PeteD

But nobody said "it's mine". The only thing was said "I converted and the result is this" If the names are removed and there's no obvious link to the original (in the same post for those lazy read one post forum people), even if the names aren't changed to the posters, the "logical" conclusion (according to emkays recent post) is to presume that image is drawn by the person posting it.

No, we don't want him to edit them, the fact that the sig thing was mentioned again was emkay was still trying to justify doing so and and still trying to now. There are more than 2 people who think it's wrong (see Heaven's post) and I'd imagine a lot more people agree and just can't be arsed getting into ANOTHER pointless argument. We don't particularly want the sigs BACK, it's part of history now and just shows everyone who actually knows where the originals are from that some people are quite happy to try to either "steal" those images or at least not attribute them to the artist. I simply originally asked emkay to STOP doing so, ie when converting people's pictures NOW to please not remove the sigs. As I said, if he'd been reasonable about it there wouldn't be this continued problem, but he seems to think he's justified in doing whatever the hell he wants with other peoples stuff and I do have a problem with that.

Well, be carefull, if this pic ever appeared on the C64, STE will complain about you for removing his sig... ;-) -Andreas Koch. That's kind of pointless and rather trolly don't you think? Fair enough making jokes about it (but getting the wrong names) in the ACTUAL thread but to start the same stuff in other threads??

Bringing back this "he removed the sig" issue again and again is lame too ... It's interesting how he get the content. Not honouring = blaming? converting = stealing? Getting twisted by simple stuff? counting facts=whining? It really looks like someone is defending his perfect romper room memories .... Not honouring = blaming converting = stealing IF you remove the name. Leave the name and ADD your credit somewhere = converting.

Bringing back this "he removed the sig" issue again and again is lame too ... You're right, it is, but if it ever sank in there'd be no need to keep repeating it. Some people on here would throw a fit if someone "converted" an A8 image to the C64 and removed the sig.. For God's sake! Thie is a picture "conversion" thread. For me it means there is an "original" one which is used as a bases of the conversion. Every picture posted here has its original one, except where the opposite is stated. The fact still remains emkay was asked (quite fairly by me originally) to not change the sigs on people's pictures. Instead of being sensible and saying yeah ok, it turns into a load of nonsense argument with crazy reasoning WHY its OK to do so. The fact that YOU can be logical/reasonable about it doesn't mean he can.

Bringing back this "he removed the sig" issue again and again is lame too ... You're right, it is, but if it ever sank in there'd be no need to keep repeating it. Some people on here would throw a fit if someone "converted" an A8 image to the C64 and removed the sig..

LMAO boo hoo my favourite machine didn't have any new stuff so lets blame all the artists and coders then steal their stuff and try to make some twisted reasoning in my head why it's ok to do so.

And whenever I see anything by Charlie Chaplin, it's usually silent.. and all the better for it Pete

Sorry, but when the hat fits... He was doing the same with Ste's pic and SIT's, then uploads others..

I wouldn't say they look crap because I can't draw at all so they're better than I could do BUT you're trying to avoid the fact that so far through the thread you've posted stuff either run through a converter or that you've done by hand with a few DLIs and you've removed the artists sig each time. If you're going to convert C64 stuff then leave the sig intact, if you're going to do your own original stuff, all the better.

O.k. understand now, you enter a new Link into here (this was not any of my Links) José Pereira.

Which one is the C64 version? The one I linked to which has a guy reviewing the 5200?!? or the 2 links you posted which I said "are the C64 version"? *edit* To me the 5200 version (that I linked to) looks more like the artefacted one than the C64. Pete Pete we are talkingabout CHOPLIFTER, right? Where's the problem? CHOLIFTER C64 on A5200 isn't 5200 version like you say, it's the real C64. Another video from C64 version (is the same):CHOLIFTER C64 The real 5200 version (with Artifacting) you can only see at the "Comparisons..." video link. José Pereira. I'm not sure if we're both talking about the same thing or not Yes, choplifter. From what I can see the 5200 is the A8 1982 version with a couple of changes and the artefacting switched to 2bpp. I don't see why any company would port a version from a machine that's about 10% the same instead of one that's 95% the same... If the "real" 5200 version has artefacting then what is that guy reviewing? He seems pretty sure it's 5200.. *edit* Ignore that, José noticed my link above

Which one is the C64 version? The one I linked to which has a guy reviewing the 5200?!? or the 2 links you posted which I said "are the C64 version"? *edit* To me the 5200 version (that I linked to) looks more like the artefacted one than the C64. Just pre/post GTIA maybe? Pete

Yeah, mad.. lol Those ARE the c64 versions, not C64 versions for or running on the 5200.. This Choplifter 5200 is the actual 5200 choplifter for example.. Also, those first 2 blue print links are the same url.

That's the power of a big palette... FIGHT! No FIGHT needed. When the A8 "palette" is actually used, not a single shaded subset of it then of course it's better to have 128 colours to choose from in these modes than 16.

You mean Ste Presumably though because the CPC only has 1 "grey" which I think is even used in it.

Wtf is the forum doing to that thumbnail one?! All the "brown" is extra stippled and looks really wrong till u click to get full size.

Well, well done for Alexander doing it on the A8, but well done to Mario (for Hawkeye) and Laurens (for Flimbo) for coming up with a trick way to do it in the 1st place btw.. Hawkeye Amiga And the description is wrong, it does have parallax. It is pretty bad though, same as the C64, no real "game" there and a shitty rush port, without source. Pete

I think a lot of those colour clashes are just errors in the bitmap data. I'll have a look see if I can find a "proper" version but in the meantime, just load the image into gimp/ps whatever, slap an 8x8 grid on it and you'll see at least in some (not checked them all) cases there may only be 2 colours in that square so there shouldn't BE any clash..

Interesting... Is there a chance to get a "beta"? Yeah, let me get finished with my current 2 C64 projects that HAVE to be finished soon, then I'm switching back to finish the A8 ones and I can get something to you Pete

I've written an interrupt driven disk loader. Like emkay says because the baud rate is controlled by the POKEY you're only left with 2 channels (and the ability to play, even stream samples if you wish). Whatever CPU time is left is available to do whatever you want with, you can have DLIs as long as they don't take too much CPU (it can interfere with catching the incoming byte from the drive). It's not 100% ready for "mastering" other peoples stuff but I've done a commandline app that will build a disk image in my format from files you give it. You can choose to have the loader "install" itself into RAM somewhere for later use (so you can reserve a bit of memory for it and not have to include it in all your files, good for multi part demos etc). Pete

Of course if you're using tiles, some of them may have no gaps, others may have gaps in places you know about A few different draw routines and you can save a fair amount of time... I'd imagine the biggest problem for a more complex background like Flimbo's is the A8 having 1/2 as many chars to mess with. Probably end up having to "zone" different background objects.

So the a8 can't move max 1000 bytes (40x25) in a frame?

hmm no, still confused lol You do know the c64 one just switches charset pointers? so no "painting" involved other than to move the actual chars? A8 should be able to do more than a full screen of that...

Wait, you lost me Are you saying you use 4 charsets and run out of CPU or that you're masking/ORing everything? Pete