Barnacle boy

YEAH!!!! YOU GO, GIRLFRIEND!

It's my guesture / an assumption. Probably to make things easier when scrolling and using the colour RAM. Because the Colour RAM is fixed to 40 bytes per scanline, and it could save CPU time, not always to refill the colour RAM. Whatever... Yeah, fair point. Extra 10 chars width, times 25 rows, equals another 250 map chars and colour map cells to shift around over the course of 8 frames (assuming the colour map isn't broken down into larger tiles). Certainly the narrower screen means less work in that respect, though that would have to be weighed against the cost of doing the whole score display/playfield right border mask out of expanded sprites as they've had to do here. edit: crossed out error. would have to be shifted in less than 8 frames in certain circumstances.

A near guess. It has to do with the sidescrolling mechanism. Can you clarify that please? Are you saying you think they went with the narrower screen because of the sidescrolling?

Is that because it relies artifacting on the instrument panel, or some other reason? Just curious, cos it sure looks like the instrument panel was designed with artifacting in mind.

If so, why did they reduce even the heidth of the screen ?It's always the same fact. The screen is reduced by some hw limitations. 114x192 10 colours... Are you suggesting that going with a narrower play area wasn't an attempt to make the orientation a little more like the arcade version? Then why would they go to all the trouble of making it narrower and having to use sprites for the score display? Why not just make it the normal width? The playscreen height is 192 pixels, or 24 chars high. (Tiger Attack's play-screen height is less by the way - 185px). How much taller do you think the screen could or should be? And I bet when Joe Gamer is sitting there playing Tiger Attack he's just thrilled to bits about that.

Yeah I guess they went with the narrower screen (ie: narrower than most c64 vertical shmups) to try to make the orientation a little more like the arcade original. Used to love playing this at the local hamburger shop... even if it kept kicking my butt.

Flying Shark on the c64 does the same thing - lets the screen scroll horizontally, giving the player a bit more room to move. It's also another example of a scrolling shooter that scrolls the colour map. Hard as nails though. Tiger Attack looks like it's probably an unofficial knock-off of Flying Shark.

And it doesn't come close to tieing. As you agreed before, marketing is a field by itself nothing to do with inferior/superior technology. The fact is C64 selling more means worse for the people in general since they are saturating the marketing with an inferior product and thus gave people less of a chance to get the best computing had to offer. Calling the c64 an 'inferior product' while labelling the Atari 'the best computing had to offer' is a pretty steep claim. (Just to be clear, you are talking about the Atari, right?). Perhaps you'll tell me you have proved this many times over in this thread? And while you might argue that "marketing is a field by itself nothing to do with inferior/superior technology", when it comes to marketing technological products, you can bet the various technological strengths of those products are on the table to some degree at least - maybe they'll be distorted by the marketing, maybe many details will go over the consumers' heads, but the consumers are sure to have some interest in what they're getting for the money, and the marketers won't ignore that. In my case, I was all set to get a vic-20 (thanks to some guy at school trying to sell me his one) until I read some guff about the c64's 'arcade-like' sprites. Mind you, I'd agree that the Atari doesn't come in a tie with the c64. It's good to see that we can agree on some things. (Warning: This is a light-hearted joke!)

I'm wearing nothing but a G-string woven out of my own hair. So, yes and no. Oooh! oooh! Make me one!!! I'd have to wash the tomato sauce out of the hair first. (Don't ask, it's a looong story.) Shocking confession: I have never seen Spaceballs. I need to sort that out.

I'm wearing nothing but a G-string woven out of my own hair. So, yes and no.

@atariksi: If there's one thing I regret about that post you've quoted, is that I sailed perilously close there to accusing you of a 'Chewbacca Defense'. However it did seem to me that you were changing things to support your claim that I had said pixel perfect collision is achieved with bounding boxes - something I absolutely did not claim at any time. Now, in an attempt to to get back to the spirit of this thread, I have a comment to make about a game that appears on both c64 and Atari. Deflektor. I prefer it on the Atari. Although it's less colourful, it plays better as it's noticeably faster and more repsoonsive than the c64 version. Now. Where's my steak knives and/or chamois?

From wikipedia: So your trick is to set up a straw man, and when the other party tries to clarify, you hit 'em with Chewbacca Defense. (And then expect them to be grateful for the lesson.) edit: I think it would be polite of me to stop now, and let this thread continue with more interesting topics. I'll do my best to not get roped back into this train-wreck.

I didn't use it against you. I questioned why you were suddenly specifying an 8-pixel wide Atari sprite. ... For you I will find the quote where you did use it against me to SHUT YOU up. I questioned why you were suddenly specifying an 8-pixel wide Atari sprite, wondering what you were playing at by trying to turn the example into something requiring pixel-perfect collision, since your words were that 'an 8-pixel wide sprite with arms requires pixel-perfect collision'. Frankly, I couldn't see the relevance. You can call that using it against you, if you like.

I didn't use it against you. I questioned why you were suddenly specifying an 8-pixel wide Atari sprite. Yeah yeah yeah. You throw these terms around like candy. I like how when I said you were like the guy who keeps farting but blames someone else, you started up about 'Straw man argument'. You love these logical fallacy terms, no matter how inappropriate they are. Hint: It wasn't a straw man - a straw man argument is when you deliberately misinterpret your opponent's position and then argue against that misconstrued point (sound familiar, Mr Pot-calling-kettle-black?). If you wanted to label my comment about you being like the farting guy, you should have just called it an insult. Mind you, I'd label it a 'candid observation.' Aha! So you admit that you have demonstrated how to stifle a discussion with a Chewbacca Defense attack. And I should be grateful for you showing the way. That's funny. I already responded to that a few pages ago, despite your suggestion that I had ignored it. Here it is again in case you 'missed' it:

Thanks potatohead... you've helped save my sanity and my blood pressure! The problem I have with the frequent cries of "Chewbacca defense!" is that it seeks to kill any attempts at clarifying a point or expanding upon an idea, and so tends to stifle any real discussion. As infuriating as it is, it's actually strangely fascinating to see how it works. Here's one example that made it clear to me: Midway through in the argument, Atariksi asserts that "the example of a 8-pixel wide sprite (on Atari) with arms requires pixel perfect collision". Rather than getting into whether or not it would truly need pixel perfect collision, I point out that the original example he gave wasn't so specific, and I mention, as an aside, that I'd been thinking of c64 sprites. In no way did I intend to suggest that bounding boxes only work on c64 or anything nutty like that. (In fact, I had been picturing something like the guy in Green Beret, not because it has to be that guy or only on the c64, but because I was trying to picture a fairly typical in-game character and was considering using him as the basis for a diagram illustrating the concept of recursive bounding boxes.) Atariksi apparently miscontrues (deliberately?) my comment about c64 sprites to mean that I'm saying this technique only applies to c64 sprites. It hadn't even occured to me that he would take it that way, because that would make no sense at all. It goes without saying that bounding boxes aren't restricted to particular sprite sizes. After a few comments from Atariksi (such as "sprite width is irrelevant to my point" and "I mean stating 'he meant C64 sprites' already makes it clear he was being VAGUE throughout the argument") I first wonder why he brought up the 8-pixel wide condition in the first place, then I realise that he has misconstrued my comment about c64 sprites. So naturally I clarify this by explaining very clearly "The fact I was visualizing the technique applied to c64 sprites is in no way integral to my point. When using bounding boxes, it doesn't matter what size the sprites are. They don't even have to be sprites - they could be objects created from chars or just zones on the screen or whatever you like." Now, that was an honest attempt to explain my position. But at that point he springs the trap and screams "NOW YOU ARE ADMITTING SPRITE WIDTH IS IRRELEVANT! And now you are also admitting it doesn't have to be C64 sprites." At this point, I'm like... Wha...? And so what he has done is set up a situation where he can slap me with the Chewbacca defense accusation, which has a beautifully perverse Catch-22-like quality to it. In essence, it goes like this: You miscontrue one of your opponent's points, make a few comments amplifying this misinterpretation, then when he realises what's going on and attempts to point out that this wasn't what he was saying, you accuse him of the Chewbacca Defense. And the proof that it's the Chewbacca Defense is that your opponent's clarification doesn't match your miscontrued version of his earlier point. It's magic! You could trap Houdini in it! In fact, now I'm tempted to try out this false claim of 'Chewbacca Defense' on a co-worker, just to see how he handles it. Though I'd probably end up copping a punch in the nose. Also. LOL at Wolfram's pic.

Hmm... how insightful of you to say I was "showing no proof of C64 winning over A8". Are you not aware that I wasn't even trying to make any such claim during the whole bounding box discussion? I wonder if you're able to make even one comment in this thread that isn't the product of blind bias coupled with idiocy.

It's ammazing how atariksi turns almost every argue into a debate of who said what, and then it all gets lost in hell. TMR, me, now you. atariksi is the chuck norris of all forums. He'll strangle you in the who said what in 3-4 posts, and then you'll die a slow and painful death LOL. You did try to warn me several pages back, but I just kept wading into that swamp, right past the sign saying "Quicksand".

This is ludicrous. Atariksi, you're like the guy who keeps dropping farts in a room and sits there loudly blaming someone else.

More smokescreen bullshit. The fact I was visualizing the technique applied to c64 sprites is in no way integral to my point. When using bounding boxes, it doesn't matter what size the sprites are. They don't even have to be sprites - they could be objects created from chars or just zones on the screen or whatever you like. I only mentioned that I was picturing c64 sprites after you came up with this bizarre chestnut: ...referring to an 'example' that had never even been mentioned. And when I pointed this out, you responded with an inexplicable "Got you! Atari sprites are 8-pixels wide." To which I responded: 'Got me? Are you for real? Your original comment "I rather have missiles going through people's legs and under their arms than hitting them. Most sprites shapes are not boxes" didn't make it clear you were specifically referring to Atari sprites. For my part, I was thinking of c64 sprites.' And then you have the hide to turn around and tell me "Sprite width is irrelevant to my point." OH NO KIDDING!? So why did you suddenly say "The example of a 8-pixel wide sprite (on Atari) with arms requires pixel perfect collision" as if this was some kind of vital point? And then, even more inexplicably, you burped up another nugget of nonsense by saying: Which is such a completely irrational thing to conclude from my posts that it's laughable. Really, I think you're going to have to find a new person to torment. I'm wise to your tricks now, and I don't see myself playing this game for much longer. PS. And for the benefit of those who came in late, like Crazyace. At no point did I claim that the c64's collision h/w was better than the Atari's. My crime was to state that bounding boxes were more flexible than Atariski's dismissive post on the subject suggested.

'Chewbacca Defense' comes from a scene in South Park, in which Johnnie Cochran presents an irrelevant and confusing point to confuse the jury in a court case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense As for *plop*. I actually meant to imply that I had fainted on the spot from exhaustion, however it's sometimes used online as a one word post to fill a perceived 'awkward silence' after an particularly unusual or embarrassing post by another member.

lol. What are smoking? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

So WHY did you bring up the 8-pixels thing? It was you who suddenly introduced the 8-pixels width as if it supported your case. YOU were the one who, just on the previous page, suddenly said: YOU were the one who retroactively turned it into a 8-pixel wide sprite. Then when I call you out on that, you brazenly try to turn it against me. Argh. Do you really think no one can see what you're doing? *plop!*

That's a meaningless point. It's not as if you specified Atari sprites from the outset. If I'm vague for thinking in terms of c64 sprites (reasonable, since the c64 arguably has to place greater reliance on bounding boxes), then you're equally vague for thinking in terms of Atari ones.

Read point (b) from you yourself. It shows that you misunderstood. And this is before you modified your views with Chewbacca Defense since you are only talking about one bounding box. Yes, at that point I thought, based on your vague wording, that you were referring to allowing a missile to pass through a character's limbs (as in, overlapping them), but using a single bounding box in that example doesn't mean that I was looking at the issue from a perspective being only ever able to use one. I had no intention of precluding the user from using multiple boxes if the situation demanded. And as soon as I was certain that you were referring to detecting collision with specific limbs, I explained how multiple bounding boxes could be employed for a workable solution. I still don't see why that's so contentious in your mind. It wasn't that you didn't quote my whole post that I objected to. It was that fact that you quoted my first point and the beginning of my second one, yet cut off the rest of my second point. If you wanted to address the first point, you should have just quoted it and only it. I suspect the reason why you included the first sentence of my second point (the sentence being "And the c64 can do pixel-perfect collision.") was because you hoped it would imply that my first point about bounding boxes was suggesting this...Actually, that was your problem you *SUSPECTED* something that wasn't true. That was your speculation. The first line by itself makes it clear you need pixel perfect collision. And 2nd can be used for either point once you understand the first line. I beg to differ. The first line was "Using bounding boxes doesn't mean missiles have to go through people's legs and under their arms, unless you specifically want them to." This is not the same as saying you need pixel perfect collision. So what was that 'Got you!' bullshit about 8-pixels for then? Just trying your luck? Heh. Honestly, I don't either. I feel like I'm being drawn into a web of madness with this most recent bickering.

It wasn't that you didn't quote my whole post that I objected to. It was that fact that you quoted my first point and the beginning of my second one, yet cut off the rest of my second point. If you wanted to address the first point, you should have just quoted it and only it. I suspect the reason why you included the first sentence of my second point (the sentence being "And the c64 can do pixel-perfect collision.") was because you hoped it would imply that my first point about bounding boxes was suggesting this. I did not change my argument after the fact. When you claimed that I had said bounding boxes could be used for pixel perfect collision, I pointed out that I had not said any such thing and offered an explanation of how bounding boxes could be used to either prevent or allow missiles to pass through a sprite's arms or legs. However, now you're stating "The example of a 8-pixel wide sprite (on Atari) with arms requires pixel perfect collision." What example of an 8-pixel wide sprite? You're trying to retroactively redefine your original comment ("I rather have missiles going through people's legs and under their arms than hitting them") into a definite example requiring pixel-perfect collision. Why? Because your false claim that I said pixel-perfect collision could be performed with bounding boxes depends on it. More dodginess on your part, I'm afraid... Got you! Atari sprites are 8-pixels wide. But you can go back to the original point and leave out the 8-pixels if you want. Shut-up and go back and answer the question; leave out the 8-pixel wide sprite. Got me? Are you for real? Your original comment "I rather have missiles going through people's legs and under their arms than hitting them. Most sprites shapes are not boxes" didn't make it clear you were specifically referring to Atari sprites. For my part, I was thinking of c64 sprites.