ijor Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Didn't someone develop a technique similar to "DMA delay" on the C-64 to overcome the page boundary limit? I'm not familiar with the C-64 technique, but I guess you are talking about the ST "sync-scrolling". Yes, but it has three problems. It still requires some CPU overhead (indirectly, what it really requires is precise timing). It doesn't work, at least not fully, in 60Hz. It was never "blessed" by Atari. Then it was (almost) never used in commercial titles, only in demos. Because developers feared it might not work in future, or even every "current", machines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven/TQA Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 when i started to code on ST(e) i hated the bitplane interleaving compared to my A1200 linear buffer... and when i got my 1040ste i chcked out the softscrolling and this again sux... it had bugs (or i was not able to do it correctly ).... the developed Sync-Scrolling technique just few games used in total (esp. Thalion games). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ijor Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 the developed Sync-Scrolling technique just few games used in total (esp. Thalion games). Do you know which Thalion games use sync-scrolling? Are you sure they indeed use sync-scrolling and not just border removal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axelf6 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Enchanted Land a game written by TCB (the gods of Atari St programming) and their sync-scroll worked on each 8 known types of blitter (if i remenber well) => on every ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ijor Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 Enchanted Land You are right, Enchanted Land uses sync-srolling, probably one of the very few commercial programs that do. and their sync-scroll worked on each 8 known types of blitter (if i remenber well) => on every ST Blitter has nothing to do with sync-scroll. It is interesting that the developers, being among the top ST coders/experts, made a big mistake here. If the game runs on every ST, then it is probably mostly by luck. They tried to implement a detection routine so that the sync-scroll timing would adapt itself according to the specific computer timing. But they are doing it wrong. That's btw, why it doesn't run under Steem. It is also Steem's fault, but if the calibration routine would be correct, then it would run fine under Steem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axelf6 Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 oooops !!! big mistake i didn't mean blitter but shifter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggn Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 If the game runs on every ST, then it is probably mostly by luck. They tried to implement a detection routine so that the sync-scroll timing would adapt itself according to the specific computer timing. But they are doing it wrong. Well, I guess they applied the well known method: "Keep hacking it until it works" Anyway, to get to the topic, most flight simulator programs are usually faster on the ST due to the slightly faster CPU frequency. Also, some games like oids never had an amiga port, so they are +inf better But the general idea for ST/AMIGA games is that they were usually handled by the same team (and usually the same programmer) and they mostly cared about the amiga version because (a) They would get more sales (at least jugding from the user base of both platforms), (b) It's easier to code on the amiga due to the extra custom chips. So, that leaves us with inferior st ports, since they were rushed or simply the poor st was unable to cope with the data of its amiga counterpart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.R Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Apparently Defender of the Crown is better on the ST, it has more features. So I've heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Apparently Defender of the Crown is better on the ST, it has more features. So I've heard. The ST version was the first to add the screen that shows your guys fighting ground battles. It also allows your guys to move through Saxon lands safely as long as you're not at war with that particular lord (the safe passage screen). I think the Amiga version was also missing the greek fire for the catapults which IIRC is in the ST version. The only down side is that the graphics are slightly better on the Amiga. I think there are more colors and they're brighter. It's hard to tell without a side by side comparison, but when you see it it's obvious. Tempest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastRobPlus Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 I have not tried them, but I hear the earlier Sierra games and Origin Ultima 4 and 5 support MIDI on the ST. Considering that none of those games really push the ST or Amiga's graphic or sound hardware at all, it seems likely that with a good MIDI keyboard the ST versions would have better audio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+LS650 Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 Try looking at ww.mobygames.com .... you'll be able to find side-by-side screenshots of games for various platforms. For example, take a look at these two screenshots of "Brutal Sports Football". One is the Jaguar version, and the other is the Amiga version. You know, the Amiga always won praise as a graphics workhouse for its day, and the poor ol' Jaguar got crapped on by the critics, yet the Jaguar version is obviously much nicer! Jaguar Amiga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin242 Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 (edited) Try looking at ww.mobygames.com .... you'll be able to find side-by-side screenshots of games for various platforms. For example, take a look at these two screenshots of "Brutal Sports Football". One is the Jaguar version, and the other is the Amiga version. You know, the Amiga always won praise as a graphics workhouse for its day, and the poor ol' Jaguar got crapped on by the critics, yet the Jaguar version is obviously much nicer! Jaguar Amiga The Jaguar version looks better but he Amiga version is way more playable. As far as comparing games on both systems it is a very small minority of games that are better on the ST (mostly older 1st generation games that were hastily ported to the Amiga). One game I can think of that is better on the ST (altho the two versions look almost identical in screenshots) is llamatron! It's faster and more fun on the ST. Edited November 26, 2006 by kevin242 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sauron Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 The ST version of Exile is better than the original Amiga (ECS) release, or so says the developer: http://www.exile.acornarcade.com/Atari.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Zeptari Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Robocop 3 springs to mind. A 3D game that was FAR better on the ST than the Amiga. OMG! I totally forgot about that game! I wonder if it'll run on my MegaSTE? off searching the net.......... -Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+LS650 Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 The Jaguar version looks better but he Amiga version is way more playable. Then the Amiga version must be absolutely fantastic, as I find the Jaggy version to be a lot of fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Math You Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I've never compared 'like for like' with ST and Amiga games, though I always thought that the graphics on the ST looked clearer than they did on the Amiga. I remember reading how designers were impressed with the STs' clean and tidy circuit board design. Maybe thats why everything looked so clear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin242 Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I've never compared 'like for like' with ST and Amiga games, though I always thought that the graphics on the ST looked clearer than they did on the Amiga. I remember reading how designers were impressed with the STs' clean and tidy circuit board design. Maybe thats why everything looked so clear Another reason could be the ST's monitors were clearer/crisper then the 1084's most Amigans were using. There are plenty of great ST games, but the Amiga did have the edge in graphics and sound when it comes to sprites/scrolling/etc... I find it funny people are comparing Jaguar games to the Amiga, by the time the Jag came out the Amiga was on it's way out... Of course the Jag had better graphics... even Amiga's had progressed somewhat with their too little too late AGA models, but the Amiga era and the Amiga's status as the most powerful (or one of the most powerful) game systems was over by then. \ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppera Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Most of 3D games was little faster on ST - and faster graphic looks better. Less colors is not so relevant here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigo Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Back in the past, the Amiga suffered heavily from the Atari ST because of 1:1 game conversions with slightly better sound. Once the developers learned how to code correctly on the Amiga, the Atari had no chance anymore. Even 3 D graphics can be done much faster on the Amiga than on the ST, because the Amiga blitter can not only copy rectangular areas but also draw lines at nearly 1 million pixels per second, and do a very quick fill pass on them to get filled polygons. Everythying what takes lot of effort to achieve on the ST is very easy to do on the Amiga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DarkLord Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Back in the past, the Amiga suffered heavily from the Atari ST because of 1:1 game conversions with slightly better sound. Once the developers learned how to code correctly on the Amiga, the Atari had no chance anymore. Even 3 D graphics can be done much faster on the Amiga than on the ST, because the Amiga blitter can not only copy rectangular areas but also draw lines at nearly 1 million pixels per second, and do a very quick fill pass on them to get filled polygons. Everythying what takes lot of effort to achieve on the ST is very easy to do on the Amiga. Not an expert, by any stretch of the imagination, but I remember reading what the games developers themselves said, and it was along the line of, because the ST's processor was faster, 3D stuff was better, and also about something to do with the STs memory management comparted to the Amiga's arrangement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyprian Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 (edited) Even 3 D graphics can be done much faster on the Amiga than on the ST, because the Amiga blitter can not only copy rectangular areas but also draw lines at nearly 1 million pixels per second, and do a very quick fill pass on them to get filled polygons I heard (on amigas developer forum) that Amigas Blitter isn't fast in line/fill mode and CPU can plot poligons faster. e.g. "Robocop" is smother on ST than on Amiga. Edited April 3, 2007 by Cyprian_K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppera Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Yeah - ST works with whole RAM at full speed, while Amiga has 'slow RAM' for video buffer - it is additional slowdown. I don't think that blitter can much help to make 3D faster - there are no 1 million pixel long lines Actually, by regular short lines it may be slower than CPU - programming blitter needs some time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigo Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Yeah - ST works with whole RAM at full speed, while Amiga has 'slow RAM' for video buffer - it is additional slowdown. Not entirely true. Working with 16 colours in Lores Mode (320x200) or 4 colours in Hires Mode (640x400) steals no cycles from the CPU. Speed decreases when you use 32 or 64 colours in lores or 8 or 16 colours in hires. The ST is not affected by it because it simply can not display more than 16 colours in Lores or more than 4 colours in Hires. I don't think that blitter can much help to make 3D faster - there are no 1 million pixel long lines Then you think wrong. The Amiga Blitter can draw a Line Pixel every 4 DMA cycles which equals nearly 1.000.000 pixels per second. This has nothing to do with "1 million pixel long lines", as you eloquently put it. Actually, by regular short lines it may be slower than CPU - programming blitter needs some time... You don't need the CPU at all for that. The Copper can set up the Blitter too, freeing the CPU completely from handling the blits. Just watch some decent Amiga Demos like Hardwired, Arte or Desert Dreams, then you get the idea how fast the Amiga really is in drawing 3D graphics. The ST appeared to be faster just because of lazy coders form the past who just ported ST code unchanged to the Amiga. The Amiga is one of the most beautiful architectures ever created, designed by the makers of the VCS and the Atari 800. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigo Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Even 3 D graphics can be done much faster on the Amiga than on the ST, because the Amiga blitter can not only copy rectangular areas but also draw lines at nearly 1 million pixels per second, and do a very quick fill pass on them to get filled polygons I heard (on amigas developer forum) that Amigas Blitter isn't fast in line/fill mode and CPU can plot poligons faster. e.g. "Robocop" is smother on ST than on Amiga. Even the most optimized 68K routine can not beat 1 line pixel per 4 clocks, the speed in which the blitter draws lines. In fill mode, it gets even better. Just set up 2 Blitter channels (A & D preferrable) to the bitmap, enable fill mode, and with every blit, which occurs also every 4 cycles, the blitter fills a whole strip of 16 pixels! That the ST outperforms the Amiga in 3D graphics is one of the most untrue urban legends. In fact, the opposite is true, but it rarely showed because the Amiga suffered heavily from bad Atari ST conversions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggn Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 You don't need the CPU at all for that. The Copper can set up the Blitter too, freeing the CPU completely from handling the blits. Just watch some decent Amiga Demos like Hardwired, Arte or Desert Dreams, then you get the idea how fast the Amiga really is in drawing 3D graphics. The ST appeared to be faster just because of lazy coders form the past who just ported ST code unchanged to the Amiga. The Amiga is one of the most beautiful architectures ever created, designed by the makers of the VCS and the Atari 800. Don't start talking about demos. Demos are mostly cheating . When it comes to real-world examples a game should be considered as best example. The Copper chip might be used for other purposes in a game other than setting the blitter up. No doubt the amiga is a nice piece of hardware (and being raised with an 800xl I find its architecture attractive), but like amiga coders that did shabby st conversions because the couldn't master the st hardware as far as arcade style games go, the same can be said about coders that did an amiga port of a 3d game regarding hardware tricks 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.