DimensionX

At last, a posting that deserves at good reply. I'm well aware of much of what you say. I'm also a sensitive person and react way more then most others would do. Yes, Atariage is a great community and all of you who writes new games deserves a big credit for keeping the old computers alive. But still, i'm no programmer and better off posting in other parts of this forum.

Still showing your ignorance here as firstly the "crap" part of what you posted above is what YOU made from a bunch of FACTS other people posted. Some of the ones you posted are actually correct, things like "SID has more channels because they're 16 bit" was NEVER said by ANYONE. Therefore you are a liar once again. Let's see how you like it.. DimensionX, Angry synaesthetic who thinks all Americans are dumb and can't count, thinks atari 800 is better than EVERY other computer, will quite happily threaten other forum members for perceived slights and promise retaliation. Anything dithered is ugly UNLESS it's on the A8. Anything without a rainbow is ugly. Pokey has 5 channels because you can combine 2 to make a bass and still have 3 left. Shall I go on? Then you call me a liar? I think it speaks for itself. To all readers. Just read the thread to see who's lying and who's not.

That just goes to prove that throughout this whole thread you have had ZERO interest in what anyone else has to say. You've posted a list there of things that YOU have made up to take the piss out of actual facts because those facts counteract your baseless claims. Not really. It was when you and some other people started to post crap like that when i got a bit tired. I thought, oh no, they think i must be totally stupid and unaware of just about everyting, we can trick a non programmer as much as we like, he will not know a thing anyway. And when you noticed that i wasn't that dumb, you changed your mind pretty fast. That's not a honest discussion. Besides that, this is a "programmers thread" and stupid me don't belong here.

The only knowledge relevant to this particular discussion would be about the Atari 8-bit and C64, but you're obviously deficient in those particular areas otherwise the programmers wouldn't have had to teach you the absolute basics of the Atari 8-bit such as how many colours the CTIA-based display modes have, how 16-bit frequencies work (i'm not sure you actually understood that one, but people still tried), that the "256 colour mode" you quoted from wikipedia isn't actually a mode but software generated and so on... For somebody claiming to know a lot about graphics you were incredibly reluctant to produce even a simple mock-up as a vain attempt to prove your point over Xenon, instead you repeatedly contradicted yourself by setting what you personally considered to be requirements for a conversion and then posting screenshots of games like Warhawk and Last Guardian that didn't match those criteria. Ooh, i forgot that you're a programmer. (how about that one?) It's hard to tell if that was meant to be a joke or a personal insult but it failed either way. At last i found a pic of my fellow C64 combatant Yeah, that's why i have learned so much. I learned that if the same channels on the pokey chip plays the same note, they shift from 8 to 16 bit, and becomes 3 instead of four, then i learned that SID has more channels, because they are 16 bit. Then i learned that Sid could produce all sounds which must be truly unique because no other synthesis in the world can do that, from good ol' wavetable to FM. Then i learned that dithering could be more detailed then solid graphics. Then i learned that A8's processor wasn't "almost twice as fast" even if the Mhz says so. And then i learned that C64 version of Rtype was the same as "good graphics". But the good knowledge don't stop there, i learned one more real importand thing, that new 8/16 bit computers are better then the old ones. Wait, i also learned that dithering wasn't about the palette. Quite amazing how much i have learned in this thread so far. Perhaps it's a bit to much of good healthy information for me. And i really think that you'll be better of discussing all these amazing things by yourself. Like you said, i'm not a programmer, just a retro entusiast. And you said several times that i don't belong here and should post in other parts of the forum. Yet i get questions all the time that people expects me to answer? Well, don't expect anymore answers because i don't really belong here with all those ace programmers who posesses such great knowledge. And TMR, you'll get a big credit for being a retro freak like myself. And GroovyBee Take a look at Sidewinder II. (at least 3 real good shades) Perhaps not Xenon, but could be something to develop to the 8bit Xenon. http://img.youtube.com/vi/FoYcWinFFUc/0.jpg PS: Did you see ABC 80's awesome colours?

Great job. It really looks awesome.

Some kind of early test version i suppose. Looking forward to see the finished game.

This discussion was about many things that i do know lot about. Graphics for exemple, sound too. And even if i'm not a programmer i do have a good knowledge in some areas. Perhaps even better then most programmers in this thread who claimed lots of things that were incorrect. @Bryan This is how A8 should have sounded Can i rent your will for this one? Ooh, i forgot that you're a programmer. (how about that one?) None of them, because Luxor ABC 80 had the best colours around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_80 I will be leaving you now and continue to post here http://www.atariage.com/forums/forum/12-atari-8-bit-computers/

Just to clarify, this isn't what you were doing DimensionX... It isn't? Are you serious? This can't be true. And i belived that i inspired soo many people with my awesome programming techniques.

That's exactly right. Stop trying to make anyone else here agree with you and just be an Atari guy. And since you're not really a programmer, why not hang out in the Atari forums? I'm an Atari guy but I realize that someone who uses a different machine won't see things like I do. So I can argue my point, but I don't have to win. There's much more reward in doing something for the Atari community than winning a silly forum argument. You know what else is even better than kicking someone's ass with irrefutable pro-Atari debate skillz? Helping 64 guys understand the finer points of the Atari so they get an urge to tinker with it. Then when you code something awesome, they'll want to know how it's done, and you'll look even more awesome. edited for typing FAIL I would be better of working on Atari ST in that case because ST feels more familiar to me after being a ST owner for many years. I still have my 1040 STE expanded to 2 MB left even if i use STeem 3.2 more these days. But the 8bit computers is good for a retrokick from the early 80's. And never forget Bryan, that i can never make you think something because you have your own will, haven't you? I can't speak for anyone else, but me. And neither can you.

Your blog is irrelevant to this discussion too. Especially as it is in swedish. This is a programming discussion so your blog is irrelevant regardless of language unless you've learnt to program since saying you couldn't. This is totally irrelevant to the discussion. As is this. And your repeating yourself is tantamount to trolling. And you repeat yourself by calling people for trolls. For me, A8 is best. For you, C64 is best. I don't think that we can say much more about that? Because if you say that C64 is the better machine, all people will not agree. So, then how come you have so damn much trouble saying the reverse, which is true as well? There is a lot of great art on these old computers. Why work so hard to validate your appreciation of it? Are you secretly afraid that, if you somehow appreciate what another machine can do, or the work of somebody on that other machine, you might find your conviction lacking?? It's a big retro world out there man. Lots of interesting machines, lots of game, demo, and picture art to enjoy... TMR is right on this too. From a Programming perspective, it's entirely possible to establish the criteria, weigh the machines, and come to a determination as to which is better, given the criteria. How else do you think people decide which machine to target for a particular project?? Does it really need to be said? Just look at this thread. If i say that A8 is the better computer, lots of people will not agree. I think that TMR said the right thing. Is not about who's best, just about differences. And you as programmers are better suited to discuss that then me as a non programmer, or "once programmer". (visual studio) But that's far from A8 or C64.

I'll better log out for now. This was a real marathon discussion. Have a great weekend.

"Ya" is a corruption of "you", so it means "what do you know". Thanks for making things a bit clearer. Sometimes i mess things up when trying to type in a language i don't master.

Your blog is irrelevant to this discussion too. Especially as it is in swedish. This is a programming discussion so your blog is irrelevant regardless of language unless you've learnt to program since saying you couldn't. This is totally irrelevant to the discussion. As is this. And your repeating yourself is tantamount to trolling. And you repeat yourself by calling people for trolls. For me, A8 is best. For you, C64 is best. I don't think that we can say much more about that? Because if you say that C64 is the better machine, all people will not agree.

And you didn't say they had to be old. There are 8-bits less than five years old, just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they cease to be. The Commodore 16 can display up to eighty colours a line from it's 121 colour palette at 320x200, the Amstrad CPC Plus has a 4,096 colour palette and there are the others we named previously. Oh, i thought that was quite obvious? Of course it wasn't, there's nowhere in the post where you mention it and no context beforehand since those posts were massively off-topic. Assuming you were actually thinking about just old machines before i pointed out that you were wrong, you can't blame anyone else when you don't express yourself clearly. A lot more than you do, obviously. How to type it correct in english? That was supposed to mean Whaddayanow Where "ya" means me, not you. In swedish we say Vad vet man? It means (straight translated) What knows one?

Your blog is irrelevant to this discussion too. Especially as it is in swedish. It was more a fun spin off if anyone wants to compare C64 to ST side by side to see the difference between 8 and 16 bit. Well, i agree of that C64 is better then A8 in some areas, no question about that. But what i like so much with good ol' A8 is it's colours and special way to display games. Perhaps A8 isn't technically as good as C64, but has it's charm for me and many others.

And you didn't say they had to be old. There are 8-bits less than five years old, just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they cease to be. The Commodore 16 can display up to eighty colours a line from it's 121 colour palette at 320x200, the Amstrad CPC Plus has a 4,096 colour palette and there are the others we named previously. Oh, i thought that was quite obvious? Whaddayanow...

And the A8 can't do them either, so once more this is a totally moot point and absolutely irrelevant even to your latest tangent away from the actual thread topic. That's what a big pallette can do for 16 on screen colours. And that was my point. Yes, sixteen onscreen colours from a 512 colour palette - something that neither the C64 or A8 can manage. So not relevant in the slightest. But whilst you're there, you might want to take a closer look at the Chaos Engine graphics because, along with the massive amounts of "unclean" dithering, did you notice the way it goes from what is essentially grey to a dark shade of brown just like C64 graphics artists do? The same thing you've previously slagged off the C64 for but here it's hypocritically allowed? There is one, in fact there are two. But again that's irrelevant. In fact, you can compare C64 to Atari ST right here to see the difference. And this is you missing the point and being irrelevant yet again. Not if you read what i wrote in the blog. No competition of any kind. Just to see the difference between 8 and 16 bit. What differs? Well, take a look for yourself to find out. And yes, i'm aware of that A8 can't do anything of that. But it's very good at certain things that most 8bit computers aren't. And that's why i like A8 so much.

Nope, there are multiple machines with palettes as large as or better than the A8 and as many colours or more than the C64 in use simultaneously. Like Master system for exemple? Or NES? Well, yes. But if you look at such old computers as Atari and C64 it will be hard. BBC?

And the A8 can't do them either, so once more this is a totally moot point and absolutely irrelevant even to your latest tangent away from the actual thread topic. That's what a big pallette can do for 16 on screen colours. And that was my point. Yes, sixteen onscreen colours from a 512 colour palette - something that neither the C64 or A8 can manage. So not relevant in the slightest. But whilst you're there, you might want to take a closer look at the Chaos Engine graphics because, along with the massive amounts of "unclean" dithering, did you notice the way it goes from what is essentially grey to a dark shade of brown just like C64 graphics artists do? The same thing you've previously slagged off the C64 for but here it's hypocritically allowed? There is one, in fact there are two. But again that's irrelevant. In fact, you can compare C64 to Atari ST right here to see the difference. Wait until it has finished loading. I linked to a certain comment. http://gamlaspel.wordpress.com/gallerier/versus/comment-page-1/#comment-2157 It continues here http://gamlaspel.wordpress.com/gallerier/versus/#comments

And the A8 can't do them either, so once more this is a totally moot point and absolutely irrelevant even to your latest tangent away from the actual thread topic. That's what a big pallette can do for 16 on screen colours. And that was my point. Now, imagine a C64 with a palette of 128 or 256 colours to choose from. With the same abilitys as now. Problem is, it doesn't. Just as the Atari has limitations that you consistently ignore. You didn't read my edit.

And the A8 can't do them either, so once more this is a totally moot point and absolutely irrelevant even to your latest tangent away from the actual thread topic. That's what a big pallette can do for 16 on screen colours. And that was my point. Now, imagine a C64 with a palette of 128 or 256 colours to choose from. With the same abilitys as now. I agree a larger palette would have enhanced what the C64 can do. but it was very capable where it was.. it was a good compromise. A large palette would have ment more onchip registers, more going on in its video hardware Might sound a bit silly but as pete pointed out - Dan Malones' chaos-engine palette is very similar to taking the C64 palette and desaturating it. Maybe one could just do that with the TV I was all Bitmap Brother games. The sad thing is that you will have to choose because you can't have both. Either a big palette as A8, or a more flexible graphics engine. That's up to you what you prefer. On 16 bit, both is possible.

And the A8 can't do them either, so once more this is a totally moot point and absolutely irrelevant even to your latest tangent away from the actual thread topic. That's what a big pallette can do for 16 on screen colours. And that was my point. Now, imagine a C64 with a palette of 128 or 256 colours to choose from. With the same abilitys as now. But you can't have that...

Why don't check out the whole collection? Now, imagine a C64 with that graphics. And we're still talking 16 on screen colours.

You've gone out of your way to pick the least dithered image, this has dithering all over the place.. even for flat shades (cliff tops) even more in the next metalic level Have i? Then check the whole game. It's nothing even like on C64.

Yes this is why i liked the BB games. More real detail due to all the shades. Didn't matter that most of the objects were the same colours. BB games did resort to dithering on larger elements.. Xenon's 3rd boss, etc etc. Other more 'colourfull' games had to dither more. i think on many TV's the 320 pixels wide tended to blur ordered dither together very well BB games should be split into 2 really, Dan Malone games or Mark Coleman (totally different style) I belive you because some of the games are very different. Xenon and Xenon II for exemple.