Zach's Projects

Hello,

 

I like the idea of reading a bitmap, since I plan to do the same for use in a track editor, and I don't want to spend countless hours making a track editor utility (e.g. like the Indy 500 editor.)

 

The only issue I see with your code (and potentially mine) is it appears that you assume a fixed-size header. As I understand, this isn't always the case. Or am I wrong?

 

EDIT: just checked since I want to read BMP files too. The header is a fixed size but the image data doesn't necessarily start right after it - I think that palette data may be there instead. Anyway, offset $0A contains the offset to the start of image data, in case you get a weird BMP file.

I don't remember all the details, but I did study the BMP structure at one time. I remember that there is header data, pallette data, and finally graphics data. Clearly the pallette data will be longer for a 16 bit color image than an 8 bit one.

This is pretty cool. I'm not sure how much the extra 4 pixels is worth having to unroll the loops this way, though.

This is pretty cool.  I'm not sure how much the extra 4 pixels is worth having to unroll the loops this way, though.

It depends. I'm using it for my title screen so I can get a font similar to the one used in the 7800 Ms. Pacman. I may look similar to the 48-pixel one I did but I can tell the difference. Maybe I'll post a screen shot of both and let you decide.

 

Now that I used the tool and optimized the code that was produced, I might look into seeing if I can squeeze more pixels out of this like John suggested.

 

Good work Zach.

 

I hope the other [stella] members will know about this

This is pretty cool.  I'm not sure how much the extra 4 pixels is worth having to unroll the loops this way, though.

I consulted with Nathan about the worth of four extra pixels before doing the work. It's easy to appreciate the extra width the first time you see it on a TV. It'll be unlike anything you've seen before on a 2600. Furthermore, remember that an 8K and 32K game cost the same to publish, so in a sense, ROM is cheap.

I can see why Nathan would certainly clamor for more pixels - the artist who is creating the bitmap will always want and appreciate every last pixel you can squeeze out - but, IMO, 90% of the time most folks won't notice unless you tell them and show them a comparison.

 

I could be wrong.

I can see why Nathan would certainly clamor for more pixels - the artist who is creating the bitmap will always want and appreciate every last pixel you can squeeze out - but, IMO, 90% of the time most folks won't notice unless you tell them and show them a comparison.

Probably so. Since I've seen the comparison I don't know which I like better. Well, I do like the 52-pixel version but I might be satisfied with the 48 pixel version. The 52 pixel version does look better IMO and I might be able to squeeze more pixels into this too. It may come down to ROM space for me.

 

I was going to post a screen shot but I can't add an attachement to my post

No attachments are allowed to blog comments.

About time that Dennis runs his own blog

As far as creativity with fonts, some creativity can be used in giving the illusion of more than 48 pixels already by shearing the graphic with HMOVE (think italics).

About time that Dennis runs his own blog

I thought I read somewhere that he does already...hmmmm

 

EDIT: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...dpost&p=1010132

 

About time that Dennis runs his own blog

I thought I read somewhere that he does already...hmmmm

 

EDIT: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...dpost&p=1010132

 

Yeah it was an experiment. I haven't been back there since January or the first part of February after they deleted my last post. I just haven't found the time to update a blog lately. http://dnsdebro.blogspot.com/

I was going to post a screen shot but I can't add an attachement to my post

Thanks for sending me the screen shot, Dennis. I added it to the top of the thread.

Hm... The big one is no real improvement IMO. Especially the Pac-C looks even better in the small one. It seems as if a 49 pixel bitmap to do a proper "P" would be good enough

How 'bout doing a tool for 56 pixels? The leftmost four and rightmost four pixels would have to fit one of these patterns:

XXXX
XXX-
XX-X
XX--
X-XX
X--X
X---   (with the next pixel also being blank)
-XXX
--XX
---X  (with the previous pixel also being blank)
----

and not these

X-X-
-XX-
-X-X
-X--
--X-

Code should be fairly straightforward.

How 'bout doing a tool for 56 pixels?  The leftmost four and rightmost four pixels would have to fit one of these patterns:

It's a good idea, but I've got a homebrew to finish. I going to stick with 52 pixels for the Four-Play title screen becuase Nathan's artwork doesn't work in 56. So far, you've only seen the text, but there is more.

 

I think Nathan's work will provide a better example of the advantages of 52 pixels.