DimensionX

Mute. A8 vs C64 (vs spectrum). Didn't got the message? A8 have hundreds of colours to choose from too. Time to visit the store.

Before i log out... That's why ST games looks soooo much better. ST has a limit of 16 on screen colours, but a palette of 512 to choose from. Point made

Why don't try it live? http://a800win.atari-area.prv.pl/ Homesoft http://www.mushca.com/f/atari/index.php?idx=6 It's easy to set up, you will be running a virtual Atari in no time. Then you can check out for yourself what an Atari 800 is capable of, and what it's not capable of. There isn't such thing as a "best computer", just different computers. And you missed the point, Atari doesn't need a single raster to produce more rich and vivid colours. Check today postings in this thread. You assume too much. How do you know I don't have an A8 or those emulators? I have programmed for the 3 machines mentioned in this thread. I am far from being as a good programmer as TMR but I have dirtied my hands on many systems. So please don't be condescendant about my knowledge of the said platforms. I have entered in this debate not to show the c64 a better machine, but to show you that more colours <> better graphics. That's not true. To be able to create certain graphics you must have access to a certain amount of colours. Else you can't create that kind of graphics. And a palette of only 16 is VERY little to work with. You can't use finer nuances with so few colours and it shows on the C64 and Spectrum. Not to say that you can't create good graphics on a 16 colour palette.

Why don't try it live? http://a800win.atari-area.prv.pl/ Homesoft http://www.mushca.com/f/atari/index.php?idx=6 It's easy to set up, you will be running a virtual Atari in no time. Then you can check out for yourself what an Atari 800 is capable of, and what it's not capable of. There isn't such thing as a "best computer", just different computers. And you missed the point, Atari doesn't need a single raster to produce more rich and vivid colours. Check today postings in this thread.

If we're being honest, 320x200x16 (and in case people are wondering, those pictures haven't been "deinterlaced", those are static C64 screens) is significantly better for graphics quality than 80x96x256 with some scanline distortion. Here's an APAC pic i did a few years ago... ...nowhere near as good looking. And your decision isn't final so please, in the middle of a programming sub forum, stop trying to dictate like that. Well, that's my personal opinion, no matter what you or anyone else say. To think that one single computer is best at everything it's plain stupid. Better then to be realistic...

Atari was able to show 256 colour pictures already at 1986 thanks to Red Rats Technicolour Dream. Let's be honest. At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie. Both are capable computers in their own rights, but on different things. The same thing with ZX Spectrum. At first i thought it was a quite worthless very limited computer. Then i learned more and Spectrum wasn't so bad after all. Some of the demos i have seen were quite impressive and some of the games was even tastful to look at. You see, i'm not biased at all. Which computer is best? It depends on what you want. These are hires pictures. If you can't see that there must be some kind of problem. Can you post a gif of 256 colour pictures from the A8 to compare? Yes, i saw it was high resolution pics. But nothing you can use in games anyway. The best way to watch Atari art is to download WinAtari800 and to visit Homesofts page. There's several slidshows av Technicolour Dream pictures in the demo section. Atari ST managed to show pics with 19.200 colours... Of a palette of over 32.000 colours Using Photochrome. Of a limit of 16 on screen colours and a palette of 512 colours. So, i'm not easily impressed.

Atari was able to show 256 colour pictures already at 1986 thanks to Red Rats Technicolour Dream. Let's be honest. At first i belived that Atari was the best computer for graphics. Then i learned several new things and changed my mind. C64 is better om some things, sprite handling for exemple. So i call it a tie. Both are capable computers in their own rights, but on different things. The same thing with ZX Spectrum. At first i thought it was a quite worthless very limited computer. Then i learned more and Spectrum wasn't so bad after all. Some of the demos i have seen were quite impressive and some of the games was even tastful to look at. You see, i'm not biased at all. Which computer is best? It depends on what you want.

And that's the problem, you're using colours to justify your claim of better graphics and they're not one and the same - having more colours doesn't automatically make for better graphics and there are other factors involved. Edit: here's a thought, if the best 8-bit machine is the one with the most colours, the winner is probably the Amstrad CPC Plus since it has a palette of 4,096 - by your "logic", the superior 8-bit is built by a company that most people at Atari Age probably never heard of. No, i don't. Just in the colour area. Not in graphics. What i'm trying to say is that you can't say that C64 was the best computer for graphics. I say that C64 is better on some things, Atari on other things. That's why i will call it a tie.

Please stop trying to bloody lecture me about how these machines work because, since i've developed and released games for all three, i sure as hell don't need the "how these work" speeches. The C64 doesn't have the same colours as the Spectrum so some have to be swapped over, but the amount of colours actually in use can remain the same because both machines have the same attribute-based mode when the C64 is in high res. For example... ...and the program version is here. Spectrum has much sharper colours thanks to a pallette of only 8 colours where bright commande givs some extra nuances. And that is the big problem with C64 too, you can't use any fine nuances, like on Atari. Is it your conversion? Great job. Have you seen Xenon on C64 and Spectrum? It doesn't look even near the ST and Amiga version. Atari 800 could do it, but not C64 and Spectrum because ST uses gradiant nuances for the graphics and the computer must have a big palette to choose from for being able to recreate the game.

Even if both computers just use 7 colours for a game, Atari has so much more rich and vivid colours. C64 can't even come close reproducing the colors found in the Atari versions. So i see no competition at all in the colour area, Atari is superior to both C64 and Spectrum an any other 8 bit computer in that area. Thanks to much bigger pallette to choose from and som special hardware modes. Se my earlier screenshot of the game H.E.R.O for exemple. C64 pales right away in the colour area. I'm not talking "sprites" but "colours". And the quality of them.

A sad thing that we didn't see any older commercial games doing that then? Atari 800 did it all the time. And you say that i'm biased? To make a game look like that on C64 is to dream because Atari has much clearer colours. Not even the C64 demos looks anything like that. You are judging the A8 better just because of still screens or games using those rasterbars, and that subjective parameter of yours "clear colours". Better not mention dreams... there would be possible to produce a huge list of c64 games that it would be utter utopical to think they can be produced for the A8. Nope because many games has moving colours that looks like that. Try Dimension X for exemple. C64 handles sprites better? Atari is the better computer for rich and clear colours? A tie?

A sad thing that we didn't see any older commercial games doing that then? Atari 800 did it all the time. And you say that i'm biased? To make a game look like that on C64 is to dream because Atari has much clearer colours. Not even the C64 demos looks anything like that. Amiga is the only computer who could produce colours like that too.

Agree, it's how to use them, and the quality of them, and the number of them. Alternate Reality. C64 version PNG, 652x1048px, 83 KB (0.08 MB) Atari version PNG, 684x744px, 61 KB (0.06 MB) I like all three computers too, but it's no question about that Atari was the best computer in the colour area.

ZX Spectrum almost always uses a higher resolution too because lack of different graphic modes, then it uses the bright command to get more colours on screen. Everything you see is in 256*192 pixels while the C64 version often use a much lower resolution. You can easily see that on the zig zag lines in the C64 versions of these games. To reach spectrums resolution you will have to get rid of some colours. That's why both C64 and Atari lost some colours when trying to reproduce some of the spectrum games like Head over Heels for exemple. Resolution was more importand then colours. Head Over Heels is completly in monochrome on Atari 800 using the highest resolution. PNG, 684x996px, 67 KB (0.07 MB)

Is that so? Which version do you think look best? C64 version to the left, or ZX Spectrum version to the right?

The game Stealth from Broderbound. C64 version on top Here's a typical exempel of how gradiant colours often was used in the Atari version of the game that C64 never could produce. In the C64 version there's a set of different colours instead. Atari's colour capacity was often used to enhance the games atmosphere. The Game H.E.R.O from Activision. C64 version is built on the Colecovision version of the game. But look at the colours and compare it to the Atari version of the game. Flip between the two for a fast comparison. The colour in the Atari version is so more rich and vivid even if the Atari version do not use more colours. C64 version PNG, 652x836px, 80 KB (0.08 MB) Atari verson PNG, 684x996px, 59 KB (0.06 MB) Between us, most colours in the limited C64 palette was okey, except brown, that really looks aweful. They could have been choosing a lighter brown nuance for C64's palette. You often regocgnize the games in no time because of the aweful brown.

And as i've already said repeatedly, just colours don't equate to the entire graphical experience; how you can use those colours is just as important and the C64 is more able on that front, that's why games like Stormlord look like this... ...and 50FPS half colour clock scrolling, whilst Hawkmoon (which uses graphics stolen from Stormlord and Hawkeye on the C64) looks like this... ...and is flick screen. Just sticking a rainbow through one of the playfield colours doesn't automatically make a game look "stunning", if that were true anybody could write "stunning" A8 games just by throwing any old junk up and locking up the CPU for a couple of hundred scanlines. It's not even viable to do that in many circumstances - even if there were enough processor time to do it, trying to rainbow split something like Zybex would affect all the sprites as well and would look rubbish. Funny that you mention that. ZX Spectrum won many reviews, because "lack of colour". The machines limits was in many cases it's strength. The spectrum version looked a lot cleaner because lack of colours and a higher resolution. The colour clashing problem forced the programmers to make the games in monochrome with a colourful status display instead. Goodnight.

Comparing "bang per bit" (bang per buck) i would say the C64 is one of the best machines ever. Its no good having all those colours if you can't use them well - halftoning with the c64 palette is IMO just as usefull as having the wider a800 h/w palette. a "photo to tilemap" converter will 'prove' this the C64 is a more impressive use of 8bits than the Amiga is of 16bits. other designs got more out of similar memory & bandwidths. [the amiga was a truly amazing home-COMPUTER though.. probably the best ever] It was possible to paint with 256 colours at the same time on Atari already 1986, thanks to Red Rat's Technicolor Dream. And yes, C64 was a stunning computer. Ooops, the time is almost midnight, i'll better log out. Always a pleasure talking to retro people.

Ok. Show me screenshots (or mockup proof of concept) of Atari800 R-Type, Salamander, Armalyte. I conceed: the Atari800 might be able to display superior STATIC images, or 'demos' but until I see the above, I will continue to beleive the C64 is the superior *games* machine. The clear advantage is in the data encoding per screen. One fixed 16 color palette, with many independant 3 color elements, with some shared+unique colors None of those games were made for Atari 800, but if i find some remake i will post at screenshot of it. Those static screens that you see in the forum, is moving in reality. Yes, all those colours is animated in the emulator. There is only one more computer who can produce that type of clear colours, Amiga.

Hmmm, Can we make it a tie? Atari is better in the colour area because of a much larger palette and some great hardware modes. C64 is better at handling sprites 1-1?

It's the latter, one byte per character with 7 bits selecting the actual definition (so only 128 characters in a font compared to 256 on the C64) and the top bit selects one of two playfield colours for the %11 bit pair. It has it's pluses and minuses, the DMA fetch for each character line is... [ahem] aggresive. so the C64 clearly has a lot more data per screen, and used very intelligently. More character/sprite map attribute data is infinitely preferable to raster effects. Hence the better graphics. I'm guessing A8 games mess around re-pointing the character definitions alot? must be alot of options for trickery there. Not to be rude, but... I can't be honest and say that C64 has better graphics then Atari 800. No way. I compared the same games on both machines several times. The colours are so much better in the Atari version, while C64 has quite cold colours Atari produces a warm spread of colours that makes the screen much more easy to look at. Don't thrust me, try it yourself on VICE and WinAtari800 to see what i mean. There's more difference that i thought between C64 and Atari. Almost all games look samish on C64 thanks to the limited colour palette. You can tell within 2 sec it's a C64 game because C64 suffers from the same syndrome as ZX Spectrum who also have a very limited colour palette. If i look at the screens that TMR posted, i can tell within 1 sec it's a C64 game, because of the colours. I think that you can do that too.

I don't have to prove a thing. Because it shows when you take a look at the screens. Again, i wouldn't have chosen more than five or six of those screens to show off the Atari 8-bit under any circumstances and some of them are nowhere near as good looking as their C64 equivalents (Blinky's Scary School, Gauntlet or Draconus immediately spring to mind) whilst a few are truly hideous - i was wrong in one respect, because you've proved that you should probably get your eyes tested...! It wasn't obvious from how i've been talking about programming in a programming sub forum you mean...?! Well yes, i'm a programmer and graphics artist and have written games for the C64, C16/Plus/4, VIC 20, Atari 2600, Atari 8-bit and so forth as well as providing support and graphics for various projects - right now i'm working on a couple of things, one of which is an A8 shoot 'em up and another a Spectrum game (before now i've only done graphics for it) but since i'm teaching myself Z80 on the fly for that one it's only being aimed at the CSSCGC and isn't a serious game... my first Atari 8-bit game (mine as in design, code and graphics) was Reaxion, which was released five years ago and looks like this... ...my last C64 game (released at the end of 2009) looks like this... ...and that's impossible to do on the Atari 8-bit for no less than three different reasons (four if you include the colour effect on the titles page). Oh, and i'm also the homebrew reviewer for Retro Gamer magazine. I'm speaking of "colours" and the quality of them. The games looked like that on Atari already 1982 because of the hardware. When C64 had a single colour Atari used the rainbow effekt used in sooo many games. Check out the game "Dimension X" for Atari 800 via AtariWin800 to see what i mean. Impossible to do such thing on C64. I thrust you when you say it's impossible to do that on an Atari. But the Atari games looked stunning already at 1983. Here's my blog, i write some reviews too. Unfortanly it's in swedish but i plan to write in english too. http://gamlaspel.wordpress.com/ Nice games. I whish you good luck with your game creation. This is Atari...

If i could be bothered to play this game yet again, i could happily produce twice as many C64 games where the A8 couldn't display the graphics for at least one reason. So again you're not proving a single thing. I don't have to prove a thing. Because it shows when you take a look at the screens. No hard feelings and thanks for an interesting discussion. TMR. So, you're a programmer? I'm a muscision and retrofreak.

Because it's fun to compare old computers. Nothing else. I hope that you don't think that we take this seriously? I like all the old computers and plays all of them via emulator, from ZX81 to BBC, ZX Spectrum, C64 or Atari 800. (i emulate Amiga and Atari ST too). Long live both C64 and Atari 800. It's just fun to compare.

Given the choice between the colours & sprites, i'd definitely choose the sprites. Those screenshots are mostly gimicky titlescreens; rasterbars can't replace real sprite/character colour choices for actual object detail. the C64 is clearly superior for *games*. a8 for 'tinkering with graphics' agree, but mainly similar in that the hardware sprites were only usefull for player character regardless, c64=8bit winner, amiga=16bit winner. wow. i'm being drawn into an argument about 2 machines i never owned! These debates will never wear thin. interestingly i think I would have been very content if i owned an atari 8bit machine at the time. We are still just talking 16 colours, like ZX Spectrum (with bright mode). The colours is still the same game after game, and it shows. The ST had a limit of 16 on screen colours too, but a palette of 512 to choose from. And to be honest i don't really think that the 64 version have better sprites. Then it depends on how much work the programmer has put in to make a good version of the game for that particular computer. When we compare computers, have a look at this. PNG, 592x1290px, 127 KB (0.12 MB) C64 to the left, ZX Spectrum to the right. ZX Spectrum actually looks better sometimes because of a higher resolution. Check out Pac Mania for exemple. ZX Spectrums limited hardware (including colour clash) made the games sometimes look a bit better, funny enough.