youki

That's the problem , you say Atari can do better , the fact is that overall Atari don't do better in real life. C64 software was also limited by time/budget/etc... business law applies also to c64. I just saw the curtain.xex , i guess it needs a real hardware , because on my emulator , i see strange behavior and then a simple image changing its palette. In a certan way the Apple 2 could be considered as better than XL and C64. His extensibility was exceptionnal. So you can argue, it is because the C64 is easier to program than the XL. You need more to time to invest in learning to exploit theXL machine etc...etc.. it would just prove that the C64 is smarter designed. A little like if you compare the Sega Saturn and the Playstation 1 . The hardware of the Saturn was better, but so hard to program and badly designed that the Playstation win and can be considered as better. (because better game, more game, more sells). (netherless i prefer the saturn)

You are following some blind speculation that anything produced by Atari down the road MUST have better technology.

easy to imagine. You would have had the Amiga in 1982.

The real advance is the fact of having higher clocked RAM cheaply available. That's why normal VICII activities do not interfere with the CPU memory handling. And that is simply caused by the timely later development of the C64's layout. When the development was done for the A8, then RAM was multiple times higher prized. When the C64 was developed, the RAM was faster clock-able and cheaper available. So the C64 is better!

Yes, the chip VIC2 but NOT the C64. The VIC2 has not been designed for the C64. But for a video game console Commodore was planning and didn't released. And then as they had it ready , they used it in the C64 to not spend money developping another a new chip. the fact that the C64 is technically so good is pure luck. Surely not due to Tramiel "technology" strategy.... Tramiel wanted to keep production cost as lower as possible.

I agree with you. Technology speaking, i think there is no doubt that the Atari 800 win. The C64 has not been designed to be technology advanced , it has been designed to cost the less as possible. Commodore used some component they had , and luckily they had some component ready for a game console they planned . So the C64 have luckly profited of that technology. Otherwise i'm sure it wouldn't have sprites for instance. But thanks to good ingeneer it has been smartly designed. I don't the A800 has been designed in the some optic. I think the target was more a high end machine.

Crownland seems very short for a game and don't seem to be really challenging for a game. Seeing the video, it looks like more an very nice interactive demo. But i can be wrong , i will try to test it as soon as possible. I also agree it is ridiculous to compare Atari and C64 . But guys here pretend the opposite and want to compare, so it is why i ask to prove what they say by fact and not theory. Personnaly i really love the 2 machines. The only thing i can say is that both are very good. which one is the best... commercially it is cleary the C64 , in term of overall quality of commercially released games it is also the C64. But Technically i could not say each machine having their own domain where they are better than the other. Exactly, you have seen the demo of Crownland. The completed version is not on youtube. Both games have some similarities, but you have to consider that Mayhem is the top scrolling platform game reach on a C64 (at 99% of his features) after years of knowledge experimenting with different techniques. Meanwhile Crownland is the first seriously attempt on Atari to do this type of games. Despite all, Crownland have some nice features as: solid 13-18 color on screen, triple parallax movements on some stages, transparency simulation on the water. In general, technically there are a lot of differences on both machines, but the most important are: - C64 has map color (letting use 8 or 16 color on screen) - C64 has better engine sprite But Atari have: - Atari has 256 palette colors - Atari has 1.79Mhz CPU - Atari has 128K On software as Utilities, Applications, Educative programs, Operating Systems, Tools, you have the better possibilities on Atari computers, because there is no major influence of sprites and map color on this type of software. Instead, the features of Atari are very welcome. On game software, there are basically: - 3D games: Isometric, vectorial, FPs or another type of games that needs calculating and extensive use of CPU, Atari have the con here. - 2D games: Here C64 have the power, at least of 70% of type games that could be created. Meanwhile, you use more sprites and more color background you get more advantage. And the 99% of discussions, came just for this topic. Yes, i totally agree with what you are saying here. except may be just one point when you say : Embedded Atari Technology in XL/XE date from 1979 , C64 is from about 1982 . ( i take argument i could read in that thread somewhere ) . So Atari 's programmer had 3 years more than C64 programmer to master the knowledge of their machine.

Crownland seems very short for a game and don't seem to be really challenging for a game. Seeing the video, it looks like more an very nice interactive demo. But i can be wrong , i will try to test it as soon as possible. #edit : sorry about crownland , it is completed , i think the youtube video was just a preview. I will try it as soons as possible. I also agree it is ridiculous to compare Atari and C64 . But guys here pretend the opposite and want to compare, so it is why i ask to prove what they say by fact and not theory. Personnaly i really love the 2 machines. The only thing i can say is that both are very good. which one is the best... commercially it is cleary the C64 , in term of overall quality of commercially released games it is also the C64. But Technically i could not say each machine having their own domain where they are better than the other.

I spent few hours on Youtube comparing C64 and A800 version of the same game. In most of the case C64 games seems better. And to quote one comment put by "sctriplefox" on a video : So it tends to confirm that in the "real" life , the C64 is a better machine. More polyvalent, more homogeneous. I have never see one commercial game on Atari looking like Mayhem in monsterland on C64 I found something very nice on Atari : crownland , but it is not completed and looks like more like demo. And the scrolling seems not so smooth (may be due to the video..) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG_iqBPDgjE @Atariksi . Can i see somewhere what you do with your Atari? I'm new to this forums , may be your work is very famous here, but i have never seen what you did.

I didn't know that mag, it is really good!. Thanks for the link. Reading the mag #01 , i found the Crowland on ATari XL , it is very Nice But still not at the level of Mayhem in Monsterland on C64

I didn't know that project!. Seems very interresting!. why not.

it may look crap due to his poor "scrolling" but this game is really really excellent . it is one of the most famous game on msx. But this type of game was done on C64 hundred of times and on Atari dozen of times. It's not a challenge. Maybe a better idea is to propose a style game with no precedence on both systems. And this game have to be a pattern with high quality details. It's not a good idea C64 or Atari version improve other details that not exist on original game, only those version should try to get the most near possible to the original. you can do the same game using 256 color with the Atari for instance , or overscan or all other you could thing to prove your machine is the best. so the c64 is better! i'm jusy kidding but if both atari guys and c64 guys agreed for another game , no problem , the only important thing is that is the same on both plateform.

it may look crap due to his poor "scrolling" but this game is really really excellent . it is one of the most famous game on msx.

Of course i understand how much work it is. it is why i just said the 1st level and i choosed a relativly easy game to port. i have now 27 five years of programming experience behind me , i can evaluate how much work it is. I know well the c64 programming and i have average knowledge on the A800 , if i do this kind of port myself , you will have the same MSX game but with a smoother scrolling that's all. But nothing that will demonstrate that the C64 or the A800 is better. In addition i'm really busy right now in proramming a new colecovision game and AtomicFE to have time to go back on my C64. It is why i ask the experts who talk in the other thread to show us and prove that they say. "I believe what i see" . For now i didn't see any game that prove that the A800 is better than the C64 , and i didn't see any game that prove that the C64 is better than the A800. I just see that some game are sometimes better on one plateform and some other on the other plateform. Generally game are always better on the original plateform than the ported version. So if you think your machine is better , prove it by fact and not theory.

I have volontary choosed a "simple" game. Just to let coders be able to enhance it according to their machine possibility. the coder can add parallax scrolling, color effects, more sprite, bigger bosses , what he wants that can demo the possibility of his machine in the context of a game. I think it is better than pure DEMO , because demo uses very tricky things you can not realisticly uses in the context of a good game. The game you propose is the same kind of game i have proposed. I also think that the C64 could do a very good port of that game too. Better than the Atari... i don't know.

Of course not , it is not a portage. Just take the game as specification, do not copy it. The goal is to exploit at the maximum the hardware of your favorite machine. So put smooth scroll , more sprites, more colours , better sound .. It is obvious that both Atari and Commodre can do exactly like this MSX game. It is not what i ask.

No reason to call the discussion here sterile-- it has been a lot more productive, informative, etc. than some other previous threads I have read. Your approach of experimental knowledge is inferior to a rational, logical (deductive) approach. You may make a game that is superior on Atari 8-bit now but later some one may make a better one on C64-- so it's just a relative truth rather than an absolute one. By taking a rational deductive approach as to what is achievable by the machine's chipset, the truth is established once and for all and there's no need for any change regardless of what software may be produced by the machines in the future. Going by the experimental approach is the reason why many mistakenly think C64 is the better machine-- they observe much more software with various features on C64 than they do on A8 (mostly due to non-hardware reasons). I disagree the only way to prove that one is better than the other is to experiment. Theory is often not the truth. So take a game do it on both (keeping in mind to do show your machine is the best) and let 's compare. In that specific case. There is no time limit, commercial factor, political or economical reason that will make one version being inferior due to externel constraint . The only factor except the hardware iwould be the skill of the programmer. But get your best programmer here for the Atari and the best for the c64 . Seing your discussion it seems very is very good expert in both camp here. so let start with the vertical shooter i propose. and then let's go with an horizontal one. and then may be a kind of 3d game. And i think we will have a fair view of what machine is the best. no blabla , no theory , just fact. But i agree we learned lot of thing in this thread. But surely not what is the best. What do you think is better: low res with high color depth or high res with low color depth? The result will be subjective. There won't be an ultimate answer. That's your subjective view. 1.79Mhz > 1.0Mhz unless you need to extract the 1.0Mhz crystal from your C64 for your other projects. 256 colors > 16 colors unless you are color blind. BYTE wide joystick reads are better than 4-bit reads unless you are interfacing to 4-bit bus devices (when it doesn't matter). 4 DACs > 1 DAC unless you are deaf. Having 56+ graphics modes is better than having a graphics mode that's an extension of a text mode. Having a Dlist to do scrolling, bitmap ptrs, etc. is better than using a register to set the mode for the entire screen. Having overscan with one register setting is better than wasting many CPU cycles to set it up and harder to even address the pixels. etc. etc. Don't make absolute statements like "There won't be an ultimate answer" since that's self-contradictory. You get stuck with technical comparison that means nothing. If i follow your method , and i compare Your A800 with a MSX 2 , the MSX would be better. Is the case? I don't think. Of course on certain point on the paper the MSX 2 will be better. but in the reality is not exactly the case. as when you say having 56+ graphic mode is better. Ok, how many mode to you use at the same time ? Having 54 mode on 56 not very usefull is it better than have only 2 you uses? I repeat the only way to prove is to develop the same game outside commercial constraints and compare the result.

No reason to call the discussion here sterile-- it has been a lot more productive, informative, etc. than some other previous threads I have read. Your approach of experimental knowledge is inferior to a rational, logical (deductive) approach. You may make a game that is superior on Atari 8-bit now but later some one may make a better one on C64-- so it's just a relative truth rather than an absolute one. By taking a rational deductive approach as to what is achievable by the machine's chipset, the truth is established once and for all and there's no need for any change regardless of what software may be produced by the machines in the future. Going by the experimental approach is the reason why many mistakenly think C64 is the better machine-- they observe much more software with various features on C64 than they do on A8 (mostly due to non-hardware reasons). I disagree the only way to prove that one is better than the other is to experiment. Theory is often not the truth. So take a game do it on both (keeping in mind to do show your machine is the best) and let 's compare. In that specific case. There is no time limit, commercial factor, political or economical reason that will make one version being inferior due to externel constraint . The only factor except the hardware iwould be the skill of the programmer. But get your best programmer here for the Atari and the best for the c64 . Seing your discussion it seems very is very good expert in both camp here. so let start with the vertical shooter i propose. and then let's go with an horizontal one. and then may be a kind of 3d game. And i think we will have a fair view of what machine is the best. no blabla , no theory , just fact. But i agree we learned lot of thing in this thread. But surely not what is the best.

Prove that A800 is better than C64 or the opposite... http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1722385

Hi all, Reading the post about Commodore Vs Atari here : http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=1624439 where commodore 's fan said C64 is the best , and Atari 's fan said A800 is the best. this post turned to be a steril discussion that will never end. As on that forum it seems there is very good A800 programmer and very good C64 programmer also. So what i propose instead of that steril discussion is to do concrete things. i propose a kind of contest. Take a game that does not exist on A800 and C64 , and make it for both . and lets compare the result. I propose for instance , you adapt the level 1 of the MSX game KnightMare on both plateform. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFbCz538ng0 The goal being to show power of your favorite plateform!. And then we can judge what is the best plateform. What do you thing? A800's fan it is a mean to proof that you plateform is the best. C64's fan it is the way to proof they are wrong. Personnaly i don't think the A800 is better than a C64 ,but i don't think the opposite is true as well... It is like comparing a Ferrari and a SUV . On a highway , the ferrari is the best , but go "off road"... you will prefer the SUV...

Personally i use BlueMSX to test my games. I used VColeco but the sound is different in certain case. and the version i have , i don't know way don' t have the 4 sprites by row limit!!!. I was able to put 6 sprites in a row!!! .. in BlueMSX it works well sprites reacts as real!

PITFALL II is the best for me!. and one of my favorite game of all time! PITFALL I is too repetitive for me , and screen not very varied. But thus it is still a great game. But compared to Pitfall II with his huge world , where you can run, jump, climb , swim and even fly with the balloons! And i don't speak about the sound track that fit perfectly the game!. Thanks David Crane for this jewel!!! (Therefore if you own a Atari 800XL also, i would take the 800xl version instead the 2600 one. It features a unique second level! It is the only plateform where this level is! )

Hi Daniel, I have noticed that in the Build.bat in the lib4k folder a line is missing. @echo off echo COMPILING ALL SOURCE FILES FOR %%c in (./*.s) DO as-z80 -o %%c.o %%c copy crtcv.s.o crtcv.o del crtcv.s.o echo COMPILE LIBRARY FOR %%c in (./*.o) DO sdcclib cvlib.lib %%c echo COPY GENERATED FILES copy cvlib.lib .. copy coleco.h .. copy crtcv.o .. <--- this line should be added! echo CLEAN UP del *.o del cvlib.lib

Hi Daniel , I managed to perform my directsound. The question was just the "syntax" to use for the "out" in the .S file . It was just for test purpose. But what you say is interresting. But my current sound routine does not use the Coleco bios sound routines. I'm using just direct output on the 0xff port. And my music sounds strange like if the note was not maintained and cut too early. So it is may be a side effect of what you are saying. I will try to turn off the bios routines! Thanks! #edit: Thanks so much Daniel!!!.. I have turned off the bios routines and now my music is perfect!!!

In fact the mo6 has a palette of 4096 colours. there is 8 "official" graphique mode : 320x200, 16 col with constraint (in fact it is the MO5 mode , same constraint 8x1) 320x200, 4 col, non constraint 160x200, 16 couleurs 640x200, 2 couleurs 320x200, 2 couleurs, 2 pages 320x200, 2 pages superposed 3 colors 160x200, 4 pages superposed, 2 colors 160x200, 4 pages superposées, 5 colors But as always, you could manage with programming trick to do better. And display 4096 on screen for instance. Few other caracteristics. CPU: Motorola 6809E, 1 MHz RAM: 128 KB (y compris la RAM vidéo) ROM: 64 KB pour le BIOS, le BASIC 1.0 et le BASIC 128 Son: buzzer 1-bit + 1 DAC 6-bit + speach synthetiser(optionnal) mouse light pen