249 replies to this topic

[Bryan]

Stephen, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:34 PM, said:

Thanks for the shoutout - it's my only mention in an Atari product for the 30 years I have owned them (minus what I sector edited in myself )

Hey! I'm in there too. I need a much cooler 'scene' name.

[potatohead]

Well, I don't know that Potatohead qualifies as anything cooler!  Thanks for the shout out.  Dammit, that means I gotta get setup when I get back off travel.  (a good thing)

[oky2000]

kenjennings, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:59 PM, said:

oky2000, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:39 PM, said:

Philsan, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:04 PM, said:

oky2000, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:13 AM, said:

Also the C64 VIC-II/SID chipset was finished only 9 months (for the unreleased arcade motherboard project put on hold) after the first handful of 8kb A8 computers went on sale in December 79. Jack re-used the chipset to make the VIC-20s big brother.

I don't think A8 chipset was finished the day when Atari 400/800 were released so I believe it was finished more than 9 months before VIC-II/SID chipset.

Obviously it is a fact that A8 computers were released two and half years before C64.

And obviously it is a fact the Commodore arcade motherboard unreleased project finished before the Commodore Max (4kb chicklet/membrane keyboard C64 essentially) design using the now unused VIC-2+SID designs was started in early 81 by engineer Yashi Terakura of Commodore Japan.

Unlike the A8 chipset which was a normal product development with chipset design up to final prototype and then further ongoing changes after launch like CTIA Vs GTIA 256 colour upgrade in 1980 the C64s core technology were two completed off the shelf custom chips from a scrapped arcade project 18 months before 1st C64 hardware sign off in late Dec 81/early Jan 82.

So no the gap is not 2.5 years technically, VIC-2 vs GTIA based A8 chipset are the same age in years pretty much and just different in their methods to achieve the same goals. I am talking about VIC-2 +SID NOT "C64 computer"

(only revision was disastrous change to SID via 8580 years later)

Apparently, an undisclosed feature of the Commodore 64 is time travel.   You'll be doing a lot of editing on the web to get all those other confused historians in line with your  "completed off the shelf custom chips from a scrapped arcade project 18 months before 1st C64 hardware sign off in late Dec 81/early Jan 82."

You should start with the four pages on Wikipedia for The Commodore 64, Commodore International, the VIC-II and SID.
http://en.wikipedia....e_International
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Commodore_64
http://en.wikipedia...._Technology_SID
http://en.wikipedia....chnology_VIC-II
Then work on these others:
http://www.commodore...ommodore_64.htm
http://www.mayhem64....k/c64design.htm

All these pages agree the chip design began in 1981.  In fact, for the SID design: "The SID was devised by engineer Robert "Bob" Yannes, who later co-founded the Ensoniq digital synthesizer company. Yannes headed a team that included himself, two technicians and a CAD operator, who designed and completed the chip in five months, in the latter half of 1981."

It's kind of hard for an arcade system implemented with an "unused VIC-2+SID designs" to exist more than a year before the SID design was even started.

Everything I read on the 2600 says when it was finished it the designers expected it to have a short lifespan and immediately began planning a successor.  Depending on where one can draw the line between paper napkin diagrams and official design specs that puts the start of the Ataris design at late 1977 to early 1978.   So, the C64 design  is at least 2.5 years (if not 3) years after the Ataris; an eternity in computing technology terms.  The only significant advancement that the C64 brought was in cheapness, with little interesting to show in  capability which is pretty sad considering that huge gap of time.

Oh god not that wiki "let me make up shit" website used as 'facts' again. Wiki is blocked on my google searches now.

The Ultimax was started in early 1981 as detailed in a professionally researched book with input from real people who worked there at the time and sold in real shops. It's called "On the edge".

Either way....

1 the C64 was finished by CES 1982
2 unlike Atari's rushed token release of xmas 79 of a handful of machines Commodore built up stock for months before launch.

At best they are 18 months apart and if 2.5 years is light years apart why was the A8 just as compromised between 1979 and the day before Jack bought Atari hmmmm? The truth is apart from a huge pallet attached to complex colour screens and 'PONG' resolution modes like 80x100 it has nothing the C64 doesn't have. As for the comment about price well hey Commodore had the brains to buy a chip design/fabrication business and Atari paid through the nose to 3rd party suppliers.

You say you have a museum but I guess my little collection of every 8,16,32bit computer AND console ever sold in PAL territories means I'm not going to be swayed by an wiki editathon or your blinkered take on reality. I know about all machines I own not just 1 brand.

If you want facts go to respected sites like commodore.ca or secret weapons of commodore.

[oky2000]

andym00, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:27 AM, said:

sack-c0s, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:31 AM, said:

I did read somewhere that Bob Yannes said that if he was given a couple more months the sound specs would've been on par with the SNES, but there's 2 caveats:

1) I can't remember where I read it, so it might not even be right
2) even if he did indeed say it there's no way of knowing if he'd have actually managed it

Not sure exactly if this is what you're referring too, but there's Mr.Sid's interview with him which I think refers to things they would have done differently had there been more time..
In particular is the fact the oscillators aren't multiplexed, so one possibility would have been more voices had that been the case..
edit: Or that freed space in the case of using multiplexed oscillators could used for oscillators tables as he mentions there wasn't enough room on the chip for wavetables..

Basically SID would have been more like his Ensoniq soundchip in the Apple 2gs, that was basically what he wanted to do with SID ...... and then some!

Think expensive early 80s analogue synths used in 80s British music. SID sounds more like the small mono synths.

Jeri told me last year that given more time and allowed a little higher unit cost for 64DTV production she would have added 3 more oscillators and the filters for dual SID quality music capabilities for us. 6 channel SID homebrew games!

Edited by oky2000, Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:31 PM.

[emkay]

sack-c0s, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:48 PM, said:

emkay, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:15 AM, said:

And, have a look back in the thread. I (again) wasn't the starter ....

Yes you were - with the cheap digs about 'brick sized pixels' back in post 21.

If THAT's a cause for anyone to feel "attacked" , he really has some psychological problem.... not only some biased point of view.

Calling the 160x100 pixels "lego" sized, is also very humorous, as they were smaller or even par to games from "other" platforms.
If you guys only knowed how biased you were, we could have a possibly friendlier communication.

[emkay]

Creature XL, on Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:04 AM, said:

popmilo, on Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:45 AM, said:

Heaven/TQA, on Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:31 AM, said:

Back to the topic... Where are the "9th hardware sprite" on A8?

Isn't it already done by "reusing player on same scanline" ?

Hard (impossible?) to do in char mode. i have tested flickering only the bad lines. Looks Ok to me. However in my case the gfx data was the same and the sprites didn't move.

And ATM I prefere the char mode because of the fith color...

The trick is to use the extra player just for colour enhancements, not for moving objects. So you could spare the "0" line out.
You also could use the extra player for shots, as they jump over that line, you would also not recognize it.

[sack-c0s]

emkay, on Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:05 AM, said:

sack-c0s, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:48 PM, said:

emkay, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:15 AM, said:

And, have a look back in the thread. I (again) wasn't the starter ....

Yes you were - with the cheap digs about 'brick sized pixels' back in post 21.

If THAT's a cause for anyone to feel "attacked" , he really has some psychological problem.... not only some biased point of view.

Calling the 160x100 pixels "lego" sized, is also very humorous, as they were smaller or even par to games from "other" platforms.
If you guys only knowed how biased you were, we could have a possibly friendlier communication.

As has already been said - this thread started with a spirit of cooperation, either learning techniques from c64 folks or teaching them to see what they can do on the A8. Then you moved in with your typically predictable anti-c64 comments, pulling what was looking like a pretty decent thread off course.

The thread is there for all to read, as are the others, so don't even bother telling us what you wrote because we can just read it for ourselves.

[emkay]

sack-c0s, on Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:38 AM, said:

As has already been said - this thread started with a spirit of cooperation,

No, it wasn't. It was supposed to a mistake in the video. Whether the mistake was intentional or not, only DeeKay can tell us.

Quote

either learning techniques from c64 folks or teaching them to see what they can do on the A8. Then you moved in with your typically predictable anti-c64 comments,

Sorry, I didn't break your Barbie. And I didn't do Anti-C64 comments. It's what you got.... obviously.
It's even still interesting that someone has to defend the right to write "pro-Atari" in an Atari related forum.

Quote

pulling what was looking like a pretty decent thread off course.


The thread is there for all to read, as are the others, so don't even bother telling us what you wrote because we can just read it for ourselves.

People who think right, will get it right.

Have a Look at Atarionline "KazKompo". The best game 2011 is one with "lego sized pixels" . No one cares of bigger pixels, if the game is running fluently and the whole screen is "moving on" , which is the strength of the A8. So it's clearly to understand, why people from the "commodore division" don't want it to be used.... slow fullscreen motion and tearing isn't a pointer to some "lightyears better machine" ....

Edited by emkay, Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:15 AM.

[Mclaneinc]

TMR or anyone actually, how close are the screen shots of TMR's demo on the real hardware for colour and saturation?

I'm trying it on Altirra and it seems almost bland in colour ie totally unlike the screens posted. The default on Atariwin matches the screens posted.

Would try it on my XL but can't find the bloody USB cable at this second.

Just looked at it in Atari800 SDL and again it matches the screens but is that what it looks like on the hardware and that if yes leads me to find the optimum match in colour settings on Altirra, the presets don't match the screens and the settings from Sal that he posted ages ago are better but not as vibrant.

Most would say to play with the settings but as adjustments in one bar will counter others and I don't understand the ramifications of that I'd rather have a knowledgable person post what they think matches what is correct IF TMR's demo looks the same as the screens on real hardware.

Edited by Mclaneinc, Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:57 AM.

[MaPa]

Check if you have set PAL artifacting in Altirra (System\Video).

[Rybags]

Bland colour is the norm when you do the APAC and TIP modes using colour blending with colour lines @ luma 0 or 2 and monochrome on the other lines to give the overall luma.

The way Pal blending works is that the saturation should be averaged between the 2 lines, so would be 50% of normal.


And... well done TMR.  There's a distinct lack of colour blending stuff that actually moves, that helps fill the gap.

Edited by Rybags, Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:11 AM.

[Mclaneinc]

MaPa, on Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:53 AM, said:

Check if you have set PAL artifacting in Altirra (System\Video).

Bingo, thanks Mapa...Now ticked and certainly 100% better...

Rybags, you lost me after the words bland colour, everything after that went whistling way over my head

I've been stupid for 50yrs now, I'm getting to be pretty good at it

But thanks for trying to illuminate me

Edited by Mclaneinc, Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:14 AM.

[TMR]

Mclaneinc, on Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:50 AM, said:

I'm trying it on Altirra and it seems almost bland in colour ie totally unlike the screens posted. The default on Atariwin matches the screens posted.

i used Atari800Win for the screenshots (i didn't know about the options for Altirra either, when i tried it everything was grey!) and it's heavy on the saturation for those software-generated modes; the effect comes up at what i'd roughly guess to be about 60% of the saturation on my 800XL.

The "pixels" are actually built from the output of two scanlines, one in greys which provides the luminance (and works with 2:1 ratio pixels - Atari800Win erroneously shows the first of those without the blending) and the other in one of sixteen colours (at 4:1 ratio) to give a hue (there's one hue for every two luminance pixels, so it's a bit like having a very small 2 by 1 "pixel" attribute cell). The PAL blending averages each of those two scanlines together and, since the hues are set to their darkest possible setting to keep their scanline as close to invisible as possible[1], they're not as prominent in the final "mix" as regular use of the colours would be (see "hidden part" for further reference =-) and everything drops saturation.

[1] If you could see the colours themselves more clearly, the horizontal movement would look terrible because there's the equivalent of colour clash in there but it's mostly buried by the dark colours and happening in a small enough area that most people won't notice up until i mentio... oops. =-)

[AtariNerd]

In Altirra, try adjust colors, allow PAL quirks mode. It allows certain things not defaulted under artifact emulation, etc, giving a more accurate artifact effect. Also, the sliders below allow you to change the intensity of the effect.

Edited by AtariNerd, Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:57 AM.

[emkay]

Heaven/TQA, on Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:04 PM, said:

definitly need to set up my SNES...

this fx is out of the box...

If you want some comparision....  compare the brass-section-sounds ....

to this one... at 0:56 1:08....

[Creature XL]

TMR, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:10 AM, said:

i can has released my demo...! Available now from all good stockists and on Pouet (along with my previous A8 release from Forever last month that i forgot to add) for those who fancy downvoting the Atari hating scumbag. =-)

Thanks for the mentioning. One question though, this music is a cover right?
At least it is familiar to me.

EDIT:
just found the hidden part. I have fiddled around with scanline changes myself and will use them someday.
however, your usage of 'em is not that impressive, as you can achive the same display without 'em.
Don't get me wrong, I realise that this is just a test screen. Just saying it doesn't look impressive, however, it is technically

is it possible to switch to 40 byte mode and use the free tim ein hblank to play a sample? just to make emkay happy

Edited by Creature XL, Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:48 AM.

[TMR]

Creature XL, on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:26 AM, said:

One question though, this music is a cover right?
At least it is familiar to me.

It's based on part of Parallax on the C64 by Martin Galway.

[emkay]

Creature XL, on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:26 AM, said:

TMR, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:10 AM, said:

i can has released my demo...! Available now from all good stockists and on Pouet (along with my previous A8 release from Forever last month that i forgot to add) for those who fancy downvoting the Atari hating scumbag. =-)

Thanks for the mentioning. One question though, this music is a cover right?
At least it is familiar to me.

There's more than one prod using this.

Venus Express, for example...

[Heaven/TQA]

yup. because I thought it would fit to the theme of the game

[emkay]

Creature XL, on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:26 AM, said:

is it possible to switch to 40 byte mode and use the free tim ein hblank to play a sample? just to make emkay happy

Why do you think it would make me happy?

[Philsan]

oky2000, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:20 PM, said:

kenjennings, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:59 PM, said:

oky2000, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:39 PM, said:

Philsan, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:04 PM, said:

oky2000, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:13 AM, said:

Also the C64 VIC-II/SID chipset was finished only 9 months (for the unreleased arcade motherboard project put on hold) after the first handful of 8kb A8 computers went on sale in December 79. Jack re-used the chipset to make the VIC-20s big brother.

I don't think A8 chipset was finished the day when Atari 400/800 were released so I believe it was finished more than 9 months before VIC-II/SID chipset.

Obviously it is a fact that A8 computers were released two and half years before C64.

And obviously it is a fact the Commodore arcade motherboard unreleased project finished before the Commodore Max (4kb chicklet/membrane keyboard C64 essentially) design using the now unused VIC-2+SID designs was started in early 81 by engineer Yashi Terakura of Commodore Japan.

Unlike the A8 chipset which was a normal product development with chipset design up to final prototype and then further ongoing changes after launch like CTIA Vs GTIA 256 colour upgrade in 1980 the C64s core technology were two completed off the shelf custom chips from a scrapped arcade project 18 months before 1st C64 hardware sign off in late Dec 81/early Jan 82.

So no the gap is not 2.5 years technically, VIC-2 vs GTIA based A8 chipset are the same age in years pretty much and just different in their methods to achieve the same goals. I am talking about VIC-2 +SID NOT "C64 computer"

(only revision was disastrous change to SID via 8580 years later)

Apparently, an undisclosed feature of the Commodore 64 is time travel.   You'll be doing a lot of editing on the web to get all those other confused historians in line with your  "completed off the shelf custom chips from a scrapped arcade project 18 months before 1st C64 hardware sign off in late Dec 81/early Jan 82."

You should start with the four pages on Wikipedia for The Commodore 64, Commodore International, the VIC-II and SID.
http://en.wikipedia....e_International
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Commodore_64
http://en.wikipedia...._Technology_SID
http://en.wikipedia....chnology_VIC-II
Then work on these others:
http://www.commodore...ommodore_64.htm
http://www.mayhem64....k/c64design.htm

All these pages agree the chip design began in 1981.  In fact, for the SID design: "The SID was devised by engineer Robert "Bob" Yannes, who later co-founded the Ensoniq digital synthesizer company. Yannes headed a team that included himself, two technicians and a CAD operator, who designed and completed the chip in five months, in the latter half of 1981."

It's kind of hard for an arcade system implemented with an "unused VIC-2+SID designs" to exist more than a year before the SID design was even started.

Everything I read on the 2600 says when it was finished it the designers expected it to have a short lifespan and immediately began planning a successor.  Depending on where one can draw the line between paper napkin diagrams and official design specs that puts the start of the Ataris design at late 1977 to early 1978.   So, the C64 design  is at least 2.5 years (if not 3) years after the Ataris; an eternity in computing technology terms.  The only significant advancement that the C64 brought was in cheapness, with little interesting to show in  capability which is pretty sad considering that huge gap of time.

Oh god not that wiki "let me make up shit" website used as 'facts' again. Wiki is blocked on my google searches now.

The Ultimax was started in early 1981 as detailed in a professionally researched book with input from real people who worked there at the time and sold in real shops. It's called "On the edge".

Either way....

1 the C64 was finished by CES 1982
2 unlike Atari's rushed token release of xmas 79 of a handful of machines Commodore built up stock for months before launch.

At best they are 18 months apart and if 2.5 years is light years apart why was the A8 just as compromised between 1979 and the day before Jack bought Atari hmmmm? The truth is apart from a huge pallet attached to complex colour screens and 'PONG' resolution modes like 80x100 it has nothing the C64 doesn't have. As for the comment about price well hey Commodore had the brains to buy a chip design/fabrication business and Atari paid through the nose to 3rd party suppliers.

You say you have a museum but I guess my little collection of every 8,16,32bit computer AND console ever sold in PAL territories means I'm not going to be swayed by an wiki editathon or your blinkered take on reality. I know about all machines I own not just 1 brand.

If you want facts go to respected sites like commodore.ca or secret weapons of commodore.

Are you talking with me?
You say you have a museum but I guess my little collection of every 8,16,32bit computer AND console ever sold in PAL territories means I'm not going to be swayed by an wiki editathon or your blinkered take on reality. I know about all machines I own not just 1 brand.
In fact I call "museum" my little collection ("museum" between quotation marks, my friends and I light-heartedly use this word as written in my website) but I am not the one who wrote about wikipedia.
Are you mixing people in addition to A8-C64 timeline?

[kenjennings]

oky2000, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:20 PM, said:

If you want facts go to respected sites like commodore.ca or secret weapons of commodore.

I did link the commodore.ca site. You didn't see that?

kenjennings, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:59 PM, said:

Then work on these others:
http://www.commodore...ommodore_64.htm
http://www.mayhem64....k/c64design.htm

Every single source of information on the web says the C64, VIC II, and SID design started NO EARLIER than 1981.  Including the respected site, Commodore CA, and Secret Weapons of Commodore.

On Commdore.ca's C64 page:
"The 64 began its design life in January of 1981 when  MOS Technology engineers decided they needed a new chip project. . . .By November of 1981, the chips were completed.  

The chips did not exist before the Ultimax, either, as you stated:

oky2000, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:39 PM, said:

the Commodore Max (4kb chicklet/membrane keyboard C64 essentially) design using the now unused VIC-2+SID designs was started in early 81...

oky2000, on Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:20 PM, said:

The Ultimax was started in early 1981 as detailed in a professionally researched book with input from real people who worked there at the time and sold in real shops. It's called "On the edge"..

Nobody disputes design of the C64 or the Ultimax began in 1981.  Your point being? nothing.

But, here's what Secret Weapons of Commodre actually says about the Ultimax, by referencing  the On the Edge book:

http://www.floodgap....et/ultimax.html
"On the Edge states that the Ultimax was born in 1981 of Commodore Japan engineer Yashi Terakura, who wanted to design a game console out of the new chips being designed for what would become the 64 (p240)."

So, you see per the sources you find respectable, the chips did not yet exist, they were BEING designed in 1981.


Yet,  you insist:

oky2000, on Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:39 PM, said:

And obviously it is a fact the Commodore arcade motherboard unreleased project finished before the Commodore Max (4kb chicklet/membrane keyboard C64 essentially) design using the now unused VIC-2+SID designs was started in early 81 by engineer Yashi Terakura of Commodore Japan.

... the C64s core technology were two completed off the shelf custom chips from a scrapped arcade project 18 months before 1st C64 hardware sign off in late Dec 81/early Jan 82.

You will not find any source including the sources you find respectable that even suggest the VIC II and SID existed a year and a half before the introduction of the C64, because to state so would be an unsupportable lie.

Edited by kenjennings, Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:25 PM.

[Rybags]

Additional to that, Atari's chipset design started well ahead of the machine's release.

CTIA, as early as late 1977, practically as soon as the VCS was released.  Pokey in early 1978, patent docs lodged early 1979.  Antic, not sure, but probably roughly parallel with Pokey.

[Bryan]

What really matters is when products actually come to market and how much they cost and how well they're supported, etc... Technology was moving fast in the '70s and there were plenty of interesting chips designed during that period that never got into successful products. What's amazing is that these layouts were done by hand and having a good idea for a chip was just the beginning of a long process.

[potatohead]

Hand layouts...  For a nice metric, the Propeller chip was done computer assisted, but basically by one person, every polygon custom.  Took 6 years...  These custom chip layouts, and the CPU's of the time are damn cool, given what they had to work with.

Re:  When they were made.  Is there any real good end game on that?  Seriously?  They do what they do, and they do cool stuff.  Beyond that, it's academic now.