixels = better since we gain no additional color. We sacrifice resolution and scrolling resolution which looks inferior. Double scanline modes are not that bad. Just by the fact that the aspect ratio is 1:1 . If you want to have proper graphics, you'd have to draw all pixel twice in single scanline modes, or everything looks like a whale's child GR. 7 resolution... the use 80x60 mode10... if you want to have it "blocky"... honestly... if you are using mode7 then you use 2 scanline PMs so the pixels are the same... but this looks far more 70s than the 160x240 approach. and c64 guys would moan that we used 160x96... no no no... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Emkay... and as a thumbnail the mockup might look ok but on 24'' TV sets upwards... very very blocky... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I see no point at all in doing it in Mode 5. CPU advantage - negligible. Memory saving, same. If it comes down to having a "great looking 2600 clone" or a "ordinary looking Jaguar clone", give me option B every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sack-c0s Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) C64 version would be good to do, I wouldn't mind - although of course music's another matter. Such a simple game, the codebase could be 95% + in common pretty easily. I think with this kind of game the differences would be minor - we can stuff the score into the border on the C64 to deal with the play area issue and overlay hires sprites to make more detailled collectables/playerm but that trades off against the extra palette options of the Atari for the different sections. None of it affects the playability though. can probably even build the port from the Atari graphics to start with. If today turns out to be anything like yesterday (and it's looking like a possibility at the moment) I might get started on that. As much as I love the C64 I haven't touched it in ages. Hell - maybe the commodore 16 could do it if you disregard the ideas for improvements I mentioned using sprites and would gain some of the lost ground back on the colour front... oh - and on the music front this gets my vote: Edited June 29, 2011 by sack-c0s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I am playing around with VIC 20 ideas for the game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sack-c0s Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 I am playing around with VIC 20 ideas for the game... 3.5k unexpanded? Would be a bit tight, but it could be doable... Anyone else got a suggestion for a tile-based machine that could be a bit of a squeeze? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Emkay... and as a thumbnail the mockup might look ok but on 24'' TV sets upwards... very very blocky... LOL. Many PC games, particular 3D games, used even bigger blocks for their graphics. When the background is scrolling , no one will recognise the graphics of being either 1 or 2 scanlines ... The PMg still could use 1 scanline resolution. Even here it makes no sense. Using "10" pixel brings out of shape graphics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 how are the platforms generated? I mean the algorithm? I did write a very detailed response to this earlier... and then the site went down before I clicked post - derp Will post the source for that part tomorrow. Cheers, Simon This happens very often this days. I'd suppose to save the content before posting it. It's better for the nerves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Stephen Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 OK. Seems the changing from my defective PC to the Notebook took it's part It's indeed the opposite. It also means to continue the "growth" of the program, not turning back Hence the need to stay in hi-res More pixels = better since we gain no additional color. We sacrifice resolution and scrolling resolution which looks inferior. Double scanline modes are not that bad. Just by the fact that the aspect ratio is 1:1 . If you want to have proper graphics, you'd have to draw all pixel twice in single scanline modes, or everything looks like a whale's child GR. 7 resolution... Well, that doesn't look as bad as I thought it would but I still hope the game stays in 160 mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 It doesn't look "as bad" because all the colour detail is still there. Almost any picture will look OK at 160x100 if it's at 24-bit colour detail, even 8-bit paletted looks OK. Posturize it down to 2 bit colour and you'll get the real deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) 2:1 Just cut left and right sides ... It doesn't look "as bad" because all the colour detail is still there. Almost any picture will look OK at 160x100 if it's at 24-bit colour detail, even 8-bit paletted looks OK. Posturize it down to 2 bit colour and you'll get the real deal. Depending on the needed graphics for the game , the difference would be very small.. Let' check the protagonist again: Original: 2:1 And here in the correct aspect and available colours on the A8. Looking at the original, I still wonder why the "10" pixel would be needed? Even the original uses less pixel, Edited June 29, 2011 by emkay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 You can't just take a 1:1 pixel ratio picture and expand it and say that's how it'd look. Just face it - 160 x 100 would look cheap, the C64 version would be done properly and give them something to laugh at us about. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) OK. 2 shapes of the protagonist use up to 10 pixel. But where to find the best solution? To suit the Jetpack, 4 Players would be needed. To suite the PM usage, just a different shape and colour should do well. A slight redraw to 8 or 9 pixel should be no problem . Edited June 29, 2011 by emkay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) You can't just take a 1:1 pixel ratio picture and expand it and say that's how it'd look. That's exactly what happens to the main graphics. Sometimes it fits, (for some spacship shape) , mostly it fits not.... Just face it - 160 x 100 would look cheap, the C64 version would be done properly and give them something to laugh at us about. It would only look better on the C64 , because it would show more colours. Everything else would look cheaper on the C64. Just as the screenheigth is rather limited and the colour ram shows tearing. Just a reminder here about the flexible graphics in YOOMP! . No chance for a stock C64 to suite it well. A double scanline mode with a full "patternless" looking background, would even impress PC guys. But the double scanline mode is an alternative. Now we should concentrate one the available program. The more is moving on the screen the more impressive it gets. PM still allows overlay and a full scrolling screen Edited June 29, 2011 by emkay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creature XL Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 2:1 Just cut left and right sides ... It doesn't look "as bad" because all the colour detail is still there. Almost any picture will look OK at 160x100 if it's at 24-bit colour detail, even 8-bit paletted looks OK. Posturize it down to 2 bit colour and you'll get the real deal. Depending on the needed graphics for the game , the difference would be very small.. Let' check the protagonist again: Original: 2:1 And here in the correct aspect and available colours on the A8. Looking at the original, I still wonder why the "10" pixel would be needed? Even the original uses less pixel, Available colors? doesn't it look (almost) perfectly suited for a 2600-style PMG kernel? There should be enuff CPU time. 3 colors for the head, three for the body and three for the legs. That would be awesome!!! If I find the time I try it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) Available colors? doesn't it look (almost) perfectly suited for a 2600-style PMG kernel? There should be enuff CPU time. 3 colors for the head, three for the body and three for the legs. That would be awesome!!! If I find the time I try it out. Interesting to see a kernel that calculates with the continous scrolling. Edited June 29, 2011 by emkay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 a 9 color pm is not an issue... and perfect for the kernal... VBL sets the DLI bit on desired charline then waits the VSCROL scanlines to be in sync and then starts to color the players... not a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 as far as I have understood the existing engine it uses 16 fonts so there is no rotating chars involved... so in theory at the moment most of the VBL time is available plus the "kernal" time... I don't see any issue... if you use less then 16 fonts it gets more cpu time consuming... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 A proposal for a berry straw.zip Quote 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
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.