GameEngine
-
Content Count
61 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GameEngine
-
-
According to the Wiki article, the Plus4 runs at about the same speed as the Atari.That raises the bar a bit more... but Atari can play catchup by implementing much more efficient scrolling methods.
I've also read some of the 'blog - seems to infer that the game runs at 25 FPS - looking at the video, the sprites seem to be single frame but the scrolling may well be every second frame.
Do you know if they have to shift the whole screen or just to similate DL with IRQ?
Would make much more sens to accept (be ready to accept?) constraints on playfield design and create game which is similar but not necesarly the same. Then we could play some Atari strenght s instead of fighting weakneses.
-
Ok, I agree. If anyone attempts this do please put level editor in scope - just to raise the bar a bit
-
The game is not yet ready (at least last time I checked it was not ready) so we need to make some assumptions first. Let's say they need 64 characters for sprites and 32 for animated backgrounds. Lets assume Atari conversion needs 3 character sets and it takes twice as much time to update all of them so we have 64+(32*2). So we need 33 more CPU time on Atari. Fortunately we have few cycles left so we can handle character set exceptions. We unroll playfield so we are able to drive Pokey so music is as good as generated by SID. We end up with PMG not being used but we do not have resources to drive them … or we are lucky and we use them to create colorful / interlaced / interleaved underlays for software sprites. Which proves one thing: I am a pessimist
-
I know that NES does not have shared VRAM architecture. Is it still possible to have paralax scroll like on 8-bit Atari or C64 (Crownland, Flimbo's Quest)? Does it require additional chip in cartridge? Which game would be finest example?
-
Someone has to make bank-switching RAM cartridge with bank of 256 (128?) bytes first.Erm... why?
One way of swapping out part of a chset, I guess.Yes. Other then this I do not see how it can be improvement over the original. If it is ported from weaker system and in the end same or inferior on Atari then why to do this (plenty of work and nothing really to show - it would be like Yoomp! on C64).
PS
I know it would be a bit of cheating but I consider it less then putting SID in Plus/4 case.
-
Someone has to make bank-switching RAM cartridge with bank of 256 (128?) bytes first.
-
I am not an ABBUC member but I am glad it is there. ABBUC steering committee focus seems to be on having as many members as possible for as long as possible. It seems they do a great job. I hope that having software contest open for non-members is as beneficial to ABBUC as it is to the community. I think it is nice to know that there are retro Atari fans that are ready to reward you with money (quite universal measure) in recognition of the effort you put. I can only hope Kaz Kompo is as successful in the long run. Odds are against you Kaz - only second edition this year, fewer sponsors and lower prize money. Good luck, though.
-
My top three are as follows:
1. Crownland - beautiful graphics
2. Yoomp! - perfect execution
3. Jetboy - for making it better then the original
Thank you.
-
Super cool! Thanks guys!
Having something like this (for machine code compatibility) and ported ZX Basic emulator for C64 (for speed) combined back in the 80's would make all Atarians both happy and proud.
PS
I hope noone tells about this emulator to Spectrum fans.
-
I'm just curious who else (still) follows this thread and listens to the stuff, and especially why.I follow the thread, and listen to the stuff.
Why? Because I know that Pokey is far more capable than is generally realised, and I admire the aspirations of the contributors. There is nothing to be gained by keeping developments private, IMO.
I am very interested in previously unexplored capabilites of Pokey. Unfortunatelly I am not talented enough to contibute but I hope research done here will allow for more tunes we all enjoy. I appreciate effort put into it by Emkay, Raster and others very much. Thak you.
-
Most of use probably want better graphics for better games.Yes. Days of 1400XL, 1090 and XEP80 are gone. I would like to see the old hardware to be pushed to its limits and beyond. Looking at Crownland and Yoomp! we are almost there for original XE and XL sereis. Now, since many say dual (multiple?) ANTIC / GTIA configurations were what designers envisioned from the start I would like to see hardware like this in action as well.
-
The closest thing I can think of is the Duel Antic/GTIA upgrades which overlaid 2 pictures on top of each other. The other thing is Video board XE that supposably being made, that also overlays.I think now that idea to append / interleave horizontally two frames into one is not worth being investigated. Doubling the horizonatal resolution would be good if Warner went for it with Atari 1200XL but today noone is interested (rightly) in productivity applications for 8-bit computers.
Videoboard XE seems like a nice project but like the above idea it is hard to imagin that if done back in the 80's by Warner or Tramiels (at lest this one would be feasible back then) 8-bit Atari would be able to compete with 16-bit machines which were coming. We already have the line of Amiga computers which everyone consider successors to the our Atari.
I think Dual Antic/GTIA (&Pokey) upgrade is what I like the most. I consider it relativelly easy (for Warner very easy), cheap (no new ASICs) and doable in '82. It would would make 1200XL worth the number. To me missing link in the evolution. Does anyone have a prototype? Was it shown to the community? Anyone willing to sell? I would be very glad if PCB ready to be populated which fits into 1200XL or ST520 is made (my choice of cases to be able to avoid cheating using SRAMs, FPGAs etc.)
-
I think the best is to expand Atari via external add-ons.
I would like to know your opinion on device to double horizontal resolution at the expense of framerate (50/60 ->25/30Hz)
-kind of horizontal flicker fixer.
Feasible? Does something like this exists already? Would it make sens to you ?
-
In case 20 fps is not enough one can... turn brightnes / contrast down.
-
- Trailblazer does not have enemies... so i can not see that topic being similar to PP.Enemies in PP have as much AI as holes (missing tiles) in TB. You just pass them from left or right (in TB also over the top, I know).
I do not agree that TB plays like PP. And as far as I remember i bought TB but that's not the point. I just pointed out that I can not see much similarities between PP & TB...the first is a racing game while the second is an kind of Jump & Run... same to Ballblazer which is a 2 player vs sports game.You race against time. Slowing down the ball is like breaking on a slippery road. You need to think in advance if the speed is ok depending what is in front of you. All very much like in early driving games.
-
did someone else found the hidden screen?What hidden screen ? Give me a hint please.
-
ehm.... it's little bit more than "a bit" ?
Visuals to Ballblazer are not similar as in Ballblazer except for the "checkboard" imho. you can walk around on the playfield while Trailblazer not... And the comparison of game play with Pole Position? come on...
Trailblazer:
- Ballsprite
- jumping
- using/avoiding tiles on the floor
- goal of reaching end of level
- 3d pseudo fx
- ...
There is no jumping in Pole Position but:
- controls are left, right faster, slower - the same
- avoiding other cars ahead of you - similar
- goal of reaching the end as fast as you can - the same
- 3d pseudo fx is there, road bends so it is even better (unless you have something else in mind, I could only stand Trailblazer for couple of minutes)
and from Ballblazer you have
- the name
- and checkboard (cheap version, I agree)
So it plays like PP and looks somewhat like BB. Overall tha game is nothing new. Execution is mediocre. Nothing to look at. Nothing to play. You bought this game and you are trying to justify money spent ?
-
Trailblazer is considered a classic by a lot of gamers over multiple platforms and frequently appears in top game lists, but just because you don't like it (presumably because it wasn't an Atari game first, i notice that the titles you're referring to as "breathtaking" were all on the Atari first) it's not allowed to be mentioned in the same breath. And yet the game's author can see why comparisons are being drawn...I do not like Trailblazer neither. The name is probably derative from 1984 Ballblazer, visuals are similar. Gameplay is like 1982 PolePosition only much worse. Jump! is good game of ~this kind from the year 1986. I am really glad Yoomp! is only a bit like Traiblazer.
-
... I would really love to first make the NTSC version.Yes, the game is perfect so the only way to improve on your achievement is to extend its user base.
Though, if you would like to impress 8-bit Atari fans one more time it is not enough to make NTSC version.
It would require you to make it compatibile with older Ataris then 800XL (1983). Were you considering cartridge binary for 16KB Atari 800 (1979/80) or Atari 5200 (1982) ?
-
Well Ballblazer wasn't mentioned because it's a totally different kind of game but, thinking about just Trailblazer lets see... checkerboard effect coming out of the distance? Yes. Ball for the player? Yes again. Holes and special squares that affect progress? Yes once more. Difference? It's a tunnel and not a plane. Addictive it might be (although i didn't find it to be myself, certainly not in the same way Crownland got my attention) but original... bit of a hard claim to make to be honest. The very first thing i thought when i played the thing was "oh, this is just like Trailblazer but wrapped around a tube".I find Crownland very successful inroad into C64 domain of platformers (It gives C64 a whooping in its own game!)
Yoomp is to me the pinnacle of Atari style. Trailblazer? - evolution has just leaped forward. (Dream on C64. Dream on...).
-
Even though we are talking here about system based on 4.77 Mhz 8088 (so cut down 8086) I think we can safely assume it is twice as powerful as 1.7Mhz 6502.
Yes, but you forget that on home computer systems like the A8 or C64 the CPU is not completely alone. At least for games the graphics and sound hardware supports the CPU that good that a 8088 based machine is definitely not faster. And for word processing in text mode the CPU power doesn't matter that much anyway, that's more a matter of memory and 80 character mode.
It was part of elaboration on how suitable Atari 1200xl would be for professional market. For home market it was definitely better suited. Unfortunately for Atari Commodore C64 was even more appealing.
... there were after-market hard drives, 80 column cards/cartridges and expanded memory for the 800 and 1200XL way back when too, though they did cost a small fortune too, but still probably half the price of an IBM PC XT. And the Atari machines had just as capable business software as Apple or IBM's with the Syn+ series professional apps. They were just not as well known, especially in companies and institutions ...
Sure there were, at some point, third party 80 column cards and memory expansion modules but there was no standard so only few apps made use of this. Even if specific business software was available it was usually less capable. Companies were not and still are not interested in relatively small savings but in solving business problems (even if they had to pay almost $5000 for a PC XT which was to be a terminal for the mainframe they had).
... The 6510 is a 6502 with a built in port ...
Yes. It is used for memory management. Due to this and the fact that Atari did not care if you went for C64 you got more then you paid for (64KB main memory + 1KB of color ram) and if you went for Atari you, practically, got less (64KB-2KB, missing 2KB it is there just not available without hardware mod)
we'll assume you are right about the PC XT ('82!?!?) was there, but at what cost?
Beggining of '83 actually. At the cost which was acceptable by big companies and which allowed IBM personal computer unit to grow faster then the market so they were gaining market share in expense of Apple and others.
Again, I think Atari 8-bit line were the best 8-bit computers. Though they were not suited for professional market they were very capable, there were many great productivity apps, interesting learning programs and amazing games. The later can be fun even today as hardware allowed for smooth gameplay.
-
And a 8086 isn't exactly considered "processing power" either... Before the mid 90's the IBM-PC compatibles were pretty horrible computers concerning nearly everything, be it graphics, sound, CPU power, price etc etc. They only lived because of the "professional image".
Even though we are talking here about system based on 4.77 Mhz 8088 (so cut down 8086) I think we can safely assume it is twice as powerful as 1.7Mhz 6502. Today this kind of difference in processing power you get if you take the worst and the best CPU Intel or AMD has to offer. Disks were also substantially faster. Being able to access more memory made it better suited for data processing. I have to mention though that sometimes the perception was that the system is sluggish. I think it is due to the fact that many programmers were using high-level languages.
I said nothing about graphics, sound and price. But I agree that if you bought it for gaming you had to be lets say ... disappointed.
PS
Sure we all thought that it is possible to make up for the differences by careful programming (and we were in many cases right, I suppose) but for serious business it was never a viable option.
-
You're conclusion here is just plain wrong. Yes, the 1200XL did not have built-in basic, but every system was sold with a BASIC cartridge, so it had NOTHING to do with greed, and for all intents and purposes was on a par with the C64 in as much as memory and basic are concerned. So you had to plug in the cartridge, big deal. Personally, I think it's a MUCH BETTER way, since it's a lot easier to upgrade to a new basic revision just by replacing the cartridge.
It had something to do with greed as 1200xl price point (Basic included or not) was set substancially higher then Commodore C64 and there was nothing to justify this extra expense. Atari 8-bit line uses 6502 not 6510 found in C64 so it is in fact 62KB computer as 2KB is lost due to I/O mapped the same place.
Back in this era, even IBM's didn't have hardisk or math co-processors either, so what is your point?
As far as I know IBM PC XT was introduced just couple of months after Atari 1200XL and you could have both.
-
A second Antic never made sense. Why putting more Cycle stealing with it? The problems are all to find in the GTIA.
An overlayed 80 column Interface (with data polling) would have been revolutionary.
80 columns? Professional market? Atari, the game company, lacked everything (starting with money, know-how, brand recognition) to be able to compete with IBM. The product itself, even if equipped with 80 column card, lacked hard disk drive, processing power, math coprocessor capability, separate keyboard and proper case, double sided double density disks, the ability to easily recompile existing library of CP/M apps ... you name it.
The opportunity was no more then taking C64 place in the home computer market. This would allow Atari to stay in good shape and after a few years to go back to the roots i.e. to sell video computer games. Then again, under Time Warner, I would not expect Atari to come up with anything inspiring.
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Easy to port?
in Atari 8-Bit Computers
Posted · Edited by GameEngine
If Plus/4 scrolling employs some tricks or is balanced out with some pre-calculation activities we would end up with no improvements whatsoever and require 128K RAM or cartridge. If this is the case then I do not mind if it is port from Plus/4 or ZX Spectrum version of the game.