"BEST" *NEW* Game of 2013

[+Lee Stewart]

I've of seen it in passing in this You Tube video when I was researching the F18A :

The fact that Forth will do 80 columns with the F18A really impressed me, I'm still chomping at the bit to buy and install an F18A, in fact the wait is killing me!

 

I have a couple of questions:

1) Are Forth cartridges available?

2) If so, how much do they cost and where can I get one?

 

While it looks a little complicated at first glance, I'll check out the links you mentioned as time allows. I'll also see what software is available for it as well. This aspect of the TI is ALL NEW TO ME.

 

One last question... any issues with a V2 Nano-PEB?

 

The only Forth cartridges produced currently are for TurboForth. @Willsy's website for TurboForth is turboforth.net. He is probably waiting to produce new cartridges for TurboForth V1.2, which he is nearly ready to release (I think). TI Forth is diskette only. It requires the E/A cartridge, though some have modified the TI Forth Boot program to be loadable by XB, the CorComp loader and probably other systems, as well. As I said, I have every intention of producing a cartridge for fbForth in the near future, once I get the current disk-based version nailed down.

 

There should be no issues with the V2 nanoPEB beyond ensuring you reference the 16C550 chip with 'COM1' instead of 'SIO' or 'RS232'.

 

...lee

[TheMole]

My question is does it really matter? If you can load it with an E/A or with Extended BASIC what difference does it make to the end user? I believe playability (smoothness & flow) and quality of graphics and how fun the game is are one of the most important items to the end-user. That is why I like the COMPILED category idea.

 

Well, GPL is interpreted, so if you use compiled/non-compiled as categories it would fall into the category of non-compiled basic programs. However, it is closer in speed to Assembly than to Basic, so it would have an "unfair" advantage. GPL is not an easy one to categorize, but I would tend to follow Tursi's reasoning. GPL was at least designed to sacrifice a small amount of speed in favor of usability and ease of programming.

[+Vorticon]

The only Forth cartridges produced currently are for TurboForth. @Willsy's website for TurboForth is turboforth.net. He is probably waiting to produce new cartridges for TurboForth V1.2, which he is nearly ready to release (I think). TI Forth is diskette only. It requires the E/A cartridge, though some have modified the TI Forth Boot program to be loadable by XB, the CorComp loader and probably other systems, as well. As I said, I have every intention of producing a cartridge for fbForth in the near future, once I get the current disk-based version nailed down.

 

There should be no issues with the V2 nanoPEB beyond ensuring you reference the 16C550 chip with 'COM1' instead of 'SIO' or 'RS232'.

 

...lee

 

Please put me down for one

[RXB]

Well, GPL is interpreted, so if you use compiled/non-compiled as categories it would fall into the category of non-compiled basic programs. However, it is closer in speed to Assembly than to Basic, so it would have an "unfair" advantage. GPL is not an easy one to categorize, but I would tend to follow Tursi's reasoning. GPL was at least designed to sacrifice a small amount of speed in favor of usability and ease of programming.

 

Considering most games were written with GPL before Assembly became popular it does sit at a slight disadvantage compared to C or Forth or Assembly as they are optimized for speed in RAM only.

GPL was optimized for ease of use and specialized for the TI as it does run from GROM not RAM that Forth, C and Assembly have a distinct advantage for speed as RAM vs GROM is no contest.

 

Not like I can move GPL to RAM for a speed increase is there?

 

Like I said before it is not like Forth or C or Assembly as it is forced to run from GROM/GRAM not RAM so speed wise is not really a fair comparison.

That would be like comparing the speed of VDP vs RAM as being the same. As GROM is the same speed as VDP is it not?

 

In Classic99 GPL does run faster but on a normal TI99/4A GPL can not be classed like pure Assembly Languages like C or Forth or Assembly as it runs from GROM!!!!!

 

Come on guys at least be fair here. Kicking a guy when he is already down is fine if you are the one kicking huh?

Edited August 22, 2013 by RXB

[Tursi]

Rich: the challenge is making a fun game, not measuring the performance of the language. There is no reason a GPL game can't play alongside an assembly language game, but it certainly doesn't belong in the BASIC category.

 

 

[TheMole]

Come on guys at least be fair here. Kicking a guy when he is already down is fine if you are the one kicking huh?

 

I wasn't singling you out or anything Rich; I know you're the resident GPL guy, but I also know that you're an accomplished assembly and BASIC programmer as well. So if you feel GPL is at a disadvantage, why not use assembly instead if you want to compete? Not trying to kick you when you're down (why are you down, anyway?), it's just really difficult to objectively categorize GPL in just one of two categories and when forced to pick one I'd be inclined to lump it in with the speedier languages instead of the much slower BASIC variants. I'm sure that you agree with that, no?

 

GPL is so unique that I see only one other option: put it in a category of it's own. But I'm thinking you'd be the only potential participant then, and that doesn't sound like much of challenge now, does it?

[Asmusr]

Whoa, look at the list of games developed for the Colecovision in 2012:

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/215798-and-the-colecovision-best-game-of-2012-was/

 

If this is a challenge, perhaps it's time for a call for expression of interest?

 

Would you be allowed to participate with more than one entry?

[RXB]

I wasn't singling you out or anything Rich; I know you're the resident GPL guy, but I also know that you're an accomplished assembly and BASIC programmer as well. So if you feel GPL is at a disadvantage, why not use assembly instead if you want to compete? Not trying to kick you when you're down (why are you down, anyway?), it's just really difficult to objectively categorize GPL in just one of two categories and when forced to pick one I'd be inclined to lump it in with the speedier languages instead of the much slower BASIC variants. I'm sure that you agree with that, no?

 

GPL is so unique that I see only one other option: put it in a category of it's own. But I'm thinking you'd be the only potential participant then, and that doesn't sound like much of challenge now, does it?

 

Very true that is pretty much the situation.

[RXB]

Rich: the challenge is making a fun game, not measuring the performance of the language. There is no reason a GPL game can't play alongside an assembly language game, but it certainly doesn't belong in the BASIC category.

 

Exactly! But Assembly, C and Forth have a distinct speed advantage and to deny that GPL is forced to run from a different memory source is a disadvantage, at least acknowledge the facts please.

[RXB]

On a side note I am working on a GPL game never seen on the TI and should work in GPL with no need for speed as a issue.

 

I have had people try the game I found on the internet and it is addictive and fun to set records.

 

Good luck to everyone....

 

Rich

[Tursi]

Exactly! But Assembly, C and Forth have a distinct speed advantage and to deny that GPL is forced to run from a different memory source is a disadvantage, at least acknowledge the facts please.

 

I acknowledge that GPL has less performance than efficiently coded assembly and possibly C... but I don't see that as a deterrent to making a decent game, it is certainly fast enough for that.

 

I'm surprised to see you on the down side! Hope you're feeling okay.

[RXB]

I acknowledge that GPL has less performance than efficiently coded assembly and possibly C... but I don't see that as a deterrent to making a decent game, it is certainly fast enough for that.

 

I'm surprised to see you on the down side! Hope you're feeling okay.

 

I have been making a game in GPL and instantly saw that the classifications put me at a distinct disadvantage unless the game was mostly Assembly and not GPL.

 

Much like entering a car race and finding out everyone else gets to use superchargers with Nitro fuel and you are stuck with Regular gas using a smaller engine. (Assembly vs GPL)

 

No one would put XB vs C/Forth/Assembly. So putting GPL vs C/Forth/Assembly is equally unfair. I do not expect a 1 person only contest either so that option is also out.

 

Clearly I saw that I have no chance of winning. (If speed and graphics is the main feature.)

 

So I opted for finding a game I can write that does not require speed or Bit Mapped Graphics as the main features.

 

I am a REALIST not a optimist or pessimist. I feel ok thank you for asking Tursi.

 

Rich

[Tursi]

I have been making a game in GPL and instantly saw that the classifications put me at a distinct disadvantage unless the game was mostly Assembly and not GPL.

Much like entering a car race and finding out everyone else gets to use superchargers with Nitro fuel and you are stuck with Regular gas using a smaller engine. (Assembly vs GPL)

 

I understand what you're saying.. I don't really agree that it's true, though. GPL is fast enough for lots of good games.

 

Clearly I saw that I have no chance of winning. (If speed and graphics is the main feature.)

 

I'd hope that's not the case.

 

So I opted for finding a game I can write that does not require speed or Bit Mapped Graphics as the main features.

 

Exactly what you should be doing. There are lots of options and GPL can keep up. About the only thing I wouldn't attempt in a pure GPL game is scrolling... and you /could/ embed some assembly in scratchpad to do that.

 

Which is kind of a question, really, where would someone categorize an XB game with assembly subroutines? Classification can get tricky.

[Retrospect]

The categories could be;

 

TI BASIC

TI EXT.BASIC

TI EXT.BASIC+ASSEMBLY

COMPILED EXT.BASIC

ASSEMBLY XB AUTOLOAD

ASSEMBLY EA5

TURBOFORTH

GPL

 

Seems rather long ....

[RXB]

I understand what you're saying.. I don't really agree that it's true, though. GPL is fast enough for lots of good games.

 

 

 

I'd hope that's not the case.

 

 

 

Exactly what you should be doing. There are lots of options and GPL can keep up. About the only thing I wouldn't attempt in a pure GPL game is scrolling... and you /could/ embed some assembly in scratchpad to do that.

 

Which is kind of a question, really, where would someone categorize an XB game with assembly subroutines? Classification can get tricky.

 

Very true Tursi.

 

I was just pointing out with C/Forth/Assembly the difference in speed and features is so close as very hard to see any real difference in performance, unless you throw GPL into that comparison.

[RXB]

The categories could be;

 

TI BASIC

TI EXT.BASIC

TI EXT.BASIC+ASSEMBLY

COMPILED EXT.BASIC

ASSEMBLY XB AUTOLOAD

ASSEMBLY EA5

TURBOFORTH

GPL

 

Seems rather long ....

 

True, not a good idea. I really wish I was not the lone wolf here.

 

But not really much we can do to change that, unless some of you take up interest suddenly using GPL. (I doubt this is going to happen either.)

[Willsy]

From what I have seen the performance of forth and gpl is very similar. I can remember a bricks demo that somebody did in gpl and it went like hell. Easily as fast as the forth version! This surprised me as the VM in gpl is much more complex than the forth VM. Amazing. GPL isn't as slow as we think it is. Perhaps we should try some benchmarks?

[Willsy]

From what I have seen the performance of forth and gpl is very similar. I can remember a bricks demo that somebody did in gpl and it went like hell. Easily as fast as the forth version! This surprised me as the VM in gpl is much more complex than the forth VM. Amazing. GPL isn't as slow as we think it is. Perhaps we should try some benchmarks?

[RXB]

From what I have seen the performance of forth and gpl is very similar. I can remember a bricks demo that somebody did in gpl and it went like hell. Easily as fast as the forth version! This surprised me as the VM in gpl is much more complex than the forth VM. Amazing. GPL isn't as slow as we think it is. Perhaps we should try some benchmarks?

 

I have compared Forth and GPL before. Forth wins by a large margin. I started with Forth before learning GPL. I choose to write Cartridges as so few were doing it.

(Everyone wanted to do RAM in the >6000 space but only had 8K to work with or had to bank switch that area.)

 

The reason is simply that Forth runs from RAM and GPL runs from GROM then talks to RAM, but the programs are in slow access GROM vs Forth running from RAM that is much faster.

(VDP and GROM run about the same speed for access and Tursi has pointed this out many times.)

 

So you can see the problem right off the bat.

[Asmusr]

About the only thing I wouldn't attempt in a pure GPL game is scrolling... and you /could/ embed some assembly in scratchpad to do that.

True. Titanium is spending 80-90% of its time inside a CPU to VDP copying routine in scratch pad.

 

VMCWX LI R0,VDPWD
VMCWX1 MOVB *R1+,*R0 * Write byte to VDP RAM
MOVB *R1+,*R0
MOVB *R1+,*R0
MOVB *R1+,*R0
MOVB *R1+,*R0
MOVB *R1+,*R0
MOVB *R1+,*R0
MOVB *R1+,*R0
DEC R2 * Byte counter
JNE VMCWX1 * Check if done
B *R11

How the remaining part of the game is programmed is less important for performance. Something similar should be possible from both GPL and Forth. Pure MC will always be somewhat faster, of course.

[RobertLM78]

True, not a good idea. I really wish I was not the lone wolf here.

 

But not really much we can do to change that, unless some of you take up interest suddenly using GPL. (I doubt this is going to happen either.)

Edited August 24, 2013 by RobertLM78

[RobertLM78]

Well, this board is REALLY acting stupid - anyway, my reponse to your post Rich, is:

Don't sell us all short just yet - I want to continue learning assembly of course, but once I feel like I've got a descent handle on it, I'd like to try my hand at GPL .

[+Lee Stewart]

Well, this board is REALLY acting stupid - ... .

 

Wow! You're right!! This upgrade seems to have broken Google Chrome—I much prefer it over IE.

 

...lee

[+InsaneMultitasker]

Seems to me the "best game" or "best program" would be based primarily on creativity and the game itself.

 

If categories are necessary is speed the deciding factor? Complexity? I'd suggest limiting the segregation to two categories:

 

1. Slowly Interpreted: BASIC/Extended BASIC

2. Quickly interpreted or compiled: Assembler(machine code)/Forth/GPL/C

 

"XB compiled" seems to fit better into the second category whereas "XB with assembly support" could fit into either, depending on the nature of that support.

 

Of course as was pointed out earlier, completing a game is step 1.

[Willsy]

Well, this board is REALLY acting stupid - anyway, my reponse to your post Rich, is:

Don't sell us all short just yet - I want to continue learning assembly of course, but once I feel like I've got a descent handle on it, I'd like to try my hand at GPL .

Me too. I quite fancy a go with gpl. I think I would enjoy it. Just imagine a *chip* running gpl!