Atari v Commodore

[Wolfram]

Tracking back to my first 'are you honest', that means you find the C64 Sentinel title screen more convincing than the G2F version.

Intresting.

 

oh... yeah it looks better, tho I'd prefered the original green colors. also it was touched up compared to c64.

 

now ask the same from the guys coming and telling that from all the shitloads of g2f and c64 pictures they think ALL g2f ones are better.... personally I dont belive them at all.

 

 

I think SID is a very capable chip with nice features, but like thorfdgb stated: It's not needed for avr. gaming. In fact

I think the 4th channel of Pokey is an advantage for the avr. game, since it's easier to sacrifice one channel for sound FX.

 

action biker atari:

c64:

 

well I dont know, I rather listen to music which is not horribly mistuned causing almost physical pain. I think thats needed for avr. gaming.

 

Could it be possible that the 'typical' scenario was supported in respect to the capabilities of the

most popular machine of that time? Browsing through the A8 catalogue of titles I find much more diversity in respect to the total

number.

 

go through the nes/snes library then. the typical game scenario was 2d scrolling background with sprites even in the 16 bit era. and even in the 2600 era. and even on the a8. I wouldnt think thats because of the influence of the c64. c64 has the same diversity you bring up for a8 anyway, probably even wider simply because its having more games.

 

 

I'm sure you know the techno version of the soundtrack 'Das Boot' (Alex Christensen). This was a very popular title at least here in Germany.

It contains the voice playback from a ST speech synthesizer. Is the Yamaha chip superior than SID because it made more people screaming & dancing?

I don't think so...

 

there are no Yamaha music parties these years. SID has them.

[Fröhn]

And I don't think the unorthogonal and limited design of the VIC playfield (not sprite!) system is a master piece of engineering. ANTIC, however, is a brilliant chip design probably four or five years ahead of its time.

ANTIC is a good IC but then again it has a lot of "luxury" features which you don't really need to do it's number 1 job: games. I believe the balance of features is better in VIC2, or said with in different words: VIC2 does better (2D) games with less coding involved. Doing a jump'n'run or shoot'em up on VIC2 is much much easier to do than on ANTIC/GTIA.

[Wolfram]

I think its a much better design for a gfx chip to have as many colors as many it can display without difficulties, vs having 256 colors with 4/16 colored screens.

 

The point is: It can't. It can only display 16 colors, and there is no way around that - it's a simple stupid limitation that could have been avoided.

 

But I think it's all mood to argue with you - you don't see the point I'm trying to make. As I said above, if an unnecessary artificial limitation is built into the chip - by that I mean resolving it wouldn't neither have costed much money nor much resources - then that's bad engineering. I'm talking about the engineering process, not the market success, nor those pictures in specific. I'm trying to judge the quality of the overall product from the point how well the system engineers did their job. And I don't think the unorthogonal and limited design of the VIC playfield (not sprite!) system is a master piece of engineering. ANTIC, however, is a brilliant chip design probably four or five years ahead of its time.

 

So long,

Thomas

 

the engineering limitations were two things on the VICII: the surface/size of the silicon that could be used, and design time. 2/3ed of the chip's surface is for doing sprites. that's why the bitmap mode is not linear: its reusing wirings from the charmode. and probably that's why scrolling etc is not as flexible as on ANTIC. and that's why colors are limited.

 

however sprites are a Huge benefit. It can not be stressed enough. thats why the 2d c64 games can outdo a8 games. VICII is the best sprite engine of its time. and while not as flexible as ANTIC, its gfx modes are better, I mean basically ANTIC gfx modes (lets look at strictly at the modes!) are a subset of what the VICII can do. And thats why c64 can bring more color to its games.

 

linedoubling, support for changing modes, all the dli stuff, SCROLLING etc is not as important. c64 can do a8 quality scrolling (50fps) with using its cpu. but the a8 can not do c64 quality sprites (already it cant display different colors for SOFT sprites) and game backgrounds with its cpu. and thats the point. better engineering compromises on VICII overall.

[Rybags]

C-64 can't scroll without the CPU.

 

What's the cost to do "DMA Delay" - isn't it something like one scanline for each 40 bytes you want to skip, on top of the IRQ overhead?

 

Doing the exact same thing on Atari... costs a couple of load/store instructions.

 

C64 graphics mode better? No. You just said they reuse the character circuitry. A linear bitmap is easier to use, faster to address, and better for 97% of applications.

 

In such cases where the C-64 bitmap arrangement is "better", well, Atari can simulate that anyway.

 

2/3rds the VIC silicon devoted to sprites? Maybe. They didn't even bother to have seperate shift registers (for reuse). Not that it would be much help anyway, given 65 cycles per scanline to play with in a best-case scenario.

[Wolfram]

C-64 can't scroll without the CPU.

 

yeah, but lets look at all the jobs a 2d game has to do:

 

"c64 can do a8 quality scrolling (50fps) with using its cpu. but the a8 can not do c64 quality sprites&speed (already it has trouble displaying different colors for SOFT sprites than the background compared to c64) and game backgrounds with its cpu."

 

 

C64 graphics mode better? No.

 

well show me a8 doing this for a game (without extra cpu help, the c64 does without that) in char mode:

 

 

and bitmap mode:

 

 

A linear bitmap is easier to use, faster to address, and better for 97% of applications.

In such cases where the C-64 bitmap arrangement is "better", well, Atari can simulate that anyway.

 

most games dont benefit from that. you can bring the usual examples, the exceptions out of the rule: rescue on fractalue, etc.

 

2/3rds the VIC silicon devoted to sprites? Maybe. They didn't even bother to have seperate shift registers (for reuse). Not that it would be much help anyway, given 65 cycles per scanline to play with in a best-case scenario.

 

you just answered it straight away: it would be not much of a help anyway. why should it be in there then.

Edited April 26, 2009 by Wolfram

[thorfdbg]

Pokey neither has ADSR capabilities. For SID, you fire off the ADSR slope and the chip does it all itself. This is ADSR support. Not the capability of being able to do it on the CPU by writing into the registers. SID does it by itself. Pokey doesn't.

Well POKEY has 4 volume registers for each channel and can do ADSR by software. Less precise than the SID ADSR but still ADSR.

No, *it* - the POKEY - can't. The CPU can, by using such registers, but it's not built into the chip.

 

In the same sense, the VIC can't mix graphic modes. You can use the CPU and the raster interrupt to do that, but the chip itself can't. ANTIC can, it's designed to do that without requiring support from the CPU. Similarly, ANTIC can do horizontal and vertical scrolling, it is built into the chip. VIC requires CPU support for that, namely to move the raster contents around.

 

See what I mean? Whether a specific chip limitation is a limitation for game dynamics is a second question - it is the matter of finding good engineers to work around the limitations of the corresponding hardware, but here, I only want to look at the engineering process and the vision the engineers had when designing the chips.

 

So long,

Thomas

[Fröhn]

C-64 can't scroll without the CPU.

Less of a problem than the lack of sprites on A8. Software sprites need far more CPU time than software scrolling every 4th frame.

 

C64 graphics mode better? No. You just said they reuse the character circuitry. A linear bitmap is easier to use, faster to address, and better for 97% of applications.

Since you use a "rasterline address" lookup table anyway it ends up being the same on both computers. Just the tables look different, the code is the same.

 

In such cases where the C-64 bitmap arrangement is "better", well, Atari can simulate that anyway.

Lacking the color RAM ofcourse.

 

2/3rds the VIC silicon devoted to sprites? Maybe. They didn't even bother to have seperate shift registers (for reuse). Not that it would be much help anyway, given 65 cycles per scanline to play with in a best-case scenario.

63 cycles on a PAL machine. And 64 on early NTSC machines. Anyway, VIC2 is full of shift registers. 8x 24 bits and then 40x 12bits for screen/colors... and ofcourse the current bitmap byte shifter. Ofcourse the 8x24 and 40x12 eat up most of the space but they are well worth it. Two prime features of the VIC2 where the ANTIC (as good as it is) cannot compete. ANTIC has other strengths.

[thorfdbg]

the engineering limitations were two things on the VICII: the surface/size of the silicon that could be used, and design time. 2/3ed of the chip's surface is for doing sprites. that's why the bitmap mode is not linear: its reusing wirings from the charmode. and probably that's why scrolling etc is not as flexible as on ANTIC. and that's why colors are limited.

 

however sprites are a Huge benefit. It can not be stressed enough. thats why the 2d c64 games can outdo a8 games. VICII is the best sprite engine of its time. and while not as flexible as ANTIC, its gfx modes are better, I mean basically ANTIC gfx modes (lets look at strictly at the modes!) are a subset of what the VICII can do. And thats why c64 can bring more color to its games.

 

linedoubling, support for changing modes, all the dli stuff, SCROLLING etc is not as important. c64 can do a8 quality scrolling (50fps) with using its cpu. but the a8 can not do c64 quality sprites (already it cant display different colors for SOFT sprites) and game backgrounds with its cpu. and thats the point. better engineering compromises on VICII overall.

 

I don't deny that there have been design constraints in the VIC, let it be time or money. And surely, re-using the character mode silicon for bitplanes might be required to get the chip ready in time, or on the available surface. But that's not quite the point: Playfield graphics is severly less powerful.

 

I certainly agree that the sprite engine is considerably better, and I also certainly agree that this is beneficial for games, but the latter is again a secondary question, and not a question of a good system engineering.

 

Whether "scrolling is not important" is, I think, doubtful. A lot of games scroll - but this is just again a secondary question. The chip doesn't support bitmap scrolling - full stop. You have to use the CPU for that, and in the same sense POKEY doesn't support ADSL, you have to use the CPU for that.

You're again mixing chip capabilities with machine capabilities.

 

If you say that the ANTIC modes are subset of VIC modes then you simply don't know what you're talking about, sorry. ANTIC has fourteen built-in modes, VIC has, lemme count: Character mode (ANTIC 2), multicolor text mode (similar to ANTIC 4), bitmap mode (Antic F), mutlicolor bitmap mode (ANTIC E), ECM text mode (not available). On ANTIC, I've double-wide characters, double-high-characters, 10-lines high characters, the multi-color mode in various resolutions, and GTIA support modes for 16 hues, 16 luminances or 9 colors.

 

Of course, ANTIC doesn't have a color RAM, and that's pretty much a limitation.

 

So long,

Thomas

[Irgendwer]

oh... yeah it looks better, tho I'd prefered the original green colors.

 

So your original statement...

 

check the g2f gallery, all pictures look like bad c64 pictures with the palette changed.

 

...can still stand? You have no problems with generalizations, haven't you?

 

also it was touched up compared to c64.

 

YES! And this is the point! You cannot produce superior images when you come from the restricted C64 original!

The image shows at least one more shade of blue and one more skin tone, so it has to be touched up!

 

I didn't answer your silly attempts to reduce the colour palette from C64 imagery to come down to the

ability of the A8 - that makes no sense and proves nothing, but I gave me the feeling you could have worked

for Magnetic Scrolls: Explanation.

 

 

now ask the same from the guys coming and telling that from all the shitloads of g2f and c64 pictures they think ALL g2f ones are better.... personally I dont belive them at all.

 

Stop! Your statement contains the word all! Don't mix it up!

 

well I dont know, I rather listen to music which is not horribly mistuned causing almost physical pain. I think thats needed for avr. gaming.

 

Agreed, 'Action Bike' seems to be a sample where it works for the C64, the machine sound of the bike can be done 'on the way'.

But e.g. in 'Slap Fight' and especially in 'Terracresta' it's very annoying and the other way round.

 

there are no Yamaha music parties these years. SID has them.

 

And? There are also Spectrum parties, aren't they?

 

And now please try to reproduce the image below from the A8, by using your 'nearest colour' - scheme on the C64.

 

CU

Irgendwer

Edited April 26, 2009 by Irgendwer

[frenchman]

Conclusion:

Irgendwer 10 Wolfram & Co 0

Atari 8-bit range scores again!

[Wolfram]

The image shows at least one more shade of blue and one more skin tone, so it has to be touched up!

 

you got me wrong there. I didnt meant that I prefer the green colors of the c64. just the green scheme in general. It would be better with greens on a8 aswell. anyway that picture is quite a special case, huge areas with the same color the a8 can just sneak in 1-2 more colors. also bear in mind the c64 doesnt uses any trickery there. its an 80s picture from the c64 which the a8 can top after 2000 using a pc editor, extra cpu and pmg help, etc.

 

Agreed, 'Action Bike' seems to be a sample where it works for the C64, the machine sound of the bike can be done 'on the way'.

But e.g. in 'Slap Fight' and especially in 'Terracresta' it's very annoying and the other way round.

 

action biker was just the first random game I've found on youtube, I was not looking for an example where the c64 "wins".

does terracresta or slapfight exist for the a8 ? if not its pointless to bring them up. doesnt compares to anything on the a8 side.

 

And? There are also Spectrum parties, aren't they?

 

you are delibaretely missing the point. spectrum guys have no parties dedicated to their soundchip!

 

And now please try to reproduce the image below from the A8, by using your 'nearest colour' - scheme on the C64.

 

original:

 

 

converted:

 

and now you do the same with this picture:

 

 

(its not interlaced, true 320x200)

Edited April 26, 2009 by Wolfram

[Wolfram]

See what I mean? Whether a specific chip limitation is a limitation for game dynamics is a second question - it is the matter of finding good engineers to work around the limitations of the corresponding hardware, but here, I only want to look at the engineering process and the vision the engineers had when designing the chips.

 

It's better to view them as a pack imho. engineers in the 80s surely probably for where the cpu can help out the gfx/sfx chip and where it is better to let the gfx/sfx chip do it, and add features based on that.

[Wolfram]

Playfield graphics is severly less powerful.

 

c64 can do nicer playfield graphics hands down. was proven zillion times already.

 

I certainly agree that the sprite engine is considerably better, and I also certainly agree that this is beneficial for games, but the latter is again a secondary question, and not a question of a good system engineering.

 

it is when the most important point when the chip was designed was the sprite engine. as saif 2/3rd of the chip is dedicated to sprites.

 

 

You're again mixing chip capabilities with machine capabilities.

 

when comparing machines you can not look at them as separate chips. as of what game a machine can do depends on the whole pack.

 

 

If you say that the ANTIC modes are subset of VIC modes then you simply don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

 

I mean the comparable modes. The other modes antic has over VIC, are not really useful. good for making demos in 200x, and showing some stuff the c64 cant do, other than that.... I mean especially the 4x wide pixel modes they have been used in a very few applications back in the days.

 

 

On ANTIC, I've double-wide characters, double-high-characters, 10-lines high characters, the multi-color mode in various resolutions, and GTIA support modes for 16 hues, 16 luminances or 9 colors.

 

double wide/width etc chars can be done with software easily. why waste silicon on that ?

Edited April 26, 2009 by Wolfram

[Bryan]

I think its a very valid point. what most people like is usually a good thing, and what most peope dont prefer is usually a not so good thing.

 

I'm going to start calling this the Hannah Montana argument. Boy she's popular!

[Barnacle boy]

Conclusion:

atariksi 10 Wolfram 0

and the winner is: Atari 8-bit range.

Conclusion:

Jetboot Jack 10 Frohn 0

Atari 8-bit line wins (AGAIN).

Conclusion:

Irgendwer 10 Wolfram & Co 0

Atari 8-bit range scores again!

 

 

YEAH!!!! YOU GO, GIRLFRIEND!

[Wolfram]

I think its a very valid point. what most people like is usually a good thing, and what most peope dont prefer is usually a not so good thing.

 

I'm going to start calling this the Hannah Montana argument. Boy she's popular!

 

I have never heard of her. Never heard of atari 8 bits into the 90s either if we're at it.

[Bryan]

I think its a very valid point. what most people like is usually a good thing, and what most peope dont prefer is usually a not so good thing.

 

I'm going to start calling this the Hannah Montana argument. Boy she's popular!

 

I have never heard of her. Never heard of atari 8 bits into the 90s either if we're at it.

Do a Google search. You'll be amazed.

[Jetboot Jack]

Those images Wolfram sure are nice - but I see great artistic ability, great draftmanship, not something the C64 gives you but the artist's skill. I think it's a shame the color selection is so limited, but notwithstanding that they are great images. However what those images prove is not that the C64 has better graphics per-se (although it is very flexible in many ways the A8 is not) - it is about having GREAT artists - those images are drawn and painted well!

 

I would think those artists would create amazing pixelart on whatever (within reason) machine they were working on.

 

I think with G2F there are starting to be some good artists using the A8 emerging, and I think with time the quality of A8 static images will become very high quality - it's early days yet, as you say some of those artists have been producing their art for a long time...

 

But I do agree a lot of the A8 static art is not great - although a couple of the images you have cited are pretty cool I think.

 

sTeVE

Edited April 26, 2009 by Jetboot Jack

[Wolfram]

I think its a very valid point. what most people like is usually a good thing, and what most peope dont prefer is usually a not so good thing.

 

I'm going to start calling this the Hannah Montana argument. Boy she's popular!

 

I have never heard of her. Never heard of atari 8 bits into the 90s either if we're at it.

Do a Google search. You'll be amazed.

 

She's good looking. Sings nicely. Acts on stage pro. etc. Not bad at all, the opposite: she's a pro. I can understand why many people like her.

 

here's what an avr. singer can do:

 

they would be not prefered by millions I can assure you, and rightfully.

 

conclusion: most ppl chose what is good, and not what is bad.

[Wolfram]

I think it's a shame the color selection is so limited, but notwithstanding that they are great images...

 

I think it's a shame the color selection (per region) is even more limited on the a8. Allows for much less artistic freedom than c64's fixed palette.

[Jetboot Jack]

Indeed color depth is an issue on the A8 - the C64 is nearly 4 bit depth of colors across the whole screen - the A8 is more 3 bit per line.

 

Not palette depth before anyone shouts :-)

 

The C64 does allow a more free approach to use of color, but the colors that can be used are more limited, the same 16 across the whole screen, vs the A8's more limited color placement, but less restricted colors - so 128 colors but only 8 or so per line (and even then not the same pixel freedom as the C64 'cos PMG are limited in width).

 

However that lone bit is the difference between 16 colors per line and 8 - which is a HUGE factor, so clearly the C64 has an advantage in flexible color placement per pixel.

 

sTeVE

Edited April 26, 2009 by Jetboot Jack

[Irgendwer]

just the green scheme in general.

Please see below.

 

its an 80s picture from the c64 which the a8 can top after 2000 using a pc editor,

Repeating this argument doesn't make it better. There were also programs in the 80s which used several of

this techniques and there was no PC editor for that (International Karate, Dallas Quest, 221b Baker Street are the first ones

which come to my mind). So its about comfort and not ability!

 

extra cpu and pmg help, etc.

 

Doesn't matter - right? (C64 scrolling issue or use of sprites to enhance graphics (e.g. for content up & below the usual 200 lines...)

 

if not its pointless to bring them up. doesnt compares to anything on the a8 side.

 

From the view of a software developer it feels easier to sacrifice 25% for sound FX/resource than 33% - agreed?

 

 

And? There are also Spectrum parties, aren't they?

 

you are delibaretely missing the point. spectrum guys have no parties dedicated to their sound chip!

 

People which come together to celebrate something doesn't mean that this something is really important or

better than a comparable something. I never heard of Waldorf-synthesizer parties, but it would never

come to my mind that the SID is better than this synth, just because there is a party: Alcohol must be a great

thing, there are several parties like the 'Spring Break' were they celebrate it. Since the audience is bigger than

on C64 festivities, it must be better... (HEY - I know! It let the people forget the ugly colours! )

 

And now please try to reproduce the image below from the A8, by using your 'nearest colour' - scheme on the C64.

 

original:

...

 

converted:

...

 

You said, you like the green scheme in general. Now where are the greens in the conversion?

The moon lost it four shades of green and looks now flat.

The title and interpret of the album has gone (I know you could reestablish them with sprites but HEY, this would mean trickery!?)

The water should not contain any blueish colour...

 

and now you do the same with this picture:

...

(its not interlaced, true 320x200)

 

(mine was not interlaced too!)

 

Why? To prove that this image was tailored to C64s specification? Like many other productions? Like 'Dimension X' for the

A8?

 

Which skin tone is better? Black or white?

 

There is no better. It's about difference. Like it, enjoy it, but don't call it superior!

 

CU

Irgendwer

[oky2000]

Those Atari pictures look better than the '64 ones.

 

Putting artistic qualities aside, the Atari pics each have a different looking palette, practically all the '64 ones look the same.

 

C64 - It's like buying your kid one of those packs of 72 textas but losing three quarters of them on the way home... actually, you probably lost a few more than that.

 

VIC-II runs at 18 MHz? I kinda doubt that. Doesn't matter a lot anyway. Antic runs at 1.8 MHz, but outputs data to GTIA on both edges of the clock.

 

Typo sorry, yes it is 8mhz clock for VIC-II indeed which is why the C128 had the same VIC-II and ran the same bus and CPU speeds. 16mhz VIC-II wasn't possible for 2mhz CPU in C128 mode.

 

Being able to control an ADSR via software on Pokey to claim it has ADSR as standard is like saying the ST (not STE) has the same sample playback facility as the Amiga via the CPU and we all know how different sample playback quality is on those machines

[oky2000]

C-64 can't scroll without the CPU.

 

What's the cost to do "DMA Delay" - isn't it something like one scanline for each 40 bytes you want to skip, on top of the IRQ overhead?

 

Doing the exact same thing on Atari... costs a couple of load/store instructions.

 

C64 graphics mode better? No. You just said they reuse the character circuitry. A linear bitmap is easier to use, faster to address, and better for 97% of applications.

 

In such cases where the C-64 bitmap arrangement is "better", well, Atari can simulate that anyway.

 

2/3rds the VIC silicon devoted to sprites? Maybe. They didn't even bother to have seperate shift registers (for reuse). Not that it would be much help anyway, given 65 cycles per scanline to play with in a best-case scenario.

 

Simulating the char mode used by Turbo Charge, Powerdrift and Turbo Outrun used on the C64 for the A8 uses up so much CPU time for you that it will never make it....

 

a. look as good colour wise

b. move as fast as those games mentioned.

 

(If you don't supply a video of a better routine running on a stock 800xl via youtube please don't bother quoting me again as i want PROOF)

 

So that's just wishful thinking. Compare your Outrun project with those 3 scaling graphics semi 3D racing games.

 

As for scrolling, well as you have been pointed to many times already in this thread the VSP full screen scroll method allows fast and smooth scrolling in all 4 directions WITH overlaid parallax at a speed similar to Sonic the Hedgehog on the Sega consoles. (Mayhem in Monsterland)

 

And if you didn't have to depend on bitmap modes maybe the A8 could produce something as technically stunning as Enforcer II level 2 game running on a stock 1982 C64 with triple overlaid transparent parallax playfield and 100+ moving objects in places.

[Wolfram]

Repeating this argument doesn't make it better. There were also programs in the 80s which used several of

this techniques and there was no PC editor for that (International Karate, Dallas Quest, 221b Baker Street are the first ones

which come to my mind). So its about comfort and not ability!

 

sure it doesnt makes it better. but. a8 uses more of its resources to produce the picture than c64 does. you can reduce the question to the picture itself, but that doesnt shows the big picture of the two machine's abilities.

 

Doesn't matter - right? (C64 scrolling issue or use of sprites to enhance graphics (e.g. for content up & below the usual 200 lines...)

 

sprites will never make up for a8's overscan stuff. it's not comparable even with sprites. a8 wins hands and legs down here. well, maybe except for carefully crafted exceptions. which is exactly what the sentinel picture is on the a8 side. there are even scrolling colorful pictures extended to the sideborders on the c64, but needs more resources on the c64 side, tho the result will be better then a8 pics. same case as with the sentinel.

 

 

From the view of a software developer it feels easier to sacrifice 25% for sound FX/resource than 33% - agreed?

 

is it better to have 4 bicycles or 3 cars? 4 is better because its more! come one!

 

 

People which come together to celebrate something doesn't mean that this something is really important or

better than a comparable something. I never heard of Waldorf-synthesizer parties, but it would never

come to my mind that the SID is better than this synth, just because there is a party:

 

lets stay on the topic, a8 vs c64: A8 ppl love their computers. c64 ppl love their computers. a8 ppl go to parties to celebrate their computers. c64 ppl go to parties to celebrate their computers. c64 ppl go to parties which is only about to celebrate the music their computer created. a8 ppl dont.

 

now, why c64 ppl do that, and a8 not ? we both know why. (SID was capable of playing music which stuck in c64 ppl's mind to the point only loading up games to listen to title music, only playing games to listen to the music, etc)

 

 

 

You said, you like the green scheme in general. Now where are the greens in the conversion?

 

it's hard not to get personal at this point.

 

1.I have not said I like green color scheme in general.

2. there are greens in the conversion. ask somebody from around you to recheck. maybe you're colorblind.

 

The moon lost it four shades of green and looks now flat.

 

it did.

 

The title and interpret of the album has gone (I know you could reestablish them with sprites but HEY, this would mean trickery!?)

 

yes they are gone.

 

The water should not contain any blueish colour...

 

you are contradicting yourself. you said originally: "And now please try to reproduce the image below from the A8, by using your 'nearest colour' - scheme on the C64."

 

I did what you've asked for. dont change the rules afterwards. Its not fair play.

 

 

and now you do the same with this picture:

 

Why? To prove that this image was tailored to C64s specification? Like many other productions? Like 'Dimension X' for the

A8?

 

 

because you have asked me to do that, and I did. Now its your turn. You should do it too if you want to play it fair. but you dont want to do you?

 

With that question you've already prooved it why should I ask you to do that: you cant. instead of doing it you ask back. Because best you could do in 5 minutes (what Ive spent on converting the pic) would be a 2 color 320x200 pic, or something in 5 color and 160x200. loosing many times more of the original picture than I did in the process. Which just shows the c64 is better graphically.

 

Which skin tone is better? Black or white?

 

How dare you after complaining for blueish greens? You're not being fair. at all.

 

There is no better. It's about difference. Like it, enjoy it, but don't call it superior!

 

sure there is. You cant convert my c64 example to a8, while I can convert your a8 example to c64 in 5 minutes. c64->a8 conversion would result in 10x uglier picture including resolution loss. I'm not suprised you dont want to show that.

 

just accept the reality:

 

Edited April 26, 2009 by Wolfram