DimensionX
-
Content Count
447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DimensionX
-
-
At least we agree of one thing. These two games looks very different. I personally prefer Crownland by far for it's almost glasslike colours. So much cleaner.
How can an emulator-recorded video that isn't using an exact palette be "cleaner"? Surely only the real colours on the real machine can truly be "clean" otherwise the near matches from hardware like the CPC Plus would be valid.
Exactly, I could use an A8 emu, load a different, less "glassy" palette, make a YT video that blurs it even further and say, Crownland looks awful. Which is why I requested he didn't go YT hunting for MiM vids cuz they're all shite on there. As it is I really like the look of Crownland (apart maybe from the somewhat pastel sprites) and it's on my list somewhere (as port this to C64 just to stop people saying C64 can't do this). Me and Ste have already had a good old look at the graphics and it's pretty much doable for the background. Sprites... welll
Pete
I was Atari 8bit owner for many years. Then i owned a ST for almost 11 years. Most of my friends had a C64 or Amiga. So i'm well aware of the palette differences for real too. Not in Crownland off course, but in most other games. So i'm not just an emulator gamer i can tell you.
I have owned an Amiga too.
Even a Fairchild Channel F (1979)
-
Display it's all about hardware. A certain computer will always have a certain type of display depending on it's hardware. All computers differs in display.
So, now for about the 1 millionth time, YOU PREFER the Atari 800, especially the pre-XL version. So WHY do you continue to post things like, the C64 can't do this? Firstly, technically in the case of Crownland you're wrong so the only way it's BETTER is because YOU PREFER it but you'll continue to antagonise people who don't agree with you. ho hum, I did say you wouldn't stop the other day and I was right.
Pete
Because some people keeps posting annoying comments aimed at me. Else i wouldn't have done even one more posting in this thread. Knock it off, and you don't have to see me here anymore.
-
At least we agree of one thing. These two games looks very different. I personally prefer Crownland by far for it's almost glasslike colours. So much cleaner.
How can an emulator-recorded video that isn't using an exact palette be "cleaner"? Surely only the real colours on the real machine can truly be "clean" otherwise the near matches from hardware like the CPC Plus would be valid.
I have both seen and owned most of the computers myself to be able to tell the difference in display. All computers have their own unique way of diplay pixels on a screen, depending on what hardware they use.
-
Display it's all about hardware. A certain computer will always have a certain type of display depending on it's hardware. All computers differs in display.
So your definition of "Atari graphics" is basically something that only a finite number of Atari 8-bits can display... and none of the emulator screenshots you've posted represent them. Bit dim of you to keep posting all of those images then, wasn't it.
The reason that i prefer Atari, is for it's display. I like that display much better then the one that C64 produces. Then we can have a game of just 2 colours, it will still be the Atari display.
-
Now you see the differences between the machines.
Yes, the C64 game has twice the horizontal resolution for the scrolling and sprite movement, uses a mixture of high resolution and multicolour graphics, scrolls at a faster speed and moves a significantly larger play area - and those differences are just for a start.
The games are nothing you even could call for similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...
Mayhem In Monsterland is using a couple of colour mixing tricks, one of which relies on the way colours of a similar luminance will "merge" to produce other colours (similar but not quite the same to how APAC works on the Atari 8-bit). These mixed colours are not visible in emulator screenshots or YouTube videos because the palettes used are not totally accurate, so unless you're actually running it on a real C64 you're simply not seeing what would actually be displayed.
At least we agree of one thing. These two games looks very different. I personally prefer Crownland by far for it's almost glasslike colours. So much cleaner.
And that's the reason that i like Atari, for it's colours.
-
That was NOT the problem, if you read the article.
So there was some colour "bleed" that even from your own quote "they've never been particularly bothered with.." but the colours from the chip are still the same.
Pete
After the rewiring they got better colours, more like the old Atari 800 model.
Fair enough they got a better quality "display", the point I was making was the actual palette is/was the same across all 8bit models.
Pete
Now we're talking the same thing Pete. The wiring was a bit better in the old model.
-
It's not doing Crownland justice either. I will look for Mayhem in Monsterland on YT.
Now you see the differences between the machines.
The games are nothing you even could similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...
As I've said, you CAN do Crownland on the C64, you've just picked a nice looking A8 game that has no C64 version. (and also a pretty poor looking YT vid which I asked you NOT to do) Then you ignore all the points in the C64's favour like more colours per line, better quality sprites and bring the argument back to your single point of bigger palette, which for about the 1000000th time nobody is arguing with.
Pete
I don't agree. Because A8 have a different display that C64 never can emulate, even if we see the same game, they will look different.
So quantify that "different display" for me, then I'll know what you mean. The only difference in display (ignoring things like colours per line etc for now) is the palette available and probably differences in the resultant image on what it's displayed on and via what mechanism (tv with RF or monitor RGB etc).
Pete
Display it's all about hardware. A certain computer will always have a certain type of display depending on it's hardware. All computers differs in display.
-
And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.
Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...
In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.
A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.
Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.
I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800.
I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.
Because of this...
(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html
The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.
Hmmmm this is hard for me, because I never played with the old 800. But I also never had colourproblems on the xl machine. You're saying the games look better on the old 800 than on the xl????? I cannot believe that, as PeteD say Antic is Antic, so I see no problem for the xl.
BUT WHY OWH WHY would Atari put a machine on the market, which is less than the machine before, WHILE they have to compete with the newer machines like those from Commodore. I think this is impossible. As company you better put a machine on the market which is at LEAST the same as the old one but with enhanced features no matter at what area.
Because old Atari 800 was to expensive to make. They had to come up with a cheaper model to be able to compet with Commodore. Else gamers would by the cheaper computer. The old models was VERY expensive to buy. The price for the orginal Atari 800 in Sweden was almost was about 650 euro.
-
It's not doing Crownland justice either. I will look for Mayhem in Monsterland on YT.
Now you see the differences between the machines.
The games are nothing you even could similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...
As I've said, you CAN do Crownland on the C64, you've just picked a nice looking A8 game that has no C64 version. (and also a pretty poor looking YT vid which I asked you NOT to do) Then you ignore all the points in the C64's favour like more colours per line, better quality sprites and bring the argument back to your single point of bigger palette, which for about the 1000000th time nobody is arguing with.
Pete
I don't agree. Because A8 have a different display that C64 never can emulate, even if we see the same game, they will look different.
-
That was NOT the problem, if you read the article.
So there was some colour "bleed" that even from your own quote "they've never been particularly bothered with.." but the colours from the chip are still the same.
Pete
After the rewiring they got better colours, more like the old Atari 800 model.
-
Because of this...
(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html
The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.
There are variations in the build of quite a few models, the actual ANTIC colours are the same.
Pete
That was NOT the problem, if you read the article.
-
You may call me stupid, but I am convinced that the atari is still not fully discovered.
It is possible that people have to push the atari to its limits for being the same as the c64 is some cases.
Both machines I think have to be pushed to their limits to be the same in capabilities.
Like I said before many people thought that the ST was not able to do some things the Amiga could, thanks to some clever demo coders it suddenly became possible.
The same just has to go for the older machines, why not push the older machines to their limits and in some areas I believe okay its already done.
For example guys : When we see a finished port of Turrican on the atari xl (the beginning can be seen on youtube) I think the c64 guys (who think their machine is the best) will admit that the atari xl can do more than they think.
I also read on the internet that there are more games in development, is seems that those games promise a lot.
I stay with my opinion that both c64 and atari xl are about the same.
If we take a look at this game.
You can do quite amazing things with A8 too.
I would like to see that, on a C64.
I hate to tell you but the C64 could do that easily with maybe a couple of concessions to palette BUT with better quality sprites.
Once again you're starting on the C64 can't do this and that and A8 is better which you said wasn't how you felt and you'd stopped saying it. I think you really must be nothing more than a troll.
Pete
Then, show me something?
Says much more then just words...
A good YT link?
Take a look at games like Mayhem in Monsterland for lots of colour (better to download and play on emulator, YT doesn't do it justice), Hawkeye for more complex parallax scrolling. I'll dig through some other stuff later.
Pete
It's not doing Crownland justice either. I will look for Mayhem in Monsterland on YT.
Now you see the differences between the machines.
The games are nothing you even could call for similar. Especially not in the colourdepartment...
-
And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.
Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...
In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.
A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.
Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.
Pretty sure they're the same. XL and pre-XL that is.
Pete
-
You may call me stupid, but I am convinced that the atari is still not fully discovered.
It is possible that people have to push the atari to its limits for being the same as the c64 is some cases.
Both machines I think have to be pushed to their limits to be the same in capabilities.
Like I said before many people thought that the ST was not able to do some things the Amiga could, thanks to some clever demo coders it suddenly became possible.
The same just has to go for the older machines, why not push the older machines to their limits and in some areas I believe okay its already done.
For example guys : When we see a finished port of Turrican on the atari xl (the beginning can be seen on youtube) I think the c64 guys (who think their machine is the best) will admit that the atari xl can do more than they think.
I also read on the internet that there are more games in development, is seems that those games promise a lot.
I stay with my opinion that both c64 and atari xl are about the same.
If we take a look at this game.
You can do quite amazing things with A8 too.
I would like to see that, on a C64.
I hate to tell you but the C64 could do that easily with maybe a couple of concessions to palette BUT with better quality sprites.
Once again you're starting on the C64 can't do this and that and A8 is better which you said wasn't how you felt and you'd stopped saying it. I think you really must be nothing more than a troll.
Pete
Then, show me something?
Says much more then just words...don't you think?
A good YT link?
-
And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.
Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...
In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.
A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.
Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.
I disagree with you about the colours on atari 800 vs XL. Why should the Atari engineers made the colours in the Atari XL less beautiful than that of the old 800, it is more logical that the XL should be an enhancement in colours of the 800.
I agree with you that the atari machines are very beautiful with graphics (hmmm for what I have seen on atari). There is also a slideshow somewhere on youtube, showing pictures from some guy who can paint very well on the atari. Some pictures are really amazing which I also have never seen on atari.
Because of this...
(Frankly, we have never been particularly bothered by the "colorsmear" problem the author describes in his article: But we tried this simple hardware rewiring project at Antic and, in our judgement, it produced a more vibrant and intense 800XL color display on our monitors. In fact, it seemed to make 800XL color look a lot more like the outstanding color of the old Atari 800.http://www.atarimagazines.com/v5n7/xlcolorboost.html
The difference is that the orginal Atari 800 was much better built and much more expensive. Too expensive. That's why they had to build a cheeper model, the XL series.
-
You may call me stupid, but I am convinced that the atari is still not fully discovered.
It is possible that people have to push the atari to its limits for being the same as the c64 is some cases.
Both machines I think have to be pushed to their limits to be the same in capabilities.
Like I said before many people thought that the ST was not able to do some things the Amiga could, thanks to some clever demo coders it suddenly became possible.
The same just has to go for the older machines, why not push the older machines to their limits and in some areas I believe okay its already done.
For example guys : When we see a finished port of Turrican on the atari xl (the beginning can be seen on youtube) I think the c64 guys (who think their machine is the best) will admit that the atari xl can do more than they think.
I also read on the internet that there are more games in development, is seems that those games promise a lot.
I stay with my opinion that both c64 and atari xl are about the same.
If we take a look at this game.
You can do quite amazing things with A8 too.
I would like to see that, on a C64.
-
And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display.
Apart from the Amstrad CPC Plus. Or the CoCo3. Or the MSX2, MSX2+ or MSX Turbo R. Or even supercharged C64s like the C64DX and C64DTV. Or even the Commodore 264 series. For graphics that "no other computer can display" there are a lot of machines that can either display what you're talking about or do it better out there...
In that case i don't think that you understand what i mean by Atari graphics. Does Amstrad CPC has the Antic and GTIA chip? If not, it can't display what i call Atari graphics. No game on my Amstrad or MSX emulator even looks like an Atari game, no matters how many colours they use. Atari ST can't display A8 graphics either.
A8 is exactly like Spectrum, unique in it's way to display graphics.
Not even the XL series could match the outstanding colours of the first Atari 800 model.
-
...and rainbowsBut ain't they a pain in the arse to get working if you're trying to run a decent sprite engine, character-based scrolling and so on...!
I'm confused. Why do you need sprite engines or scrolling if you have rainbows?
BTW, there's a pretty cool looking new Atari game out: http://hdm.atari.pl/index.html
Aaah, Florida "swamp jokes?" For the natives? The people with 5cm thick glasses and 30 cm long beards?
Well, let's get down to business....
With that kind of "humour", you're either
1.Florida swamp native
2.65+
3.Or, wearing very thick glasses
Do you like jokes about compression algorithms too? I think you should keep your "funny jokes" to yourself because the only funny thing about them is the feeling of someone being incredible naive and gullible without even understanding it.
And yes, i like A8's special graphics that no other computer can display. To see something like C64, but way better, watch Atari ST in action. To watch something like A8, the only thing is to watch another A8 in action. Either you like it, or not, but that's A8.
-
Paul woakes must have been a programmer genius?
Damocles was huge, real huge, and everything was in real 3D. A whole universe to travel in with planets to visit. You could enter all buildings on the planets in real 3D. Just take the moon Midas among many different planets for exemple. Midas contained 16.000.000 (16 million) invidual numbered pyramids, which you could enter. How the heck do you fit such game in 350 Kb?
Same type of way Elite fit in so many named planets in so many solar systems + a complex game all in 32k. Use a seeded number generator such as Fibonacci to create your "world".
Pete
Thanks!
It's quite fantastic how much you can fit it in a relative tiny amount of code using some tricks.
-
Paul woakes must have been a programmer genius?
Damocles was huge, real huge, and everything was in real 3D. A whole universe to travel in with planets to visit. You could enter all buildings on the planets in real 3D. Just take the moon Midas among many different planets for exemple. Midas contained 16.000.000 (16 million) invidual numbered pyramids, which you could enter. How the heck do you fit such game in 350 Kb?
-
Crownland was quite impressive.
Speedrun of the first level
-
Graphics and sound is always secondary.
You probably shouldn't have spent several days arguing about colours then.
Nope.
I shouldn't.
And you shouldn't spent days to explain how much greater a C64 is.
No, in a thread titled Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl in a part of Atari Age dedicated to discussion of programming i'd be perfectly entitled to do that even though i didn't. Atari Age's description of this sub-forum says that the "programming forums are technical discussions of programming various classic gaming consoles" (my emphasis) and you haven't been doing that at all.
Then you can continue to discuss who's the "better" computer yourself.
For me it doesn't matter anymore.
Now i'm off for a few rounds of Millipede.
-
Graphics and sound is always secondary.
You probably shouldn't have spent several days arguing about colours then.
Nope.
I shouldn't.
And you shouldn't spent days to explain how much greater a C64 is.
Please just stop. Nobody has said this. You've continually said the Atari is BETTER because it has more colours. All anyone else has done is give an opposing viewpoint (which is FACT) that despite having less colours the C64 can display them more freely. So as a standard bitmap screen do you "prefer" 4 colours or 16? There's been no better involved in the argument, you're just seeing that because people are disagreeing with you.
Pete
I don't really care, what i care about is a fun game to play.
Stop bloody going on and on about it then!! Jeeeez
Pete
I don't, if you read the latest postings.
-
Let me put it like this.
If i am about to choose from playing either Turtles on XBOX360 or Millipede on Atari 800, the choice is simple.
Millipede on Atari 800.
So much for graphics...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Commodore 64 vs Atari 800 Xl
in Programming
Posted
Just a last comment to set things right.
YOU are telling the Atarians in this thread that Atari can't do that, that and that. Because that's what i hear most of the time. But that's okey i'm suppose?
A discussion like this will bring no good anyway.
Action say more then words. Let's hope for more new fantastic games for both Atari and C64 in the future.