malducci

Ok.... The OP was talking about CPS1 and CPS2 hardware, and things relative to that era (he had already mentioned a game in context and gave example as to what the problem he had said software relative to said hardware). You're talking about mechanical failure? Connect the two for me, please. Not sure what that has to do with the context of the original poster making the statement that a 1 on 1 2D fighter with advance graphic hardware, need a 20mhz processor? Specifically early 90's arcade hardware. I don't see what 'chinsely made PeeCee board' has to do with said early arcade hardware. ... Why? Why would I comment about that? That has nothing to do with the original discussion. I'm not here to dispute what you posted (whether it's correct or not, I don't know or care). Here's a hint: I'm not making the case. I was merely helping YOU understand where the original poster was coming from, since YOU posted this: Or were you not being serious with that statement? Here's an idea; dial back your defense mechanisms. MJM can correct me if I'm wrong, but the context of 'power' doesn't mean literally power/current. It's in context of cpu, sound, video measurement in what it's capable of producing (also coined as 'resource'). Not how much electricity it takes to power an arcade cabinet. And in the context of resource, it's not managed by the cpu (marquee lighting, CRT drivers, speaker amps). Those are external of the "computer's" resource. I also like how people make quick assumptions about my posts; that I actually share his passion or opinion on the topic. I have yet to speak my own opinion. WTF? Seriously... (read: I have no qualms about 90's 1 vs 1 2D fighters). Arkhan, correct me if I'm wrong - but no one is saying otherwise about your game. Why do constantly have to bring that up when anyone remotely mentions something about graphics or GFX or pushing a system? Are you that insecure about it, that you have to constantly outwardly project your own confidence that "simple can be fun", to convince others? People already understand that (this thread isn't a debate about that, in case you haven't noticed). And on the flip side, people also like games that do push the hardware. You even see it here. Any game that pushes any Atari system is immediately herald as a great achievement (Lynx, A8, 7800, etc). So dial your insecurities back a notch. It's past getting old.

Obviously, judging by your post. Quite a bit of early 90's games ran on hardware that was much more than what was shown off. I.e. it seems a waste of money to have less complex designed games (graphics/FX) running on a very capable setup. Simple as that. Also, what does hard drives have to do with anything? A larger chuck of what you see, i.e. graphics and moving objects etc, is directly related to the video processor/controller - not the main processor. If that port was running with arcade video hardware side, but the same main processor, it would look incredible (much-much more so than that vid). MJM's thread assumes you (the reader) know something about/have experience with arcade/console programming and are familiar with the arcade hardware on a lower level.

I'm pretty sure he means relative to what the arcade hardware was capable of. And it's somewhat true. Arcade games in general for the early 90's didn't push those limits of these systems. Though, I'm thinking more in the graphic capabilities (and un-needed audio co-processors). I guess the idea was ease of restrictions to get quicker/easier development cycles.

Not really a number for me. More like the game itself that I want. It could be 1 game, if I want that game that badly. I own an SGX. 5 games total in the library (Darius doesn't count). 4 of the games are actually worth playing. 3 of the games are pretty great titles. 2 of the games are must haves. But only one exclusive kick ass shmup is all the excuse I need to own the system

The SMS version is pretty great. Rtype 2 was on Gameboy (also levels in the DX remix of I & II). Looking at that(the DX one's colors), the SMS should have gotten a port of Rtype 2. It could have been pretty decent too, IMO.

But technically speaking the Saturn is far better at 2D than the PS1. There are loads of examples I can think of from the Spectrum or the 2600: R-Type on the Spectrum is much better than the other 8-bit computer version as was Chase HQ, Dan Dare 3 and Robocop. For the 2600 there are games like Space Invaders, Defender 2 and Galaxian that play better than versions on more "superior" machines. I'm curious, having not played it or the c64 or the MSX version or any other 8bit computer version. What makes better? Better play controls or such? Hmm, let's see. Ninja Gaiden (all three) are better on the NES than the SNES trilogy port. Batman: Revenge of the Joker is better on the NES than the Genesis. Not really. CPS-1 has better specs than the NeoGeo. NeoGeo just had a longer life cycle than other comparable arcade systems.

I usually just call them nerds. It might be offensive to some, but it's definitely appropriate when describing trekkie/trekkers/whatever they are . I mean, even amongst gaming nerds - Star Trek nerds are on a whole 'nother level.

Are you collecting for multiple regions or just one? If you've collected for Sega systems, then the SMS is a solid choice - though EU probably has the best library. TG16 is a great choice too. The games aren't 'clones' of Genesis or snes games. They definitely have their own feel (hucard or CD), which is a nice change. If you're only collecting US titles, then the cost will be the smaller than the JP library. Can't really comment on the 5200 (not particularly a fan.... yet).

That only assumes the game uses the sub-cpu specifically for game logic. And, that it actually requires the full resource (more instruction cycles/time than what 7.67mhz can provide). Some would say that the cart equivalent would be pretty big size. And that would be an unfair advantage. But I call bullshit on that. It's not unreasonble to have a very large cart. I mean, weren't not talking about FMV here. For composite or RF (for NTSC at least), sure. But RGB/scart - FFCD looks pretty terrible IMO. Some of the enemies look down right SMS/NES in color quality. FFCD has more detail over all (but not in every case/piece/aspect), but color IS part of detail too. Plus, the dithering adds to the lose of detail (creates lower resolution artificial color at the expense of detail). They're both 68k. You don't need to learn/use another CPU instruction set/arch. That's about the only connection. You could have your 'main' code run on either one. Main cpu runs game logic, sub-cpu becomes a peripheral processor of sorts (among some other things). Or vice-versa; game logic runs on the sub-cpu while the main cpu is treated as a peripheral processor (a go between the sub-cpu and the genesis hardware). It adds scaling/rotation and compositing/overlay. But at the expensive to low color limit. Batman Returns has the whole playfield layer rendered in 15 colors (not 16). Nothing more. Sure the back ground has its own 16 colors, but it doesn't add detail or color depth to the '3D' layer. And due to the bandwidth issues of the original Genesis hardware, the larger the updates you're doing - the slower the frame rate is. If the update is too large, you need to double buffer in vram to avoid tearing. Just all kinds of pretty big limitations (which games like Batman would have you think otherwise). The ASIC, responsible for scaling and rotation, can also blit normal 2D objects to a frame buffer. So you could in theory have more 'sprites' on screen. But unfortunately it has the very same limitations as above. There's also no individual priority relationship with other layers (BG layers) and the colors are pretty much fixed for all sprites - to a single 15 color palette when doing a frame buffer system like this. Low frame rate, limited color, limiting-to-no priority relationship (you'd have to simulate it by cutting out silhouettes in the buffer). For 3D, the trade off is closer in being 'worth it' than 2D.

to an untrained eye, star fox and star wars arcade look more or less the same What training does one's eyes need to make the above look the same? No, but the SNES version is more impressive, for the fact that it doesn't require a bulky add-on with cables, power cord, and cost. It's impressive in its own right. I find it reasonable to expect more from the 32x than an SNES cart with Super FX chip. Do you have a source for this information? The SVP and the 32x pretty much have nothing to do with each other; the 32x uses two Hitachi SH2s (a la Saturn) and the SVP uses some proprietary processor of no relation. http://www.eidolons-inn.net/tiki-index.php?page=SegaBase+32X its quite a long read Project Mars was actually conceived in parallel to another scheme, one that allowed a stock Genesis to play games utilizing special features not found on the console by use of custom chipsets inside the cart itself. It seemed a natural enough approach, as Nintendo was already doing this for the SNES with their Super FX processor and Capcom was doing the same with their C4 chip. The Super Virtual Play (SVP) concept was thus born, and all three of Sega's current 32-bit AM2 arcade wonders - Daytona USA, Virtua Fighter, and Virtua Racing - were considered to test the idea. These are the only confirmed SVP carts, although there are a few reports that SVP treatments of both Virtua Fighting and Star Wars Arcade were also briefly considered. Virtua Racing was the title that was finally chosen to test the technology, and it also wound up as the only SVP cart ever released. It proved too expensive for Sega to continue developing, and thus the SVP concept died a premature death. Project Mars would prove to be the superior approach to such sophisticated arcade conversions on Genesis hardware. it wasnt specifically an svp add on, but it was to give the genesis 3D games at a lower per-cartridge cost Your first mistake was quoting Sam Pettus. Your second mistake was quoting Sam Pettus. And finally, your third mistake was quoting Sam Pettus. Seriously, why do people still quote Sam Pettus? Also, the N64 ram pack can be hardly considered 'addon'.

Surely you mean fully texture mapped polygons on a handheld, the Lynx did 3D in 1989 Feel free to go back in time to 2004 and slap my 10 year old self across the face. How dare I not know that an obscure, long dead console did anything resembling 3d graphics in 1989. Well excuse me for assuming that you might have known about other consoles that were around when you grew up, were advertised on TV, sold nearly 5 million units (hardly obscure) and one that was emulated on the PSP too! I was 10 in 1987 and I sure knew all about the Sinclair ZX80 (released in 1980) the Atari 2600 & 8 Bits (1977 and 1979 and the Commodore PET (1977) No. No excuse for you. The Lynx was pretty obscure. Hell, there were gamers that didn't even know about it in 93-94 during the hay day of the GG and GB. But I doubt you were being serious, though

Hehe, I think one. I didn't have time to put in an entry. Though there is another compo. An 8k PCE compo, and this time I have a WIP entry. A mini music engine so far.

That's a pretty silly question to ask. The genesis isn't the master system, and the master system isn't the genesis. And probably for the very same reasons why people dev on other consoles

Came across this thread while browsing for artifact demos. I don't have direct working experience with PAL, but from what I've read of this technique (which I've seen described else where) - this shouldn't look so hot on an NTSC set. No NTSC SD set I've ever seen has a two scanline vertical accumulation filter. Am I missing something?

Hopefully you'll take the time to learn Assembly for whatever your targeted platform is. The payoff is well worth the time put in, IMO. And you get to learn something completely new/different than higher level languages. Nothing wrong with higher level languages, but there's just something so pure and beautiful about Assembly and machine language. Like a finely crafted piece of machinery or structure.

On some systems, you're going to run into problems with timing. Not the bios, or ram, or anything like that. But software. Some CD games have specific timing requirements either tied to seek time and/or load time (how fast the small CD buffer is loaded), that the software expects to be there. It'll break/glitch *some* games. Most games though, probably won't have a problem.

Could you please show a picture of the cart, so I can identify it? Thanks! Sure. I'll upload some pics tomorrow or so

(Reposted from the classic subforum) Apparently there's bazillion of these things? I just picked up one today for $1. Looks like a pirate cart (my knowledge and experience of Atari stuff is limited, sorry). There's no company logo or title anywhere (other than famous characters in a collage type of label). There are 6 switches on the front of the cart (there are more under the label, as I can see the indentation). There's also a list of 64 games on the back. So... is there link/place that I can info on this type of cart? And are they really that common? The top label reads "Multi-Games". I can get some pics either later today or by this weekend. I'd just like to identify the cart. I did some searching found 32-in-1 and other carts. Sadly, I have no way of testing the cart but 64 games listed on the back. Thanks.

Where did you get this for $1? Dusty At the used game store. There were a bunch of other 2600, A8, Intellivision carts for $1-2 as well. Hmm. I didn't see it in the list (via search engine). I'll posted in the 2600 forum though. Thanks.

Because I'm not fucking mad at him or such. WTF is wrong with you people?? Seriously, reading comprehension fucking fail or what? My god...

I'm not picking a fight. If I was picking a fight, I would be directly attacking his works and such (and pretty vulgar about it too). I asked a valid question to the original poster. I made a valid criticism/point as well. Because you don't like my opinions, I'm a troll? You're the one making direct insults to me, when I wasn't originally or directly replying/talking to you. I was only interested in responding to the OP. Get over yourself.

Apparently there's bazillion of these things? I just picked up one today for $1. Looks like a pirate cart (my knowledge and experience of Atari stuff is limited, sorry). There's no company logo or title anywhere (other than famous characters in a collage type of label). There are 6 switches on the front of the cart (there are more under the label, as I can see the indentation). There's also a list of 64 games on the back. So... is there link/place that I can info on this type of cart? And are they really that common? Edit: Top label reads "Multi-Games"

Hahaha, that's pretty arrogant. You're right I don't know you, but if 7800 is all you ever done for a console, *and* only a year's worth of coding - then I say it's safe assumption to make. You don't agree? But hey, maybe you're a prodigy Nope. Never cared for 7800 real or emulation (development or game). And uhm... I was referring specifically to the NES. How can you miss-interpret that? This is a thread about you obtaining an NES flash cart. You making the statement that you can now start NES development. Or you just trying to be a smart ass? Congratulations. And? There are people that haven't completed a game ever for a specific system, but they know more about that system than you or I. I could also put out a ton of easy/simplistic project/games for system X. Doesn't say much of my ability (other than putting something out). Why should I be happy? There are plenty of people that code for system. And what turf war? Defensive? Ok, in case you have reading comprehension fail, I'll sum up my two original points I made to you: One is the shallowness behind your reason/motivation for coding on the NES/SMS or such system (I think you got that one), the other is the fallacy you can think you can speak with authority about such systems simply because you put out one or two simple games (lol, a year). Anyway, simple as that. I'm not saying don't code for the NES. Go right ahead. I'm just making some observations (apparently I'm not supposed to do that on people that develop for the 7800?). I guess I'd rather see a homebrewer put their heart into coding for a console, rather than just add a system to their rap sheet and/or a trophy in which validates them to speak with more authority. That's all. And to your groupies on here: Grownups are talking. If you like his work, great. I think it's pretty damn cool to see 7800 stuff being put out too. Simplistic or advanced (doesn't matter, homebrew in general is great and on any system). But maybe you shouldn't jump to you savors defense if you don't understand the context of my replies. Besides, I'm sure he can answer for himself. Thanks

Nice analogy... but maybe you missed the point of my post? If you play a keyboard and are going to pickup and learn to play a six string guitar, *just* to for the sake of comparison.. is shallow. You're not learning to play the guitar because you, well, actually *want* to play the guitar, but for some other lesser/weaker motivation/reason. You'll never really learn the guitar. So.. replace the keyboard/guitar with whatever retro systems, if you still think thats perfectly fine, well.. then I bite my thumb at you, sir. Well, if he has a love for these systems - shouldn't that be the primary reason for learning to code for a system? That's not the message I got from reading his reply. .... That's just silly. It gives the opportunity to start learning the system right away, without having to purchase or invest anything anything upfront. The real hardware is definitely required, IMO ('cause that should be your primary target for compatibility), but not necessary for starting out and getting familiar with/learning the system. I mean, it's not like you're going to be pumping out any such timing sensitive FXs or such right from the start. Also, what are you going to use for a debugger if not emulation? Are you one of those "I don't use a debugger" types? Wait.. so you are going to 'see what it can do', to compare it against another system? It doesn't matter where your bias lies. Or even if you have no bias (relatively speaking). Learning to code for a system based on that premise, is still pretty shallow. So what I stated previous about 'knowing' the system still stands. So what's that supposed to mean? That you'll intimately know the NES or what other system in a year as well? I know of two people that have learned a system (each for a different system) within a year as well (and put out a game on the corresponding systems too). Don't get me wrong, I know you've done some stuff and I don't think you're a noob to coding for a console. If your goal is to make games for the 7800, NES, and SMS, then that's fantastic But your other replies don't indicate that's your only or primary motivation. Anyway, I guess I'll see you over at nesdev forums...

You don't need a powerpak to start learning, understanding, and code for the NES. You know there are very accurate emulators and debuggers too, right? Well... that's a very poor reason to want to code for a system, IMO. You code for a system you have love for, not because you want to 'measure up' the system. A good chance is that, if that's your motivation or mindset, then you're actually gonna miss out on some of the strengths of the system (it really does take years of coding for the system to get intimate level of understanding of the hardware, how to take advantage of exploits and what not of the system, etc). Guys over at nesdev have been honing their skills with the system for years. Also, you might have a 'much better understanding' relative to what you have now, but still might meaning nothing relative to their experience. I've coded systems for years now, trace through commercial code (seeing the good and the bad code/functions/algorithms/etc). Only thing I can tell you, is what they did (be it good or bad). Not what environments or tools or conditions or time restraints or anything, that they had to work with or under. I think it's kind of ignorant to assume otherwise.