Jump to content
Have You Played Atari Today?
2600|5200|7800|Lynx|Jaguar|Forums|Store  

Sir Plus

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    584

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sir Plus

  17. Posted

    I didn't realise the pixel limitations. Since it's only 40, you could have one pixel = 2 points or more (since the missile can be smaller than the screen pixel). This sort of defeats the peg holes, though. Or, you could forgo the holes altogether and have the "board" run through the center of the screen vertically.... with the missiles (one dot each) rising as the score increases.

    In any case, you could always use a text score :( How is it that the counter cannot be in the center, though? I can't see any conflicts (since the players are only used for card #'s and suit objects)

    And when I mentioned the Apple II, I was referring to the game logic itself. The game was really only a text screen. My point was that if the logic took a maximum of 2k, you would still have 2k left to make up the screen and graphic objects. I figure that you could have the screen run everything vertical using 1 player for the cards (there are 13 when you start...6 for each player and the deck) and the other for the suit....

    Ah

    8s

    Kc

    5c

    3d

    Jh

    ** <-Deck (counter) hcsd=suits

    5h

    6s

    Qs

    9c

    2d

    7c

    ....and use the entire right side of the screen to move the pegs. If you used 6 vertical pixels per object (5 for the image, 1 for spacing), that would be 78 pixels high to display the layout shown. The vertical resolution of P/M (that you can see) is 190, right? It looks less attractive though. The crib is not counted until the end of play, so you could replace the cards on the side who it belongs to. The biggest problem that I see is displaying the cards "in play" before you reach 31. That would be a maximum of 8 cards in play (All both player's cards, like all aces & twos for example). Maybe forgo real suits altogether and use simple graphic objects instead, and use the second player object to display ALL the cards in play on the opposite side of the screen..... but that would be unattractive as well.

    "Ace of dots, 5 of two dots, king of line, jack of blank"

    .... Bleh! It doesn't sound pretty.... but you would be able to squeeze both value and suit into the same 8-bit width of one player.

  19. Posted

    The intellivision display doesn't go scanline by scanline like the 2600 does, it refreshes the whole screen at once, if I recall. That's why it seems slower on the display. Of course, on later releases this is almost unnoticable, like Commando and Thin Ice. And the Imagic games.

     

    Yeah, I also read that if the program had too much code to complete when the screen update was needed, the entire screen update would be lost. Plus, the some games relied heavily on tile graphics (which is not possible on the 2600).

  25. Posted

    When I owned one way back when, I slipped 1" electical boots around each stick. They wont slip off, and keeps the chafing to a minimum.

     

    Note about the joysicks....

    These use the same type of connection that is inside Atari's paddles, a flat springy metal brush for each direction. Once in a while, these may require cleaning where the brushes touch the board.

AtariAge
Forums
Store
General
Follow AtariAge

Copyright ©1998-2021 AtariAge

×
×
  • Create New...