Jump to content

ZylonBane

Members
  • Content Count

    3,983
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

ZylonBane last won the day on April 30 2012

ZylonBane had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

876 Excellent

About ZylonBane

  • Rank
    River Patroller

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    KC, KS, USA
  • Interests
    Classic gaming, Rick and Morty, guacamole, MST3K, bacon, Futurama, SCIENCE, pocket lint

Recent Profile Visitors

25,746 profile views
  1. It's almost as if some sort of cause-effect phenomena manifested itself.
  2. That would waste RAM on two lists. You want a Fisher-Yates shuffle, which can randomize a list in-place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher–Yates_shuffle
  3. What you're saying sounds like you could write a 2600 game that generates a 120 FPS display (on a CRT) by only outputting, say, 100 lines per field. This seems... unlikely.
  4. This thread is over eight years old. How did you even find it? And you know it's a joke thread, right?
  5. Uhh, more like more color, better animation, better controls, more detailed sprites, much more environmental detail, and actual cooperative multiplayer.
  6. Is the soundtrack CD a reprint of the one that used to be available from Will Davis via MP3.com, or was it ripped from the game?
  7. Great, now we're never going to find out why the 7800 is uniquely superior at 3D.
  8. You're never, ever, no matter how many times you're asked, going to cite some actual documented hardware feature that makes the 7800 better at 3D, are you?
  9. Neither the 5200 nor the 7800 video hardware have any "3D" features. So any 3D-looking games, either faked with scaled sprites or brute-forced by drawing to a frame buffer, are going to use mostly platform-agnostic techniques. So yes, but no more so than literally any other platform or environment that supports a frame buffer.
  10. Exactly which aspect of the 7800's "very unique architecture" do you believe was exploited in F-18 Hornet? F-18 runs faster on the 7800 than the C64 because the 7800 version is rendering the 3D view at half the vertical resolution, in a smaller viewport, on a CPU that's about 50% faster. Simple as that.
  11. Now explain how you think "very unique architecture" equates to "scaling style games and filled 3D was possible at relatively high frame rates".
  12. No, they're exactly the same thing. When you're talking about 80s/90s game consoles, the only things they were capable of (e.g., could do WELL) were those things that they had hardware support for. That's why video chipsets back then supported sprites, collision detection, scroll planes, tiles, scaling, etc., instead of just a plain frame buffer, because CPUs at the time were too slow to do all that fancy stuff manually. But what the heck, let's go back to your initial post, where you said: "The Atari 7800 has a very unique architecture that it's to competitors didn't have. This means scaling style games and filled 3D was possible at relatively high frame rates for a mid 80's home console. " Now explain how you think "very unique architecture" equates to "scaling style games and filled 3D was possible at relatively high frame rates".
  13. The 7800 does not have a "stronger" CPU than the 5200. They both use 6502s running at 1.79 MHz.
×
×
  • Create New...