Will you support the new Atari Console

[Keatah]

Good to hear.

 

Many may not see it, but the situation arising from that precedent must be avoided at all costs.

[BillLoguidice]

Good to hear.

 

Many may not see it, but the situation arising from that precedent must be avoided at all costs.

 

Naturally the focus should always be on the original hardware first, but, if it's not too much extra effort to make it work on popular emulators and other platforms (like the aforementioned Atari Flashback Portable), then why not? Seems logical enough.

[Schizophretard]

In my opinion, developing a game for poor emulation that wouldn't work on original hardware is rewarding poor emulation and making shovelware out of both the emulator as well as the game.

[+KaeruYojimbo]

 

Naturally the focus should always be on the original hardware first, but, if it's not too much extra effort to make it work on popular emulators and other platforms (like the aforementioned Atari Flashback Portable), then why not? Seems logical enough.

I've only skimmed the compatibility list, but it looks like many of the homebrews that don't work are those that use newer developments like DPC+ and the Melody board, things that Stella supports. If the Flashback doesn't support these and if there are no plans for it to in the future, you're essentially telling developers to stop advancing homebrew development so games will work on a platform that fans of homebrew games largely don't use as their primary way to play.

[Keatah]

DPC+ Harmony/Melody is going to be a complex thing to emulate. Naturally it's been done in Emulator Stella as noted. And ATgames would best (I believe) license that portion of Emulator Stella. Or might as well do the whole damned thing because it *is* the standard and has had years of testing and work is ongoing to improve subtle accuracy and precision even further.

 

My beef is that the emulator in flashbacks is only good enough for existing games. It's clear they only do what is required, but will do more if poked and prodded. That's what really bothers me.

 

I also agree something has to be done because these little gadgets (and other emulators) are going to be outnumbering the original consoles.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I am not even sure it works for existing game completely right. There are a lot of subtle timing issues, which you will only find by thorough testing (as we are currently doing for Stella's new core). Even the old core of Stella had those and often none even noticed.

 

But in case of Stella, if a developer is hit by a Stella emulation issue, Stella can be updated, usually very fast. With Flashback emulation, you are lost.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Thomas Jentzsch

[Schizophretard]

DPC+ Harmony/Melody is going to be a complex thing to emulate. Naturally it's been done in Emulator Stella as noted. And ATgames would best (I believe) license that portion of Emulator Stella. Or might as well do the whole damned thing because it *is* the standard and has had years of testing and work is ongoing to improve subtle accuracy and precision even further.

 

My beef is that the emulator in flashbacks is only good enough for existing games. It's clear they only do what is required, but will do more if poked and prodded. That's what really bothers me.

 

I also agree something has to be done because these little gadgets (and other emulators) are going to be outnumbering the original consoles.

 

AtGames as well as everyone else already has a license to use Stella because it is licensed as free and open sourced software under the GPLv2 which allows commercial use. So, AtGames could create a Flashback that is basically just Stalla in a box with a lightweight OS underneath(maybe a stripped down version of Linux or Android) that you never have to see because you only see AtGames' customized front end for it. That would eliminate duplication of effort that would fix emulation issues and make the product more true to the original then with future iterations of the Flashback they would only have to implement the newest version of Stella and then focus most of their R&D on making the hardware better and paying for licenses to include more games. Also, it wouldn't hurt if they give a portion of their profits to Stephen Anthony as a donation to help support further development while also actively engaging him with feedback, contributing to the code, etc. to make it even better. Anyway, I think such a Flashback would be a good device to develop for with the added benefit of Stella getting in a device that has the Atari trademark on it which, in my opinion, after 20 years of development Stella has earned.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Kinda reminds me when I took two courses in Metrology. What *is* the standard that we all reference back to? When it comes to the VCS, what is the standard? Which console? Which variant? Which revision?

AFAIK before the Jr. (Chinese chips) all consoles behave almost identical. I would set the reference to the heyday of sales (1982?), when the TIA was already explored quite well too.

 

IMO that would the Darth Vader (or maybe the preceding woodgrain 4-switch 2600-A).

Edited December 21, 2016 by Thomas Jentzsch

[YANDMAN]

This console would be better if they actually made some attempt to make it resemble an Atari product or the 2600 rather. the continually regurgitated cheap cases do not interest me at all. youd be better off playing the games on your psp. far superior sound and control.

 

If the handheld was better set out, had wood grain finish and some actual branding/graphics id consider it more.

[Mr SQL]

In my opinion, developing a game for poor emulation that wouldn't work on original hardware is rewarding poor emulation and making shovelware out of both the emulator as well as the game.

I think the same argument could be made with respect to coding to good emulation that wouldn't work on original hardware such as DPC+, but the idea is to write code that runs on the original hardware too.

 

 

Naturally the focus should always be on the original hardware first, but, if it's not too much extra effort to make it work on popular emulators and other platforms (like the aforementioned Atari Flashback Portable), then why not? Seems logical enough.

^This.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

AtGames as well as everyone else already has a license to use Stella because it is licensed as free and open sourced software under the GPLv2 which allows commercial use.

I could be wrong, but probably there would be some problems to compile Stella for the hardware used. Also Stella contains a lot of non-core functionality (launcher, debugger, windows, pop ups and hot keys for user defined settings, snapshots, palettes etc. pp) which would have to be stripped.

[Mr SQL]

I've only skimmed the compatibility list, but it looks like many of the homebrews that don't work are those that use newer developments like DPC+ and the Melody board, things that Stella supports. If the Flashback doesn't support these and if there are no plans for it to in the future, you're essentially telling developers to stop advancing homebrew development so games will work on a platform that fans of homebrew games largely don't use as their primary way to play.

 

Yes the message for developers is to leverage only classic Atari technologies like the Superchip and CBS RAM - it's like RT's page about 1983

[Schizophretard]

I could be wrong, but probably there would be some problems to compile Stella for the hardware used.

They could pick hardware that is designed specifically for running Stella either by customizing their own or using off the shelf parts instead of compiling Stella for the hardware currently used.

 

Also Stella contains a lot of non-core functionality (launcher, debugger, windows, pop ups and hot keys for user defined settings, snapshots, palettes etc. pp) which would have to be stripped.

The GPLv2 permits modifications to the code so that they could strip out whatever they don't need and/or even add in whatever they want. In other words, being open source allows anyone to become a contributing developer of Stella.

[Schizophretard]

double

[enthusi]

Well but the time you invest in rendering Stella some sort of 'Kiosk' Software is spent for free as you'd have to make THAT available again (which is good in my book).

The more advanced stella gets the less likely it is to end up in some stand-alone emulator-plattform on some ARM SOC.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Unless it becomes modular.

[BillLoguidice]

I understand all the concerns/criticisms. The reality is, these are designed to play the built-in games, so that's what the emulator is tuned for. Every time new games are added, more tuning is done (like is being done now for the 2017 stuff). The SD card option is considered a bonus feature and not something that significant time and effort can be put into to make sure compatibility levels are higher (and yes, sometimes fixing one game breaks another, which then needs to be fixed, and so on and so forth).

 

It's the same reason why a more authentic looking case design was not created, etc. These are low price, low margin products that sell in known quantities each year, so the budget you're talking about is quite tight. I think a lot of people will be happy with what we're doing with the Atari and rest of the hardware line-up in 2017 (it will be a good year), but it still won't be anywhere near the type of device(s) that will completely satisfy the most discerning consumers, i.e., us. I just don't know if that's possible for a mainstream product that has to play by very specific rules and under very specific restrictions.

 

I'd be happy to recommend Stella to AtGames, but it can't be something they would just take and use. As much as people may criticize AtGames, they do make a real effort to do everything above board and squeeze every bit of performance/features they can in the dev time between when each new release gets locked down. They'd have to license something like Stella from the creator or creators and said creator or creators would have to have full rights free and clear, or AtGames would also have to license from them as well. There can't be any unknowns in something for commercial use like this. In any case, if anyone has any suggestions in that regard, I'd be happy to listen and pass it on.

Edited December 21, 2016 by BillLoguidice

[+KaeruYojimbo]

I understand all the concerns/criticisms. The reality is, these are designed to play the built-in games, so that's what the emulator is tuned for. Every time new games are added, more tuning is done (like is being done now for the 2017 stuff). The SD card option is considered a bonus feature and not something that significant time and effort can be put into to make sure compatibility levels are higher (and yes, sometimes fixing one game breaks another, which then needs to be fixed, and so on and so forth).

 

This creates another argument. Why should a developer put in extra effort to make a game compatible with the current version of the emulator when it may work fine unmodified with the next version, or, however unlikely, the tweaks done to make it compatible with the current version end up making it incompatible with a future version?

 

The question is will programmers write their games or create versions of their games specifically to work on the Flashback. I would say that unless and until the emulator is declared "finished" and no further updates will be made and the Flashback becomes the standard way games are played, the answer should be no.

[Keatah]

I understand all the concerns/criticisms. The reality is, these are designed to play the built-in games, so that's what the emulator is tuned for. Every time new games are added, more tuning is done (like is being done now for the 2017 stuff). The SD card option is considered a bonus feature and not something that significant time and effort can be put into to make sure compatibility levels are higher (and yes, sometimes fixing one game breaks another, which then needs to be fixed, and so on and so forth).

 

This is another mark against making custom games for unfinished emulation. Yet some game programmers may actually want to code different versions of their games for different machines. A mini-port of a sort.

 

Personally I don't care either way what happens. I'm not necessarily the target market. I just want to see emulators become more refined and accurate as time rolls on.

[BillLoguidice]

Yeah, I think it would be silly to suggest that developers write games specifically for the Portable, but there's no reason that if they're using fairly generic technology (i.e., no special chips) they can't tweak a few things, if needed, to work on both. I think the goal of most homebrews is to reach as big of an appreciative audience as possible (it's not like it can really be about money, right?).

 

And yes, there's always a risk that a new version of the AtGames emulator will break a previously working game, but that risk should, in theory, be relatively small. Like I said, when new games are introduced and old games become glitchy, it does get fixed. In theory those same fixes should cover any potential new issues for something that previously worked. Still, it's 100% given that although AtGames will want as high of a compatibility level as possible with their products, it will never be perfect. That's not the nature of the product due to the various reasons I detailed earlier.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

For me the only reference is the real existing hardware. Even just to imagine I would have to create, test and tune versions for various more or less incompatible emulators is a nightmare.

[Keatah]

In my opinion, developing a game for poor emulation that wouldn't work on original hardware is rewarding poor emulation and making shovelware out of both the emulator as well as the game.

It's not my place to boss any dev around or anything. But we must avoid this situation.

[Keatah]

Well but the time you invest in rendering Stella some sort of 'Kiosk' Software is spent for free as you'd have to make THAT available again (which is good in my book).

The more advanced stella gets the less likely it is to end up in some stand-alone emulator-plattform on some ARM SOC.

Could Emulator Stella end up ever being owned by a company that'd run roughshod over it and allow the current quality development to go slack?

[Keatah]

I could be wrong, but probably there would be some problems to compile Stella for the hardware used. Also Stella contains a lot of non-core functionality (launcher, debugger, windows, pop ups and hot keys for user defined settings, snapshots, palettes etc. pp) which would have to be stripped.

 

These , and more, are what I call amenities (luxury items). And yet they all add-up to make a comprehensive package. I remember back in the day starting VCS games with a command line.

 

I also like the current kiosk way of doing things. The menu is simple, and can be pre-sorted based on folder names.

[Keatah]

Yes the message for developers is to leverage only classic Atari technologies like the Superchip and CBS RAM - it's like RT's page about 1983

 

I would say that there is room for new technologies, because otherwise why bother with a cartridge slot? If it fits in there it's game!

 

And when does a technology become official? Or worthy? There are numerous examples of fine games that don't use "classic Atari Technologies". And "classic" Atari is no longer around to approve or dis-approve of recent developments.

 

I also say all these bank switch schemes are "official". Any one of them seems to work and get the job done. Who is the recognized governing body of bankswitch schemes? Certainly not Atari, they're a buncha suits.. And memory access schemes can be as custom as any program ever written. I understand Nintendo has hundreds.