Oswald

it doesnt make sense to come with that to me and not anyone else who was offtopic long before I've posted. so stop being offtopic I dont care wether there will be or not amiga subforums here.

sorry chanel f was cheaper & had video ram unlike the "revolutionary" 2600. I dont see why would anyone think the 2600 is better. also pacman technically is impossible without flicker on the 2600 hence no vram. only 2 "sprites" "playfield", etc.

no it wasnt. And this has what to do with the original topic question? its about the same computer. but I think you can guess that alone.

the fairchild chanel f which came at the same time was actually cheaper, and could display gfx without having to "handfeed" the gfx with the cpu.... perfect? in what sense? look at the fairchild, can do pacman without that flickering madness.

no it wasnt.

bubbles and the colors in some of the color splits are moving. http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=96

just every other? c64 can do it on every cpu clock. what made you think it cant ? there are demoparts which are only changing backgr color, doing scrollers, chessboards, etc. given atari standard I'd say.

ammazgin really. a8 can do a better picture than something that was done 20 years ago for the c64

so atari has problem with displaying color in 320x resolutions?

I wonder then how is this possible, with multiplexed moving sprites (see below). remember every time a sprite changes Y coord the timing changes, and here we have quite some of them, with horizontal split windows, and this is just one example of dozens of routines like this. Can you move the whole thing up and down without any distorsions? On the Atari it takes "some commands"... on the c64 it takes also "some commands"

Thats what oswald means about Turrican on C64 being 16bit graphics... sorry you're mixing me up with emkay. I've never said the c64 can do 16bit gfx. or feel free to prove me wrong with a quote and url to the post. please reread your posts :roll: I've never said the c64 can do 16bit gfx. feel free to prove me wrong with a quote and url to the post. Re Read your posts... Oswalds are lazy.. I've never said the c64 can do 16bit gfx. feel free to prove me wrong with a quote and url to the post.

I wonder then how is this possible, with multiplexed moving sprites (see below). remember every time a sprite changes Y coord the timing changes, and here we have quite some of them, with horizontal split windows, and this is just one example of dozens of routines like this. check any scrolling game with hires pixels ?! how hard is that ? turrican has that fex.

Yea I think it could be done nicely on the A8. Was SCR really that popular to play on any platform or as a nice 3D example to marvel over? I was checking out the new Protovision game nearing completion the other day.. Enforcer II. It's looking impresive. SCR was very very playable, with a lot of replay value. you actually have to learn the tracks, and when you won them all, you get a 2x faster car with the same tracks, but you have to re learn the tracks because the opponent is much faster, and things with the 2x faster car is totally different even with the slow frame rate the controls feel tight and responsive, I could go on forever

Bard's Tale, Wasteland, Stunt Car Racer, Elite? (Are on my 1:1 portable list...) CU Irgendwer stunt car would be cool!! tho the c64 version uses a trick to speed up the filling with color attributes, but I'm "afraid" it wont stop the a8 getting the whole thing faster

Thats what oswald means about Turrican on C64 being 16bit graphics... sorry you're mixing me up with emkay. I've never said the c64 can do 16bit gfx. or feel free to prove me wrong with a quote and url to the post. please reread your posts :roll: I've never said the c64 can do 16bit gfx. feel free to prove me wrong with a quote and url to the post.