Rescue - 3D engine demo

[+bob1200xl]

I don't want this to get into a discussion on the merits of hardware hacks... The point is how well you can run at higher speeds without making any effort in the programming. This is a cool demo and it even runs at high speed. Leave it at that.

 

Bob

 

7Mhz with sound. No color because I was on a 600XL that hasn't been 'fixed'.

 

Untitled_20150418_1.WMV

[R0ger]

Well, it's the 21st Century. So why is one writing code on a 6502 ?

The Atari is based on the 6502 with 1.79MHz , ANTIC, GTIA, POKEY. If you want to have something running on that hardware, you have to accept the limits, that have been given back in the days. Otherwise, it is not the Atari of that time, which blows the cause for doing stuff on that machine. 2 factors have been allowed to add:

1. more RAM, as the A8 is build for Cartridges

2. a second POKEY could fit into any Cartridge

 

 

So what's the cause for doing stuff on a Machine that is not "in the line" of Atari?

Actually, we have the year 2015. 64 Bit computers, 128GB of RAM, giant graphics cards... Sound without limits...

You could add such Hardware into an 800 case... it may look 100% Atari...

 

I agree. I chose Atari 800, as it was popular computer around me when I was a kid. Memory extension is fine. Lot's of people had it back in the day. Most people have them today. No problem.

I have no problem with the game requiring dics. Again, there were games like that. And everybody has some kind of disc today.

Supporting different processor, that's something quite different. If it shows the game needs only slight modification to support it, why not. But it's not the goal.

 

As for faster CPUs, the game for sure should be speed independent, and it will be. This demo is not. Maybe I will release it later with some modifications I have in mind, this is one of them.

[JamesD]

People seem to have forgotten than the 65816 was available for years before the Atari 8 bit was discontinued.
In fact, it was available for almost half of the life of the machine.

[Kyle22]

Well, it's the 21st Century. So why is one writing code on a 6502 ?

The Atari is based on the 6502 with 1.79MHz , ANTIC, GTIA, POKEY. If you want to have something running on that hardware, you have to accept the limits, that have been given back in the days. Otherwise, it is not the Atari of that time, which blows the cause for doing stuff on that machine. 2 factors have been allowed to add:

1. more RAM, as the A8 is build for Cartridges

2. a second POKEY could fit into any Cartridge

 

 

So what's the cause for doing stuff on a Machine that is not "in the line" of Atari?

Actually, we have the year 2015. 64 Bit computers, 128GB of RAM, giant graphics cards... Sound without limits...

You could add such Hardware into an 800 case... it may look 100% Atari...

What about the VBXE? Is that "in the line"? What about the Bit3? What about a Votrax SC-01 speech chip? Let's put one of those in. Is that "in the line"? How about a built-in disk controller? Maybe even a modem. Are those "in the line"?

 

Why is more RAM ok? 16, 48, 64, or 128K is "in the line". Atari never made an 8-bit with more than 128K, or a second PoKey on a cart (for the computers). That's not "in the line".

 

You need to take your head out from "where the sun doesn't shine" and get with the program. There is nothing wrong with any of these upgrades. It is still an Atari. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Does the idea of a first-rate Command Line DOS bother you? Would you rather wade through a clumsy menu driven DOS that only handles 128 byte sectors, and the old VTOC format? God forbid you would ever use a GUI. How about some of the software driven graphics modes that are not "officially published" by Atari? How about PoKey emulating a Commie SID? The Asteroids arcade emulator certainly is not "in the line".

 

Nobody is talking about stuffing a Pentium system in an Atari case and running Altirra and pretending it's a real Atari. That would truly suck.

 

Those who follow your flawed line of thinking detract from the sales of these excellent new upgrades, and hold back the progress of the entire Atari community.

 

I could go on for hours about how totally, completely, and absolutely wrong you are.

 

By the way, I don't accept limits, I push them. Something, it seems, that you are afraid to do, both with your Atari and with your brain.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Kyle22

[emkay]

What about the VBXE? Is that "in the line"? What about the Bit3? What about a Votrax SC-01 speech chip? Let's put one of those in. Is that "in the line"? How about a built-in disk controller? Maybe even a modem. Are those "in the line"?

 

 

Why is more RAM ok? 16, 48, 64, or 128K is "in the line". Atari never made an 8-bit with more than 128K, or a second PoKey on a cart (for the computers). That's not "in the line".

 

You need to take your head out from "where the sun doesn't shine" and get with the program. There is nothing wrong with any of these upgrades. It is still an Atari. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Does the idea of a first-rate Command Line DOS bother you? Would you rather wade through a clumsy menu driven DOS that only handles 128 byte sectors, and the old VTOC format? God forbid you would ever use a GUI. How about some of the software driven graphics modes that are not "officially published" by Atari? How about PoKey emulating a Commie SID? The Asteroids arcade emulator certainly is not "in the line".

 

Nobody is talking about stuffing a Pentium system in an Atari case and running Altirra and pretending it's a real Atari. That would truly suck.

 

Those who follow your flawed line of thinking detract from the sales of these excellent new upgrades, and hold back the progress of the entire Atari community.

 

I could go on for hours about how totally, completely, and absolutely wrong you are.

 

By the way, I don't accept limits, I push them. Something, it seems, that you are afraid to do, both with your Atari and with your brain.

You're mixing up things.

A VBXE has nothing to do with "Atari", while a software SID emulation uses the available Hardware and specs.

As with the RAM extensions... A 128K Computer with a 16K cartridge plugged in, has about 160K of memory (RAM+ROM)available.

The Bank switching is a function to use those devices with "as much memory" as they keep. And you neither need to solder anything, nor open the case of the A8.

Also, the Cartridge Slot allows to add a Sound-Device.

 

Following "your flawed line" ends up in a self-deception.

Edited April 19, 2015 by emkay

[flashjazzcat]

Whether one is a purist or not, and whether one agrees or disagrees with using a faster processor (and I'm uncertain of my position), making sure 6502 doesn't break on the 65C816 isn't a tremendous inconvenience, and any developer who wants his software as broadly compatible as possible will do it. Unless you absolutely must use illegal opcodes or other tricks, and observe some basic timing techniques, everyone's happy.

[Heaven/TQA]

But why should I keep my softwRe compatible to 65816? I guess most c64 software doesn't even there is an official c# unit superReu released. But Atari never released a 65816.... In your word processor project of course different story.

[flashjazzcat]

Atari only (sort of) released a single PBI peripheral too (1064). Object to using an MIO or BB? Of course not. Were it not for Altirra's excellent 65C816 emulation, I'd think differently (I have no accelerator), but moving forward at least, it's not hard to quickly test new software with a non-stock CPU.

[Heaven/TQA]

Hehe... I know these discussions but right now playing around with Amiga 500 OCS and my 2 enhanced Atari models (130xe and 65xe with VBXE and RAM) are being repaired by Jac and my stock 800 XL even force me to code for stock unexpanded single POKEY machine

Edited April 19, 2015 by Heaven/TQA

[Heaven/TQA]

And SAX and LAX are too sexy opcodes

Edited April 19, 2015 by Heaven/TQA

[tschak909]

How many times are we going to bring up the stupid, "IT'S NO LONGER AN ATARI" meme?

 

It's idiotic.

It's pointless.

and most of all, IT IS BLOODY ARBITRARY.

 

I love using stock Atari's.

I love using whacked out configs too.

Both present interesting possibilities.

THEY ARE BOTH RELEVANT, AND ANY ARGUING REGARDING THEM IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY CHILDISH.

 

So please, let's stop it.

 

-Thom

[Heaven/TQA]

Thom... yeah pointless discussions except when people say "it's weak software or even bugged when not running on my hiend Atari equipped with ARM CPU card and hercules gfx card plus SID emustation"... that was my point...

 

I know the pain... and now while enterin the realm of Amiga, too... it will be much harder for me that's why I stick to OCS....

 

Jac forces me to code my stuff at least so OS/loader friendly that people could put the demos on HDD... at least I try

Edited April 19, 2015 by Heaven/TQA

[+Stephen]

What I don't understand are the countless discussions about what new hardware we can dream up which will enhance video. We have VBXE. Any time it gets mentioned, people go ape shit. They won't use VBXE, but want to dream up new stuff. Expanded RAM was available in the 80s. Stereo audio was available in the 80s. Hard drives were available in the mid 80s. I don't get the resistance these upgrades. It's not expensive to have a stock machine and an upgraded machine.

[Heaven/TQA]

Stephen, there is no bitching of new hardware as I tried to tell. I personally aiming with my projects stock hardware means out of the box hardware.... Only "exotic" stuff is 2nd pokey.

 

My point was the claim that it did not run on 65816.... Which would be the same like saying it does not run on HDD but would run on real 5,25 disc or cart.

[emkay]

The interesting part of that last discussion is: there is no cause for a discussion.

If you want to code on the "real" Atari, you have to go to a special point, to find the optimum of coding the machine.

If you "upgrade" the machine, you declare for yourself that the machine wasn't sufficient, so why handle it anyways?

 

The most interesting part: People name it pointless to have a point, while they avoid to step on that point for themselves.

That's the main cause, that we don't have a real Tracker on the Atari: People always avoid the main point, moving in circles or triangles or squares around it... instead of finishing their project as it should be possible.

 

@tschak909 , you may clean up your romper room, after you finished jumping in triangles

Edited April 20, 2015 by emkay

[tschak909]

emkay: as a cunt, you never disappoint.

 

-Thom

[Heaven/TQA]

I guess he did not used the word cunt did he?

[kiwilove]

There has to be a good/valid reason for any enhancement for the A8 hardware - and you need an application/game to show what it can do?

 

And if that killer game/app does appear - it'll blow you away so much - there would be no question it is something special and ought to be supported/etc.

 

There is no need for personal criticisms/comments to be added to this kind of discussion - because they are irrelevant.

 

Onto something different altogether...

 

Although I know nothing about how the Atari Robot (and spaceship) demo was created.

It always amazed me how perfect the robot animation is. Too unbelievable to be seen running on the Atari 400/800 etc computers.

It was pointed out to me that Jim St. Louis is largely responsible for creating it.

http://www.atarimagazines.com/v4n8/Lucasfilm.html

Being an artist - and having previously worked at Disney - does explain it.

 

But something I will take a guess at - is maybe it was also created on a high end computer at that time? A workstation?

And then converted/ported downwards to the Atari? I am grasping at straws in guessing this - because no such computer was maybe not present at this time.

 

But something first created elsewhere, and then ported to the Atari - can be how something 'brilliant' or brilliantly done, is done...

 

Harvey

[Bryan]

What I don't understand are the countless discussions about what new hardware we can dream up which will enhance video. We have VBXE. Any time it gets mentioned, people go ape shit. They won't use VBXE, but want to dream up new stuff. Expanded RAM was available in the 80s. Stereo audio was available in the 80s. Hard drives were available in the mid 80s. I don't get the resistance these upgrades. It's not expensive to have a stock machine and an upgraded machine.

To me the line has to do with what would have been cutting edge in the early-mid 80s. More RAM, dual Pokeys, 80 columns, a 65816 etc... are all things someone could have hacked in if they had the cash for the upgrades. When you have an upgrade that far surpasses what was available to anyone I think you're better off using a different computer rather than diverting development away from the core machine.

 

Personally, I'm into pushing the limits of retro technology. If I have a classic car, I want it restored to it's former glory. I don't want someone to put in a brand new FlexFuel engine, computerized driveline and a Knight Rider digital dashboard.

[JamesD]

I don't care if people don't directly support upgrades. but I appreciate it if their software doesn't crash if you have them installed.

[MaPa]

I don't care about whatever HW upgrades. But the upgrades should be compatible with original HW. If the upgrade breaks original HW behavior than it looks strange to me blaming coder for it.

[phaeron]

Most of the time, these incompatibilities are (1) unnecessary and (2) unintentional. Sure, you can write a program that wraps around 64K, accesses GTIA at $D080-D0FF, reads joysticks from $D380, temporarily points the display list at $D5E0 during loading screens, jumps directly into OS routines, and executes uninitialized memory under the OS. What you'll end up with is a program that breaks on 65816, VBXE, Ultimate1MB, SpartaDOS X, and anything other than an 800XL with stock OS. However, it would be silly to do so. (And yes, I have seen each and every one of these bugs.)

 

The main issue is that most of the time there's no need for the incompatibility, proven by the repeated times on this forum that the fixes have been small. This is mostly down to lack of awareness or things that were simply missed in testing, because the programmer didn't mean to deliberately break upgrades. The issue with wrapping around 64K breaking 65816 is not that well known, and we've had a few instances just in the past month of weird program bugs caused by LDA 0 instead of LDA #0. It's not easy to catch all these on real hardware unless you have a lot of hardware, the emulators don't have very good support for diagnosing potential errors, and the toolchains don't tend to produce warnings either. It's not fair to blame programmers when these accidentally sneak in, as it's not like this stuff is going through professional QA + cert. On the other hand, being adamant about gratuitous incompatibilities like breaking 65816 because you want to use one LAX instruction during init is also pretty lame.

 

What I particularly have a pet peeve with is people who continue to write new software that jumps directly into the XL/XE OS. There's almost always no good reason to do so and it breaks compatibility with custom OSes, some of which add handy features that people rely on like IDE-based disk emulation. Heck, we still have people who are running 800s with OS-B.

 

Regarding the argument about stock hardware -- the issue with that is that almost no one runs truly stock hardware nowadays. Well, not unless they're manually typing in programs or loading them from physical disk or tape. Most people use at least a fast disk emulation of some sort, and we've seen programs break depending on exactly how executables were loaded. Heck, we've seen a demo break due to what kind of RAM chips were installed -- so if you've had bad RAM and soldered replacements in, you're technically no longer running stock hardware. I hope everyone would agree that writing software that fails on that trivial of a difference is not a worthy achievement.

 

[Heaven/TQA]

Phaeron... truth said but as MaPa pointed out... all discussion started regarding the wrapping issue breaking 65816... as called "Bug"...

 

and me using "illegal opcodes" on 6502 which broke and will break on 65816 machines is same like people blaming me using 130XE ANTIC access to extra ram banks...

 

I agree that me as coder taking care of RAM tests and trying not to break with IDE/HDD loaders.... but honestly... if the stuff runs on real HW I wrote then fair enough (and I don't count 65816 only).

 

I guess similar discussions with Amiga and HDD install/patches.

[Creature XL]

To me the line has to do with what would have been cutting edge in the early-mid 80s. More RAM, dual Pokeys, 80 columns, a 65816 etc... are all things someone could have hacked in if they had the cash for the upgrades. When you have an upgrade that far surpasses what was available to anyone I think you're better off using a different computer rather than diverting development away from the core machine.

 

Personally, I'm into pushing the limits of retro technology. If I have a classic car, I want it restored to it's former glory. I don't want someone to put in a brand new FlexFuel engine, computerized driveline and a Knight Rider digital dashboard.

One question: are you sure about the knight Rider dashboard?