Allas
-
Content Count
1,102 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Allas
-
-
Emkay, about the game demo of copter it looks great, It's very addictive as the previous versions Fly1K+ and have great nice colors and nice parallax effects. The music sounds very strange, i guess because i can't test on my real NTSC (or maybe its only PAL production).
With some other parallax movements, and automatic bullets (other levels) more enemies, it could be a lot fun more.
-
Great video Marius!
I don't know exactly what is the problem with frame rates with youtube. Some captures go fine and acceptable, but some of them look very jerky, even when the original source is well done. Something mysterious on the youtube made this fail.
I captured the Atari Amiga Boink demo for Atari and works very fine on my PC, but once on youtube is showed very jerky. I can't conceive a video on 50fps go down until 15fps, is unacceptable (talking about my video). It seems too much movements on screen degenerate on this, even if you play at HQ. I digitized the Atari videos with Microsoft RLE drive.
-
When i started to post in this thread it was just to post some game that are better on Atari 800 than on C64.I didn't even think what machine is better than other. for me it was 2 excellent 8 bits i love.
And then reading ,participating the discussion and doing more research on available software / hardware on both machine.
I'm now convinced that the C64 is a slighty better machine. (i also agree that in 1979 nothing was better than the A800!! , i also agree that in 1982 C64 had not a so advanced technology for his time as the A800 had in 1979)
Atari have few specific points where it is better , like more "color" (in fact it has only 16... but with different intensities) , a faster processor and a DLI .
But if you consider that faster processor and more color make a machine better , it would mean that the Atari 2600 would better than a C64... I think Atari 2600 have 128 color palette and a 1.19Mhz processor , so better than a C64 with a 0.9XXX Mhz and 16 colors..
But overall (for gaming) the c64 is more homegenous , more easy to exploit , better designed because his features are more "accessible" for programmer and as consequence of that : have better game in general.
Considering hardware extension , hacking etc... Both machine have tons of very good hardware /hack that have been produced. So i think on this point both machine are at equality.
So i won't sell my 2 Atari 800 xl , my 130Xe ,my 600 xl and my XE Game System . But i will promote my 3 C64C , my C64S , my C64G and my SX64 has best machine of 1982 technology!
both Machine have their own soul , and it is what love in old computing , sould of machine , what ever the hardware was!
-
We are seeing more of what the hardware can do. IMHO, there remains more unexploited features in the Atari machines than C64 machines.RAM just adds to that. It's easy to appreciate both.
Fair enough, but there's also the romanticism of being able to say "Gee, the machine I bought in 1984/85/whenever could have done this back then if only this program were written at the time." Which kind of has more of an allure than "...if only this program and 320k RAM were available at the time."
And you must admit, it's a little underwhelming when you see something like Yie Ar Kung-Fu on Atari, looking pretty much the same as the 1985 c64 version yet requiring five times the RAM.
Too much problem with the RAM point. To have more RAM on Atari is the same thing that the Replay Cartridge on C64 users. So you find on every place Atarians trying to extend his computer with more RAM.
But, for C64 users, a stock Atari 130XE (128K) is enough, and have still great amount of RAM. There only exist two games (on all Atari collection) that use 320K expanded memory: Yie ar Kung Fu and Bomb Jack. Other great games as Crownland (128K), Yoomp! (64K), Space Harrier (128K) works on Ataris without mods.
-
Right, but it's correctly a 320 mode with 4-bit cell coloring. If you took Atari's 320 mode and added a processor that could change a color register 40 times per line, you'd have something like what the 64 does. It's really a step beyond Atari's mode. Heck, I wish the Atari could put any two colors side-by-side in 320 mode.This shows the power of the 64's text mode:
??
-
Zynar 2000 - can someone enlighten me?
Never heard of it before, and it's not at Fandal's, Atarimania or the Vjetnam archive.
I don't know have this name.
I found it as Cygnus X1:
-
-
I'm the first to think that produced game for Atari could have been lot better if more effort was put into them. But seing all the demo and all games done recently (like crownland , whoomp , space harrier, bombjack which are really good ) , i'm not convinced that the machine is better than the c64.mmm... could you tell me specifically in detail what do you see on those games (Crownland, Yoomp, Space Harrier, Bombjack) that didn't convince Atari is better?
-
Is there any distinctive serial number that could read on Atari memory from VBXE. As a programmer I interested in develop exclusive software on VBXE, but it could be a good idea if there is a way to avoid the illegal copies.
-
Obviously we can and we do, because _we_ are Atari now (of course there is Infogrames, but it doesn't care on A8 anymore, so it is as if it didn't exist for this argument). So we decide what is an Atari and what is not. The limitations C64-scene has dedcided to put onto itself is no matter.To me that 320k "standard" just tells that you are not satisfied with the original Atari HW. It's mainly used to compensate the problem having only 2 sound channels during loading.
This is a interesting poll about Atari machines, (didn't include votes from most of the polish people) :
http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?s...ari+poll+memory
Is a mystery for me, what made the Atari computer have to be upgraded with more memory. This happens even on early 80's. However, I from the idea that an stock 130XE is enough to show the power of Atari. More memory that's no make a real change on demos, because the CPU only manage 64 a the same time, and the extra memory is only used to get fast access to next sequences.
-
I'm surely becoming sick of this thread... It was originally about which games were better on the A8 than the C64... If you gentlemen really want to make this an issue then...I'm an A8 person... Through and through... But show me a demo that's better on the A8 than
. Numen doesn't even come close; let alone work within 64 kilobytes. I love my A8's... But face it everyone... The C64 is the better machine.How do you like them apples? I challenge anyone to prove me wrong... Not with words or technical statistics, but with software... Someone or some group please code a demo that will murder the C64 and tie this thread off...
Edge of disgrace is a nice demo to view, well worked. But as i can see 95% on it, could be done better on a Atari machine (some of them had been did it), rest of 5% who knows. Really it's not a challenge. Some portion of the demo open the borders, and that a great feature for a C64, but not for Atari.
-
The C64 has not been designed to be technology advanced , it has been designed to cost the less as possible.Pure bulls**t. The VIC2 has been designed to be the most competitive sprite engine of it's time and that's just what it is.
...
It's competitive but that doesn't mean it wins in all cases. There are many events in the olympics so just because you have a faster backstroke/freestyle swimmer doesn't mean you'll win all swimming events. Get the picture? Your logic is that when Atari shows it's better at sprite useage in vertical direction or in overscanned cases or other cases, you're going to show wider sprites at more resolution although the event calls for something else. So when we talk about collision detection of 60 bits vs. 8 bits + 8 bits of vagueness, you're still going to use your freestyle swimmer.
P.S.: for those that don't know there's a C64 register for sprite detection called the "Vague sprite collision register": whenever a sprite collides with another sprite, it sets the bit for both sprites that collided. So if sprites #0 and #1 collide and sprites #4 and #5 collide, you end up with 4 bits being set. And now if sprites #0 and sprites #4 collide and sprite #1 and sprite #5 collide, it sets the same 4 bits and so on. So to calculate what collisions actually took place, you can do the following algorithm:
eenie, meenie, minie moe
catch the sprite that is colliding so
if it's not colliding, you won't know
but who cares if you let one go
...
mmm...
this require the knowledge of Fröhn or TMR. I sure there is a satisfactory answer.Other way, on Atari we can distinct the collision with background graphics, doing distinction over each pixel color. I guess on C64 is not posible.
-
-
In 1979 Atari designed his 8bit line very carefully, the idea was to be the most powerful 8bit computer in his time. And I think it reached the objective, Have a lot of new nice features and the best performance in every topic that we could discuss. And there isn't a computer that equal in his time.
In 1982 C64 came, and was designed with nice features for his time. But was not built as better in every topic, some things like video (VIC II) and music (SID) was planned carefully, but others have my disappointment (CPU, palette colors, BIOS, no-booteable, default slow disk access and a long list of minor things)
Every computer have the top in his time, but i prefer the older computer Atari, because his design is very elegant and despite the years is very competitive against the C64. It's like cars, I prefer the old good car against the recently good cars. However I understand, C64 users can't share this point of view, because most of them not live the 70's time on 8bit computing, so for this reason not feel how big and powerful is the Atari design.
-
- Atari has 256 palette colorsNo it hasn't. It's 128 colors in most modes + PMs. 256 only works in one GTIA mode and the 256 color mode which only works on PAL machines. No to mention that 160x200 = 4 colors and 320x200 = 2 colors. Doesn't matter what palette, 4 colors will always look like 4 colors and 2 colors will always look like 2 colors.
You right, I must type 128/256 better. 128 palette color is the most adequate for the most software existing.
But, the GTIA 256 color modes works on NTSC too. GTIA modes was create on NTSC first and for American market.
C64 have the same features on graphical modes 160x200 with 4 colors, and 320x200 x 2 colors. The map color give the difference (i write as a feature on C64). The omission of map color on a Atari computer is a directly consequence of the old 1979 tech. The way Atari can handle the manipulation are the DLIs, not as practical as the map color, but help a little.
This sentence is not about how much color you can display, because every computer have his own method with advantages or disadvantages. Only means about the palette color where you can make a choice of colors.
- Atari has 1.79Mhz CPUWhich loses many cycles to ANTIC. So in the end it's just 20% faster than the 0.985 MHz CPU of the C64. Nothing left of the "2 times faster" which atariski dreams of.
As a programmer you know, every extra cycle is important. There are most of these 2D games that Atari can do it better because the extra cycles. Meanwhile not use the extra cycles on games that require to equal the 8 sprites of C64.
- Atari has 128KI could pull out the C128 now. Or I could mention that no XL and no 400/800 has 128k.
Here a brief of C128 review:
Mode CP/M : Not used intensive and can't compete with Atari on over all the type of software on the market.
Mode C64: Just what is on discussion, but have the same 64K. If someone cand use the extra 64K, well it not has enough popularity to be considered as a feature.
Mode C128: In theory better than Atari, but who cares, reduced amount software below the minimum levels, do the C128 a great piece of garbage, only remembered for his C64 mode. ( I have one)
-
Yes, i totally agree with what you are saying here.except may be just one point when you say :
Both games have some similarities, but you have to consider that Mayhem is the top scrolling platform game reach on a C64 (at 99% of his features) after years of knowledge experimenting with different techniques.Embedded Atari Technology in XL/XE date from 1979 , C64 is from about 1982 . ( i take argument i could read in that thread somewhere ) . So Atari 's programmer had 3 years more than C64 programmer to master the knowledge of their machine.
I was referring to years of effective working on the machine. For every year (365 days) of continue work on a C64 machine, maybe there are a couple of days of Atari development. Just the consequence of the success on the sales.
Other way, it should be interesting to compare how much money was invest to create Mayhem on Monsterland, maybe a $5000? or more?... And how much was the sales earnings.
Crownland is a freeware production. No invest, no earnings (ok, the $250 on ABBUC contest
) -
Crownland not finished? What do you mean?Anyway, the discussion is pointless because, for one thing, comparing Atari and C64 is ridiculous. Too many hiccups and years lost on the Atari side where NOTHING was happening.
It makes a lot of difference when you have a market that can boost your creativity. Progress in programming techniques has always been linear on the C64, not so on the Atari due to a number of circumstances: the "crash", poor marketing, high prices... Atari never was a serious contender in the UK either and this is where A LOT of time was lost.
--
Atari Frog
Crownland seems very short for a game and don't seem to be really challenging for a game. Seeing the video, it looks like more an very nice interactive demo. But i can be wrong , i will try to test it as soon as possible.
I also agree it is ridiculous to compare Atari and C64 . But guys here pretend the opposite and want to compare, so it is why i ask to prove what they say by fact and not theory.
Personnaly i really love the 2 machines. The only thing i can say is that both are very good. which one is the best... commercially it is cleary the C64 , in term of overall quality of commercially released games it is also the C64. But Technically i could not say each machine having their own domain where they are better than the other.
Exactly, you have seen the demo of Crownland. The completed version is not on youtube.
Both games have some similarities, but you have to consider that Mayhem is the top scrolling platform game reach on a C64 (at 99% of his features) after years of knowledge experimenting with different techniques. Meanwhile Crownland is the first seriously attempt on Atari to do this type of games. Despite all, Crownland have some nice features as: solid 13-18 color on screen, triple parallax movements on some stages, transparency simulation on the water.
In general, technically there are a lot of differences on both machines, but the most important are:
- C64 has map color (letting use 8 or 16 color on screen)
- C64 has better engine sprite
But Atari have:
- Atari has 256 palette colors
- Atari has 1.79Mhz CPU
- Atari has 128K
On software as Utilities, Applications, Educative programs, Operating Systems, Tools, you have the better possibilities on Atari computers, because there is no major influence of sprites and map color on this type of software. Instead, the features of Atari are very welcome.
On game software, there are basically:
- 3D games: Isometric, vectorial, FPs or another type of games that needs calculating and extensive use of CPU, Atari have the con here.
- 2D games: Here C64 have the power, at least of 70% of type games that could be created. Meanwhile, you use more sprites and more color background you get more advantage. And the 99% of discussions, came just for this topic.
-
Without too much effort it could be easy to view new productions on both platforms.
Easily yo can see what is the new on Atari and C64 on:
And test the quality software on real platforms.
-
Nobody in their right mind, fan of one machine or the other, would waste their valuable time porting such a crap game.I'd sooner put my effort into creating Version 6537 of Tetris.
it may look crap due to his poor "scrolling" but this game is really really excellent . it is one of the most famous game on msx.
But this type of game was done on C64 hundred of times and on Atari dozen of times. It's not a challenge.
Maybe a better idea is to propose a style game with no precedence on both systems. And this game have to be a pattern with high quality details. It's not a good idea C64 or Atari version improve other details that not exist on original game, only those version should try to get the most near possible to the original.
-
The idea is good, but the game proposed is to simple.
Maybe this could be better to port:
But I think is very hard for a C64 computer
-
Atari: 160x119 - 256 colors - interlacebut
I find this:
C64: 320x200 - 16 colors and dithering - and no interlace!
or
C64: 296x200 - 16 colors and dithering - interlace
Looks great, I've never seen before. But 1st image haven't 16 colors, maybe you can send the exact C64 pictures, or better send a link to the executable to view on the real C64.
-
i like those TIP pictures with lot of colors.
-
Thanks for the screenshots, I take in consideration the next time i do some software for Atari. It's great to have the register PAL on Atari.
-
Here's another capture of my NTSC 800XL, this time I used a Fast AV Master card (brightness, contrast, color set to 50%, color phase set to 0%). Interesting sidenote: COLORS.COM worked with this card.
so long,
Hias
BTW: the video output of this 800XL is really crap compared to my other PAL 800XLs with the SuperVideo mod - I think I'll have to do the mod to the NTSC 800XL as soon as possible.
Could you send a screenshot capture from your Supervideo XL?
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Atari v Commodore
in Atari 8-Bit Computers
Posted · Edited by Allas
The system really died after 1985. Great companies abandoned Atari due to problems that were bad managed for Atari. But appear on the market new little companies, without any experience on programming Atari design. So most of the titles are so crap with poor work on the graphics. Besides, it was a rigor to design the games with 48K as a standard. That's why Blinky's Scary have a simple screen with low res, trying to use only 4K on screen, even not using the 5th color, not use any DLI to color the screen, without music background. In other words terrible partings. Believe or not, a 64K version of Atari could be exactly as the level of C64 screens.
About Nebulus, you need to post the real screen, because on emulator you can't capture the artifact colors (Yes this is a artifact Atari game). Have some nice colors, but still the C64 screen looks more colorful. Instead the bonus level is showing very colorful on Atari version. This game wasn't released officially on Atari 8bit line (ONLY FOR 7800), really a pity.
Green Beret, what the hell with the Atari version, really that was the version you can do with Atari Basic compiled, really the programmers didn't enhance anything. Crap conversion. The C64 look very fine on sprites design (I believe so far what Atari version could do), but the game was bad programmed, is not playable, at least comparing to the playability of arcade game.
Better, do a choice of games before 1985. Surely you found well programmed games on C64.