Wolfram
-
Content Count
369 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wolfram
-
-
can you please correct me in what I've really statedYou've made over generalized statements quite a few times of the C64 being able to do 320x192x16 or 160x192x16, or such. That is considered a BITMAP description and you damn well the c64 works on character(tiles) and associated palettes map, not an unrestricted BITMAP layout. It's *not* the same thing. It's not an Atari ST. If you're going to say the c64 can display 16 colors per frame, then you need acknowledge that the A8 could display its whole palette in a single frame as well.
stop using the straw man.
WTF are talking about, strawman? Stop using the fraking notation.
look at the very first quote. try to follow what it says.
-
There are a lot more advantages on Atari 8bit hardware than C64 hardware; I never said A8 hardware is superior in all respects.yeah, look at the a8 turrican demo. its at 25fps and 5 colors on a small screen. and thats just a demo yet without explosions bullets, all the game mechanics.
-
I think its a very valid point. what most people like is usually a good thing, and what most peope dont prefer is usually a not so good thing.I'm going to start calling this the Hannah Montana argument. Boy she's popular!
I have never heard of her. Never heard of atari 8 bits into the 90s either if we're at it.
Do a Google search. You'll be amazed.
She's good looking. Sings nicely. Acts on stage like a pro. etc. Not bad at all, but the opposite: she's a pro. I can understand why many people like her.
here's what an avr. singer can do:
they would be not prefered by millions I can assure you, and rightfully.
conclusion: most ppl chose what is good, and not what is bad.
You heard it here first folks! C64 fans love Hannah Montana!
read it again. there's nothing like that in there.
-
It is an artistric depth. You can do this with 2 shades of grey. It's not the same as using 8 or 16 different shades of a colour.You get the difference? I guess not.
I can draw a deep well using 2 colors, and a flat paper using 16 shades of grey. shades has nothing to do with perceived depth.
-
The ATARI offers much more artistic freedom, when it comes to colourisations.cool, then do this picture in g2f for me:
You mean to use intentionally wrong colours?
I mean do that picture in g2f, as a proof that a8 has more artistic freedom when it comes to colourisations.
Blablabla....It's not me favoring hires... but it's a clear fact that the eagle can be build on more colours on the A8.
its a clear fact that that eagle will look really ugly in 320x200 on a8, doesnt matter how many colors the a8 has.
-
For a fast hack very impressive. But Wolfram uses it as a "bad" example , not taking care about any relevant facts...c64 one took 5 minutes, a8 one took 10 minutes ( according to the author). still you find only the a8 impressive for a fast hack. hmm....
Despite of the wrong background colour, the Moon and the Water is coloured wrong on the C64.while the a8 eagle got all colors perfectly, right emkay ? your bias is ridiculous.
-
This picture is the 1st you show, that does not cause eye cancer (the colours fit quite good to the presented image). Details were good, but there is again visual depth missing.you dont even see your own nose when a c64 picture is shown to you. no wonder you see no depth. the hands behind the butterfly, the fingers infront of the palms, the arms behind the palms. no depth my ass.
-
The ATARI offers much more artistic freedom, when it comes to colourisations.cool, then do this picture in g2f for me:
Look at those hires dithered images on a big screen. Only bold colour cells can be spread to huge quarders, but the hires dithering results in ugly wrong dotting there.indeed:
Try to rebuild this on the C64look at the eagle converted from c64 to a8 a few posts above. it misses more than just 2 colors. it misses a lot of pixels everywhere.
-
He has the same problem with graphics-- he sees some limited amount of imagery he hasn't seen on A8 so somehow C64 has better graphics. Sorry, let's see some deductive proof.yeah lets see...
all pictures non laced.
c64 original:
converted to a8:
a8 original:
converted to c64:
draw the conclusion.
-
215 pages and nobody can just simply agree to disagree yet?"Ferd"
"Shibby"
"FERD!"
"SHIBBY!"
i.e. from the sidelines, it's all gibberish.
Different hardware, different strengths. IMO the thread should be retitled to "apples vs. oranges".
all computers have different HW, still they can be compared.
xbox vs wii ?
Different hardware, different strengths. IMO the thread should be retitled to "apples vs. oranges".
done.
-
But how can it be SID music if there are so many orchestra pieces playing? They need to have 3 performers (one for each SID voice) and no more, for it to be SID music, right? Just asking!
lets face it: if there were 3 performers you would have said SID music can be played only by SID.
-
oh so there's a lot of dumb people on the c64 side because they go to dedicated SID parties to celebrate SID music. the orchestras playing SID music are dumb aswell. the people using SID as an instrument on its own (various SID midiboxes!) are dumb aswell. the commercial people using SID music in their works are dumb aswell. the SID fan bands playing SID music live are dumb aswell. People remixing SID music are dumb aswell.The SID music is quite good.
If the time period (8-bit era) is considered, it is QUITE excellent. I rather like some of it, after finally hearing some. But it can not be considered the final evolution in synth of computer music! Otherwise, the C64 emulator would have no sound!!
I mean, the great sound of the SID should definitely be considered, but it should not be overblown into the assumption that it is the finest (or even close) audio equipment EVER created. Things have moved on, in 27 years. Otherwise, they will be writing the history books:
"In 1982, the SID chip was created for the Commodore 64. It is the world's finest piece of electronic synth hardware ever created. All research and development on successive design completely stopped, as the SID chip is considered the ultimate and final evolution of electronic music."
I do not think this is the case. SID is quite good, but no need to assume the above hypothetical paragraph is the way it is!
you're refuting something I havent said. SID orchestras, SID parties, SID bands, SID instrument boxes, etc all exists. I havent stated anything else.
-
Hope you're content now...suprisingly good compared to what I know the a8 can do in hires.
-
is it better to have 4 bicycles or 3 cars? 4 is better because its more! come one!
Exactly, best selling computer does NOT mean better computer, finally you understand. Took you long enough.
indeed not. it was both better and cheaper.
Cheaper yes, better, not by a long shot.
Wolfram: 100 frenchmen: 0
c64 wins again.
-
is it better to have 4 bicycles or 3 cars? 4 is better because its more! come one!
Exactly, best selling computer does NOT mean better computer, finally you understand. Took you long enough.
indeed not. it was both better and cheaper.
-
Repeating this argument doesn't make it better. There were also programs in the 80s which used several ofthis techniques and there was no PC editor for that (International Karate, Dallas Quest, 221b Baker Street are the first ones
which come to my mind). So its about comfort and not ability!
sure it doesnt makes it better. but. a8 uses more of its resources to produce the picture than c64 does. you can reduce the question to the picture itself, but that doesnt shows the big picture of the two machine's abilities.
Doesn't matter - right? (C64 scrolling issue or use of sprites to enhance graphics (e.g. for content up & below the usual 200 lines...)sprites will never make up for a8's overscan stuff. it's not comparable even with sprites. a8 wins hands and legs down here. well, maybe except for carefully crafted exceptions. which is exactly what the sentinel picture is on the a8 side. there are even scrolling colorful pictures extended to the sideborders on the c64, but needs more resources on the c64 side, tho the result will be better then a8 pics. same case as with the sentinel.
From the view of a software developer it feels easier to sacrifice 25% for sound FX/resource than 33% - agreed?is it better to have 4 bicycles or 3 cars? 4 is better because its more! come one!
People which come together to celebrate something doesn't mean that this something is really important orbetter than a comparable something. I never heard of Waldorf-synthesizer parties, but it would never
come to my mind that the SID is better than this synth, just because there is a party:
lets stay on the topic, a8 vs c64: A8 ppl love their computers. c64 ppl love their computers. a8 ppl go to parties to celebrate their computers. c64 ppl go to parties to celebrate their computers. c64 ppl go to parties which is only about to celebrate the music their computer created. a8 ppl dont.
now, why c64 ppl do that, and a8 not ? we both know why. (SID was capable of playing music which stuck in c64 ppl's mind to the point only loading up games to listen to title music, only playing games to listen to the music, etc)
You said, you like the green scheme in general. Now where are the greens in the conversion?it's hard not to get personal at this point.
1.I have not said I like green color scheme in general.
2. there are greens in the conversion. ask somebody from around you to recheck. maybe you're colorblind.
The moon lost it four shades of green and looks now flat.it did.
The title and interpret of the album has gone (I know you could reestablish them with sprites but HEY, this would mean trickery!?)yes they are gone.
The water should not contain any blueish colour...you are contradicting yourself. you said originally: "And now please try to reproduce the image below from the A8, by using your 'nearest colour' - scheme on the C64."
I did what you've asked for. dont change the rules afterwards. Its not fair play.
and now you do the same with this picture:Why? To prove that this image was tailored to C64s specification? Like many other productions? Like 'Dimension X' for the
A8?
because you have asked me to do that, and I did. Now its your turn. You should do it too if you want to play it fair. but you dont want to do you?
With that question you've already prooved it why should I ask you to do that: you cant. instead of doing it you ask back. Because best you could do in 5 minutes (what Ive spent on converting the pic) would be a 2 color 320x200 pic, or something in 5 color and 160x200. loosing many times more of the original picture than I did in the process. Which just shows the c64 is better graphically.
Which skin tone is better? Black or white?How dare you after complaining for blueish greens? You're not being fair. at all.
There is no better. It's about difference. Like it, enjoy it, but don't call it superior!sure there is. You cant convert my c64 example to a8, while I can convert your a8 example to c64 in 5 minutes. c64->a8 conversion would result in 10x uglier picture including resolution loss. I'm not suprised you dont want to show that.
just accept the reality:
-
I think it's a shame the color selection is so limited, but notwithstanding that they are great images...I think it's a shame the color selection (per region) is even more limited on the a8. Allows for much less artistic freedom than c64's fixed palette.
-
I think its a very valid point. what most people like is usually a good thing, and what most peope dont prefer is usually a not so good thing.I'm going to start calling this the Hannah Montana argument. Boy she's popular!
I have never heard of her. Never heard of atari 8 bits into the 90s either if we're at it.
Do a Google search. You'll be amazed.
She's good looking. Sings nicely. Acts on stage pro. etc. Not bad at all, the opposite: she's a pro. I can understand why many people like her.
here's what an avr. singer can do:
they would be not prefered by millions I can assure you, and rightfully.
conclusion: most ppl chose what is good, and not what is bad.
-
I think its a very valid point. what most people like is usually a good thing, and what most peope dont prefer is usually a not so good thing.I'm going to start calling this the Hannah Montana argument. Boy she's popular!
I have never heard of her. Never heard of atari 8 bits into the 90s either if we're at it.
-
Playfield graphics is severly less powerful.c64 can do nicer playfield graphics hands down. was proven zillion times already.
I certainly agree that the sprite engine is considerably better, and I also certainly agree that this is beneficial for games, but the latter is again a secondary question, and not a question of a good system engineering.it is when the most important point when the chip was designed was the sprite engine. as saif 2/3rd of the chip is dedicated to sprites.
You're again mixing chip capabilities with machine capabilities.when comparing machines you can not look at them as separate chips. as of what game a machine can do depends on the whole pack.
If you say that the ANTIC modes are subset of VIC modes then you simply don't know what you're talking about, sorry.I mean the comparable modes. The other modes antic has over VIC, are not really useful. good for making demos in 200x, and showing some stuff the c64 cant do, other than that.... I mean especially the 4x wide pixel modes they have been used in a very few applications back in the days.
On ANTIC, I've double-wide characters, double-high-characters, 10-lines high characters, the multi-color mode in various resolutions, and GTIA support modes for 16 hues, 16 luminances or 9 colors.double wide/width etc chars can be done with software easily. why waste silicon on that ?
-
See what I mean? Whether a specific chip limitation is a limitation for game dynamics is a second question - it is the matter of finding good engineers to work around the limitations of the corresponding hardware, but here, I only want to look at the engineering process and the vision the engineers had when designing the chips.It's better to view them as a pack imho. engineers in the 80s surely probably for where the cpu can help out the gfx/sfx chip and where it is better to let the gfx/sfx chip do it, and add features based on that.
-
The image shows at least one more shade of blue and one more skin tone, so it has to be touched up!you got me wrong there. I didnt meant that I prefer the green colors of the c64. just the green scheme in general. It would be better with greens on a8 aswell. anyway that picture is quite a special case, huge areas with the same color the a8 can just sneak in 1-2 more colors. also bear in mind the c64 doesnt uses any trickery there. its an 80s picture from the c64 which the a8 can top after 2000 using a pc editor, extra cpu and pmg help, etc.
Agreed, 'Action Bike' seems to be a sample where it works for the C64, the machine sound of the bike can be done 'on the way'.But e.g. in 'Slap Fight' and especially in 'Terracresta' it's very annoying and the other way round.
action biker was just the first random game I've found on youtube, I was not looking for an example where the c64 "wins".
does terracresta or slapfight exist for the a8 ? if not its pointless to bring them up. doesnt compares to anything on the a8 side.
And? There are also Spectrum parties, aren't they?you are delibaretely missing the point. spectrum guys have no parties dedicated to their soundchip!
And now please try to reproduce the image below from the A8, by using your 'nearest colour' - scheme on the C64.original:
converted:
and now you do the same with this picture:
(its not interlaced, true 320x200) -
C-64 can't scroll without the CPU.yeah, but lets look at all the jobs a 2d game has to do:
"c64 can do a8 quality scrolling (50fps) with using its cpu. but the a8 can not do c64 quality sprites&speed (already it has trouble displaying different colors for SOFT sprites than the background compared to c64) and game backgrounds with its cpu."
C64 graphics mode better? No.well show me a8 doing this for a game (without extra cpu help, the c64 does without that) in char mode:
and bitmap mode:
A linear bitmap is easier to use, faster to address, and better for 97% of applications.In such cases where the C-64 bitmap arrangement is "better", well, Atari can simulate that anyway.
most games dont benefit from that. you can bring the usual examples, the exceptions out of the rule: rescue on fractalue, etc.
2/3rds the VIC silicon devoted to sprites? Maybe. They didn't even bother to have seperate shift registers (for reuse). Not that it would be much help anyway, given 65 cycles per scanline to play with in a best-case scenario.you just answered it straight away: it would be not much of a help anyway. why should it be in there then.
-
I think its a much better design for a gfx chip to have as many colors as many it can display without difficulties, vs having 256 colors with 4/16 colored screens.The point is: It can't. It can only display 16 colors, and there is no way around that - it's a simple stupid limitation that could have been avoided.
But I think it's all mood to argue with you - you don't see the point I'm trying to make. As I said above, if an unnecessary artificial limitation is built into the chip - by that I mean resolving it wouldn't neither have costed much money nor much resources - then that's bad engineering. I'm talking about the engineering process, not the market success, nor those pictures in specific. I'm trying to judge the quality of the overall product from the point how well the system engineers did their job. And I don't think the unorthogonal and limited design of the VIC playfield (not sprite!) system is a master piece of engineering. ANTIC, however, is a brilliant chip design probably four or five years ahead of its time.
So long,
Thomas
the engineering limitations were two things on the VICII: the surface/size of the silicon that could be used, and design time. 2/3ed of the chip's surface is for doing sprites. that's why the bitmap mode is not linear: its reusing wirings from the charmode. and probably that's why scrolling etc is not as flexible as on ANTIC. and that's why colors are limited.
however sprites are a Huge benefit. It can not be stressed enough. thats why the 2d c64 games can outdo a8 games. VICII is the best sprite engine of its time. and while not as flexible as ANTIC, its gfx modes are better, I mean basically ANTIC gfx modes (lets look at strictly at the modes!) are a subset of what the VICII can do. And thats why c64 can bring more color to its games.
linedoubling, support for changing modes, all the dli stuff, SCROLLING etc is not as important. c64 can do a8 quality scrolling (50fps) with using its cpu. but the a8 can not do c64 quality sprites (already it cant display different colors for SOFT sprites) and game backgrounds with its cpu. and thats the point. better engineering compromises on VICII overall.
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Atari v Commodore
in Atari 8-Bit Computers
Posted
1. the very first VICIIs (rare) used less, only 4-5
2. depth has not much to do with brightness. what's farer from you is not necessarily darker/brighter. it might be the same brightness or darker or brighter.
3. a8 can hardly display more colors, at 160x or 320x, - not to talk about freedom of placement - . than c64. the bigger color palette doesnt helps here. its the same cartoony looking style with different colors, and not as tightly packed. there's no more colors for depth etc. there's not even colors for antialiasing, which the c64 can happily do.. the a8 can not in most cases... I can show you some examples...