Atari v Commodore

[PeteD]

Sorry frenchman but I think you have your English a bit confused. TMR is totally right, your statement makes no sense as it reads. You're saying you have to prove the A8 CAN'T do something?! I could put my finger up my nose then proclaim, "See, the Atari can't scroll the screen". I'm sure that meaning wasn't your intenetion but as it reads that's what it means.

 

 

Pete

 

My English is correct: YOU cannot prove that the A8 can't do what the C64 can. I say to YOU: PROVE the A8 cannot do this. Learn to program the A8, and show me. You might be fibbing for all I know.

 

That still makes no sense lol How can you prove the A8 can't do something? You can try and fail, someone else might try and succede, so do you take the 1st persons attempt and say, ok then, it's not possible? Until recently nobody had done something that looked like Project M1 but it wasn't impossible.

 

 

Pete

[+skr]

You're right. What about to compare only productions from this century? (2000-2009)

 

Good Idea. Let´s talk about Animal Party.

 

Is something like that on the C64? And the most important point: Does it count over 20000 points? (I´m still waiting for a patch...)

Edited September 1, 2009 by skr

[frenchman]

Sorry frenchman but I think you have your English a bit confused. TMR is totally right, your statement makes no sense as it reads. You're saying you have to prove the A8 CAN'T do something?! I could put my finger up my nose then proclaim, "See, the Atari can't scroll the screen". I'm sure that meaning wasn't your intenetion but as it reads that's what it means.

 

 

Pete

 

My English is correct: YOU cannot prove that the A8 can't do what the C64 can. I say to YOU: PROVE the A8 cannot do this. Learn to program the A8, and show me. You might be fibbing for all I know.

 

That still makes no sense lol How can you prove the A8 can't do something? You can try and fail, someone else might try and succede, so do you take the 1st persons attempt and say, ok then, it's not possible? Until recently nobody had done something that looked like Project M1 but it wasn't impossible.

 

 

Pete

 

Exactly, those C64ers can't just go around saying it can't be done on A8. They are just presuming. How would they know. Finally you understand, that wasn't difficult now, was it?

[PeteD]

Sorry frenchman but I think you have your English a bit confused. TMR is totally right, your statement makes no sense as it reads. You're saying you have to prove the A8 CAN'T do something?! I could put my finger up my nose then proclaim, "See, the Atari can't scroll the screen". I'm sure that meaning wasn't your intenetion but as it reads that's what it means.

 

 

Pete

 

My English is correct: YOU cannot prove that the A8 can't do what the C64 can. I say to YOU: PROVE the A8 cannot do this. Learn to program the A8, and show me. You might be fibbing for all I know.

 

That still makes no sense lol How can you prove the A8 can't do something? You can try and fail, someone else might try and succede, so do you take the 1st persons attempt and say, ok then, it's not possible? Until recently nobody had done something that looked like Project M1 but it wasn't impossible.

 

 

Pete

 

Exactly, those C64ers can't just go around saying it can't be done on A8. They are just presuming. How would they know. Finally you understand, that wasn't difficult now, was it?

 

But you can know how a machine works and its limitations and still know something wont work. I know that A8 doesn't have hardware sprites and as such wouldnt be able to have 64 24x21 4 colour sprites on screen running at 50fps. I don't have to write the code to know for a fact this is true.

 

 

Pete

[frenchman]

 

 

I know that A8 doesn't have hardware sprites and as such wouldnt be able to have 64 24x21 4 colour sprites on screen running at 50fps. I don't have to write the code to know for a fact this is true.

 

 

Pete

 

 

Well that's just silly talk, how can you try doing something on a computer when you know that said computer does not have this component (in this case: hardware sprites) built in? Would you jump off the Clifton Suspension Bridge if you very well know you don't possess wings?

Edited September 1, 2009 by frenchman

[PeteD]

 

 

I know that A8 doesn't have hardware sprites and as such wouldnt be able to have 64 24x21 4 colour sprites on screen running at 50fps. I don't have to write the code to know for a fact this is true.

 

 

Pete

 

 

Well that's just silly talk, how can you try doing something on a computer when you know that said computer does not have this component (in this case: hardware sprites) built in? Would you jump off the Clifton Suspension Bridge if you very well know you don't possess wings?

 

Frenchman, you're the one talking silly. It's the typical argument I've seen on this forum since joining. You get to sit back and say A8 is as good if not better than C64, ignore all the proof otherwise and then say its up to someone else to prove you wrong by actually attempting to prove you right? As far as comparing something that doesnt exist, you're being "silly" again, that obviously wasn't my intention, my intetion was to prove a point that if a game requires 32 "sprites" of any sort on screen the C64 is equipped to do it and the A8 isn't because to do it on A8 you'd have to either do it as software sprites (not enough cpu) or split the PMGs and change X positions and there aren't enough of them to do that in 4 colours 24x21. No amount of "silly talk" on your part can change those facts. Some of you guys seem willing to try any arguement to win your case.

 

 

Pete

[frenchman]

 

 

I know that A8 doesn't have hardware sprites and as such wouldnt be able to have 64 24x21 4 colour sprites on screen running at 50fps. I don't have to write the code to know for a fact this is true.

 

 

Pete

 

 

Well that's just silly talk, how can you try doing something on a computer when you know that said computer does not have this component (in this case: hardware sprites) built in? Would you jump off the Clifton Suspension Bridge if you very well know you don't possess wings?

 

Frenchman, you're the one talking silly. It's the typical argument I've seen on this forum since joining. You get to sit back and say A8 is as good if not better than C64, ignore all the proof otherwise and then say its up to someone else to prove you wrong by actually attempting to prove you right? As far as comparing something that doesnt exist, you're being "silly" again, that obviously wasn't my intention, my intetion was to prove a point that if a game requires 32 "sprites" of any sort on screen the C64 is equipped to do it and the A8 isn't because to do it on A8 you'd have to either do it as software sprites (not enough cpu) or split the PMGs and change X positions and there aren't enough of them to do that in 4 colours 24x21. No amount of "silly talk" on your part can change those facts. Some of you guys seem willing to try any arguement to win your case.

 

 

Pete

 

 

Again, you're trying to compare with something which is not available on A8 (in this case: ....or split the PMGs and change X positions and there aren't enough of them to do that in 4 colours 24x21). No lost case so far, you have to try better.

[PeteD]

 

 

I know that A8 doesn't have hardware sprites and as such wouldnt be able to have 64 24x21 4 colour sprites on screen running at 50fps. I don't have to write the code to know for a fact this is true.

 

 

Pete

 

 

Well that's just silly talk, how can you try doing something on a computer when you know that said computer does not have this component (in this case: hardware sprites) built in? Would you jump off the Clifton Suspension Bridge if you very well know you don't possess wings?

 

Frenchman, you're the one talking silly. It's the typical argument I've seen on this forum since joining. You get to sit back and say A8 is as good if not better than C64, ignore all the proof otherwise and then say its up to someone else to prove you wrong by actually attempting to prove you right? As far as comparing something that doesnt exist, you're being "silly" again, that obviously wasn't my intention, my intetion was to prove a point that if a game requires 32 "sprites" of any sort on screen the C64 is equipped to do it and the A8 isn't because to do it on A8 you'd have to either do it as software sprites (not enough cpu) or split the PMGs and change X positions and there aren't enough of them to do that in 4 colours 24x21. No amount of "silly talk" on your part can change those facts. Some of you guys seem willing to try any arguement to win your case.

 

 

Pete

 

 

Again, you're trying to compare with something which is not available on A8 (in this case: ....or split the PMGs and change X positions and there aren't enough of them to do that in 4 colours 24x21). No lost case so far, you have to try better.

 

ROFL you really are funny. Games have sprites, oh wait not on the A8 obviously, your games are all static screens lol The A8 HAS hardware sprites they're called PMGS they're just useless comapred to the C64 ones, so in most cases software sprites are used instead BUT your superior CPU isn't superior enough to draw as many of them as the C64 can in hadrware. You're the one trying to say the A8 is better, all you seem able to do is prove yourself wrong by agreeing with me when I point out anything lacking in it's hardware. Maybe you just don't understand what I'm talking about. I think it's you who needs to learn what the A8 can do and YOU prove what the A8 can do compared to the C64.

 

Pete

[popmilo]

...Again, you're trying to compare with something which is not available on A8 (in this case: ....or split the PMGs and change X positions and there aren't enough of them to do that in 4 colours 24x21). No lost case so far, you have to try better.

Well, comparisson of available features is the main thing....

There is no difference in comparisson between speed of CPU and number of sprites... they are all numbers...

If one computer doesn't have "X" feature then number of "X"s equals 0.

So Atari has zero number of 24x21 hardware sprites .....

C64 has 16 colors palette.

etc...

[PeteD]

The problem is people want to say the A8 is a better machine when the only real thing it's got going for it is a faster CPU. So for games that calculate and render in mostly 4 colours it's better than the c64. If you want to compare it as a game machine (which is what everyone in this thread is trying to do) then you obviously can't take like for like but have to compare the way it's possible to produce the same results. SO, you take a game like RoF and the A8 wins because the CPU can calculate more depths of mountains and do it faster then render it to the screen faster than the C64. You take a game like pretty much any shoot-em-up which involves scrolling a level and displaying lots of moving objects and then you have to compare how the A8 would do that compare to the C64. Scrolling the A8 actually maybe wins on as you can scroll a bigger area without block copying a load of data BUT it can only scroll a multicolour screen at the equivalent of double the speed of the C64 (as in C64 can do 1 "pixel" per frame and the A8 has to do 2) you can also scroll a screen + colour ram or even a bitmap screen on the c64 for even more colours. Then for the moving colourful objects the C64 would use mostly hardware sprites for pretty much 0 cpu usage. The A8 can use PMGs for some stuff but would have to rely on software sprites for the rest which by their nature are slower and would have less colours than the C64 equivalent.

 

Games like Barbarian, as I said already, there is no need for it to look that bad on A8 as I'm in the process of proving with Exploding Fist. It's just a lot more work to do the same thing.

 

I know most people on here know all this already and I hate to repeat myself but when you're trying to compare two different machines you HAVE to compare equivalents not like for like because nothing is the same, not even the CPU runs at the same speed.

 

The C64 only has a limited palette compared to the A8 BUT it's still almost impossible to utilise that better palette on screen apart from "colour bars". There are a few games that by their nature get away with that and some well designed games (especially some newer stuff) that make the most of it but it's mostly not used because it's difficult to do so in a usable way. One thing I will say about the A8 palette is that after applying some of it's colours to the Exploding Fist screens they look somewhat more "real" than the C64 ones but it also lacks some colours that would make it even nicer.

 

 

Pete

Edited September 1, 2009 by PeteD

[Allas]

The problem is people want to say the A8 is a better machine when the only real thing it's got going for it is a faster CPU. So for games that calculate and render in mostly 4 colours it's better than the c64. If you want to compare it as a game machine (which is what everyone in this thread is trying to do) then you obviously can't take like for like but have to compare the way it's possible to produce the same results. SO, you take a game like RoF and the A8 wins because the CPU can calculate more depths of mountains and do it faster then render it to the screen faster than the C64. You take a game like pretty much any shoot-em-up which involves scrolling a level and displaying lots of moving objects and then you have to compare how the A8 would do that compare to the C64. Scrolling the A8 actually maybe wins on as you can scroll a bigger area without block copying a load of data BUT it can only scroll a multicolour screen at the equivalent of double the speed of the C64 (as in C64 can do 1 "pixel" per frame and the A8 has to do 2) you can also scroll a screen + colour ram or even a bitmap screen on the c64 for even more colours. Then for the moving colourful objects the C64 would use mostly hardware sprites for pretty much 0 cpu usage. The A8 can use PMGs for some stuff but would have to rely on software sprites for the rest which by their nature are slower and would have less colours than the C64 equivalent.

 

Games like Barbarian, as I said already, there is no need for it to look that bad on A8 as I'm in the process of proving with Exploding Fist. It's just a lot more work to do the same thing.

 

I know most people on here know all this already and I hate to repeat myself but when you're trying to compare two different machines you HAVE to compare equivalents not like for like because nothing is the same, not even the CPU runs at the same speed.

 

The C64 only has a limited palette compared to the A8 BUT it's still almost impossible to utilise that better palette on screen apart from "colour bars". There are a few games that by their nature get away with that and some well designed games (especially some newer stuff) that make the most of it but it's mostly not used because it's difficult to do so in a usable way. One thing I will say about the A8 palette is that after applying some of it's colours to the Exploding Fist screens they look somewhat more "real" than the C64 ones but it also lacks some colours that would make it even nicer.

 

 

Pete

 

 

Not all are games to determine which computer is better.

 

For games Atari have his own strengths as:

 

- Faster CPU (good advantage, use with wisdow)

- More colors (despite the 5 colors factory, with DLIs and sprites good game projects manage at least 12 colors on screen from a palette of 128 colors)

- 128K with 16K banking (That's the most important thing, the extra 64K, Atari can save a lot of speed with this extra RAM or can create more complex games)

- Flexible internal design for programming (Always let us to save memory and create interesting effects on screen)

 

If you use all these features on an Atari game, you have a clearly winner. For example:

 

 

and it's only 64K example with 27 colors in action. Imagine what more it could be with a 128K version.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Allas

[TMR]

It does make perfect sense. If it's done on the C64, who says it cannot be done on A8, only because nobody has done so.

 

There's a competititve nature amongst programmers; if someone produces something impressive, another will want to reproduce that on another. That means that at some point at least one person will have at least given it a go even if the results crashed and burned spectacularly. It's therefore relatively safe to assume that if something has been done on one machine and not on the other that either it wasn't impressive enough to be worth doing in the first place (always a possible and the differences between machines change the significance of certain pieces of code) or is either impossible or close to for some reason.

 

You sound like the person from way back who said: This cannot be done on the VCS, get away. David Crane replied: I've just done it (That's a quote from Retro Gamer magazine). Proves I'm right.

 

And as i said the last time you dragged this out, if person X says "this cannot be done" your analogy crashes, burns and fails utterly if no person Y steps forward to say "I've just done it". Someone has to take Crane's role and disprove the nay-sayers, without that it doesn't prove anything at all, least of all that you're in some way right.

[TMR]

If you use all these features on an Atari game, you have a clearly winner. For example:

 

[scratches head] Well, i haven't seen that moving so it's incredibly hard to tell from a still image what it actually moves like and i'd like to know more about what's going on before i'd even consider calling it a winner. i'm not even going to risk a relatively educated guess as to how the sprites work without more information in fact! =-)

 

and it's only 64K example with 27 colors in action. Imagine what more it could be with a 128K version.

 

Actually, i must admit you've got me there because i can't imagine any way that having extra memory will improve how many colours are in play... the splits can't change unless the graphics do.

[PeteD]

@Allas

 

I'm not saying the A8 has no good games. If things are designed specifically for it then it can do some stuff the C64 can't as already stated. It's a shame that more time/money wasn't taken on A8 games in the heydey of these machines because a lot of C64 games didn't push that machine to anywhere near it's limits and therefore would have been possible on A8 with a bit of extra work. What annoys me is when A8 fans refuse point blank to admit that they aren't ALWAYS right and create stupid "rules" for arguing about which machine is the best. I'm always ready for a good debate but a debate really has to be based on facts not "ner ner you're wrong because I said so" lol

 

I really do like the A8 despite what my recent posts on here say. I'm working on Exploding Fist conversion with every spare hour I get (quite busy doing other stuff atm) and have some game designs that would work well on C64 AND A8 (well, one of them won't unless I redesign it a bit) and hopefully I'll have the time to do them. If I didn't think there was something to the A8 I wouldn't be here wasting my time

 

 

Pete

[Shawn Jefferson]

I love the Atari, and pretty much hate the C64 for asthetic reasons, although I can appreciate some of it's features. That said, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate with your comments below:

 

- Faster CPU (good advantage, use with wisdow)

 

Sometimes this can be an advantage, but if you are trying to do colorful games with lots of moving objects, you have to really push the CPU to the limit, pretty much negating any advantage that the Atari has in CPU speed.

 

- More colors (despite the 5 colors factory, with DLIs and sprites good game projects manage at least 12 colors on screen from a palette of 128 colors)

 

The Atari hardware is best at "vertical" color manipulation. The DLIs are great, and the sprites can be "cut" and reused further down the screen. Unfortunately this isn't a very flexible design for games that aren't designed around these hardware limitations. I agree that the colors are nicer, but that's a personal subjective evaluation IMO. Color use is just not as flexible as the C64. Where's the Atari's color text mode?

 

- 128K with 16K banking (That's the most important thing, the extra 64K, Atari can save a lot of speed with this extra RAM or can create more complex games)

 

The Atari OS and custom chips takes a significant portion of the 64k memory map. The C64 has a much greater RAM area to use for the default configuration of machine. The bank windows is at $4000-7FFF, right in the middle of the memory map, and it's 16k. Using it requires careful placement and manipulation of your code, screen, and data. I think that they would have been much better off with an 8k bank window. The C64 has memory enhancements as well, IIRC.

 

- Flexible internal design for programming (Always let us to save memory and create interesting effects on screen)

 

I'd say this is subjective. The C64 has some pretty flexible internal design as well. You can write directly under some of the i/o chips without banking anything out for instance... oh, and the hardware sprites.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Shawn Jefferson

[AtariNerd]

I'm starting to grow impatient...

 

I hate to say this, but the last several postsa make it look like Pete has reaffirmed what some of us have suspected: He's here for the long troll, not really to promote an environment of mutual sharing of information, techniques, etc, but to put Atari users "in their place" against the almighty godliness of the C64.

 

I have severe doubts, my friend. Are you here for the A* or not? If it is just to argue against, why bother to be here if not to just troll? I thought the thread had moved beyond this, into something more productive?

 

I think it's time to fork over that code you're supposedly working on, sources included so we can see what kind of joke you're going to try to spring on us. Expect a lot of criticism on your coding techniques and choices you've made to cast the A8 in a certain light. Some of your choices we've discussed before, ones that might give the A8 an advantage on certain things that you've rejected due to some other aesthetic you were supposedly trying to keep or focus on...come on, man. Anything less than a full earnest effort, taking all advice in stride with a diligent eye to bring the best out of the machine, is not going to go over well given your spotty history in this thread. Shall we dig through the thread and dredge up some of those embarrassing highlights?

 

I'll keep asking until we see it. Until then...oh crap, I'll just say it again. if your not here for the A8, why even bother to be here? It's a waste of time for everyone.

 

Forgive the terseness, but seriously....

Edited September 2, 2009 by AtariNerd

[atariksi]

I love the Atari, and pretty much hate the C64 for asthetic reasons, although I can appreciate some of it's features. That said, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate with your comments below:

...

So the C64 users are Devils and you are playing Devil's Advocate. Is that what you meant or am I scraping the bottom of the barrel with the English language?

 

>>- Faster CPU (good advantage, use with wisdow)

 

>Sometimes this can be an advantage, but if you are trying to do colorful games with lots of moving objects, you have to really push the CPU to the limit, pretty much negating any advantage that the Atari has in CPU speed.

 

It's still an advantage. It would be worse if it was running at 894.895Khz. (notice I still kept it evenly divisible into the TV's color burst frequency).

 

>>- More colors (despite the 5 colors factory, with DLIs and sprites good game projects manage at least 12 colors on screen from a palette of 128 colors)

 

>The Atari hardware is best at "vertical" color manipulation. The DLIs are great, and the sprites can be "cut" and reused further down the screen. Unfortunately this isn't a very flexible design for games that aren't designed around these hardware limitations. I agree that the colors are nicer, but that's a personal subjective evaluation IMO.

 

Colors are not subjective. The more the better (ALWAYS). If a game doesn't need the colors, you can always use a subset. DLIs can be used for horizontal splits as well. And River raid is a game designed with Atari hardware in mind so they have multi-colors sprites and smooth scrolling. Joust is another good game that uses Atari hardware collision detection and plays smoother than Atari ST version.

 

>Color use is just not as flexible as the C64. Where's the Atari's color text mode?

 

Colors are more flexible and easier to deal with in GTIA's linear graphics modes. Atari does have color text modes (you are familiar with Graphics 1 and 2 in BASIC). I posted some code below that you can boot up with in BASIC that allows you to see how the foreground of text color changes in Gr. 0 with background color while retaining luminance set via POKE 709,##. There's also artifacting and sprite underlays to get colors in text mode (gr.0).

 

>>- 128K with 16K banking (That's the most important thing, the extra 64K, Atari can save a lot of speed with this extra RAM or can create more complex games)

 

>The Atari OS and custom chips takes a significant portion of the 64k memory map. The C64 has a much greater RAM area to use for the default configuration of machine. The bank windows is at $4000-7FFF, right in the middle of the memory map, and it's 16k. Using it requires careful placement and manipulation of your code, screen, and data. I think that they would have been much better off with an 8k bank window. The C64 has memory enhancements as well, IIRC.

 

That's more of a subjective thing-- how to use the hidden RAM or expanded RAM.

 

>>- Flexible internal design for programming (Always let us to save memory and create interesting effects on screen)

 

>I'd say this is subjective. The C64 has some pretty flexible internal design as well. You can write directly under some of the i/o chips without banking anything out for instance... oh, and the hardware sprites.

 

It's not subjective. It's better to boot up into whatever program you want or configuration you want without user intervention. It's better to do a STA WSYNC than write complex IRQ code to stabilize the raster which becomes unstable again once sprites start moving or color RAM gets accessed. Oops, those are the C64 advantages.

 

Here's an example of boot code that allows you to use BASIC with 128 colors in the background and sprites covering the whole screen w/o multiplexing:

 

;Example of display list interrupt on atari 800/400/600XL/800XL/XE/XEGS © 2005-2007 KSI

;Compile and boot this as an image disk on your atari computer. If you boot with BASIC cartridge,

;you should see 128 colors in the background while the BASIC cartridge is running normally. It also puts up

;P/M graphics so they occupy entire text screen w/o multiplexing to see how color of sprites/background affect

;foreground color of text.

 

ORG_ = 1529

CASINI = 2 ;for trapping reset vector

VCOUNT EQU $D40B

WSYNC EQU 54282

COLBK EQU 53274

WARMSTART = 58484

;HDR_ = 6

;DW 0FFFFh

;DW ORG

;DW LastOffset-1

DB 0,4

DW ORG_

DW StartAdr

Rts

Pla

StartAdr: LDA 560 ;LSB of ptr to display list (DL)

STA 203

LDA 561 ;MSB of ptr to display list (DL)

STA 204

LDY #2 ;intr on 3rd item of DL

NXTDLVAL: LDA (203),Y

;CMP #65

;BEQ DLISET

;EOR #$80

ORA #$80 ;set DLI bit in ANTIC display list

STA (203),Y

;AND #$70

;CMP #64

;BNE NOTLMS

;INY

;INY

NOTLMS: ;INY

;BNE NXTDLVAL

DLISET: LDA #0

STA 54286 ;NMIEN

LDA #VIRDLI,L

STA 512

LDA #VIRDLI,H

STA 513

LDA #192

STA 54286 ;NMIEN

Lda #0

Sta 580

Lda #1

Sta 9

Lda #StartAdr,L ;get LSB of StartAdr

Sta CASINI

Lda #StartAdr,H ;get MSB of StartAdr

Sta CASINI+1

;rts

;test P/M graphics by creating sprite backdrop in text mode

Lda #3 ;use #3 to enable p/m dma or 0 for fixed p/m backdrop

Sta 53277

Lda #128

Sta 54279 ;PMBASE at 32768

Sta 204

Ldx #0

Stx 203

Lda #255

Sta 53256 ;quadruple size players and missiles

Sta 53257

Sta 53258

Sta 53259

Sta 53260

Sta 53261 ;if 53277=0 above, then use these 5 registers to fill sprite data

Sta 53262

Sta 53263

Sta 53264

Sta 53265

Ldx #8

Ldy #0

Nxt256: Sta (203),Y ;fill data at PMBASE

Iny

Bne Nxt256

Inc 204

Dex

Bne Nxt256

Ldx #8

Ldy #132

Sty 204 ;beginning of color map for background color of text (player #0)

Ldy #48 ;Char row*8 + 32 for line to set background color to original

Lda #129 ;show original background for middle 6 chars of 8

RealBAK: Sta (203),Y

Iny

Dex

Bne RealBAK

Ldx #8

Ldy #128

Lda #1

RealBAK2: Sta (203),Y

Iny

Dex

Bne RealBAK2

Lda #48 ;visible range is 48..207 color clocks

Sta 53248

Lda #80

Sta 53249

Lda #112

Sta 53250

Lda #144

Sta 53251

Lda #176

Sta 53252

Lda #184

Sta 53253

Lda #192

Sta 53254

Lda #200

Sta 53255

Lda #16+8

Sta 704

Lda #32

Sta 705

Lda #48

Sta 706

Lda #64

Sta 707

Lda #0

Sta 711

Lda #15

Sta 709 ;text brightness

Lda #62 ;use 46 for double line resolution or 62 for single line

Sta 559

Lda #1+16 ;0 will merge/OR playfield colors with player color setting

Sta 623 ;set priority (53275)

;Lda #MyDL,L

;Sta 560

;Lda #MyDL,H

;Sta 561

Rts

;ALN 8

MyDL: ;DB 112+128,120 dup(0)

;DB 65,MyDL,MyDL,H

 

;*** Our display list interrupt subroutine; VCount register is not as accurate as POKEY POT counter so we

;*** we use the POT(4) to get 8-bit scan-line count 0..228.

VIRDLI: PHA

TYA

Pha

;LDA VCOUNT ;54283 is scan line count / 2

;Adc 20

Ldy #128

Sty WSYNC

Sta 53771 ;start 8 pot counters (53760..53767)

NxtScanLine: Lda 53764

Rol

STA WSYNC ;54282 is wait for end of scanline

STA COLBK ;53274 is Background color register

Dey

Bne NxtScanLine

Pla

Tay

PLA

RTI

LastOffset: ;DW 2E2,2E3,StartAdr

[atariksi]

Well, I asked for examples and received the litany of fables, plus some shocking prophetic information. How refreshing to hear the truth about myself. Let's see, we have got 2 projects that will be (or not) finished in about 3, 5, 10 or 15 (who knows, so take your pick) years. What's more, these projects (future games if everything goes well) will need a large amount of additional memory. And then goes the best part, you compare them to 20+ years old C-64 game that runs smoothly on 64K. I could not imagine a better showcase of C-64 power, :thumbsup: really. After initial whining, some atarians try personally attacking me, but that only shows a weak argument on their part. Well, I am also starting to understand why Oswald gave it up.

 

You forgot to read about the other projects mentioned in this thread that are finished and were released many years ago. My project works on 16K Atari 400 and outdoes the C64 in almost every hardware aspect-- audio (digitized audio/latency/etc.), graphics (colors/motion/etc.), i/o, RAM useage, etc. I have yet to release the 48K+ version publically.

[atariksi]

It's a software algorithm for 8-bits; hardware-wise POKEY has 4 DACs at 4-bits/sample and SID has 1 4-bit DAC.

 

Yeah, and what application is there on C64 that uses hundreds of NMIs and hundreds of IRQs every frame? There's some software workarounds anyways-- one way is just use a 15Khz IRQ for the DLIs and then deal with both timer IRQs at time of interrupt.

 

Perhaps, the C64 haven't run into the problem because they would overload their slower CPU before they can even have the possibility of having hundreds of IRQs and NMIs occurring every frame.

 

I'm not getting into this syntactical rubbish with you again, just calm down a bit, and don't take everything so personally or as afront to your beloved machine..

 

You have no idea what you are reading. Everything I wrote was in a calm state but if it's true it makes no difference as to the emotional state it was written in. A software algorithm is only an advantage on C64 if it cannot be done on A8. For example, if I interlace Graphics 9 with another Graphics 9 screen to get a CPU driven 30-shade graphics mode, that's an advantage of A8 over C64 because that software algorithm is undoable on C64.

[atarian63]

I love the Atari, and pretty much hate the C64 for asthetic reasons, although I can appreciate some of it's features. That said, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate with your comments below:

 

- Faster CPU (good advantage, use with wisdow)

 

Sometimes this can be an advantage, but if you are trying to do colorful games with lots of moving objects, you have to really push the CPU to the limit, pretty much negating any advantage that the Atari has in CPU speed.

 

- More colors (despite the 5 colors factory, with DLIs and sprites good game projects manage at least 12 colors on screen from a palette of 128 colors)

 

The Atari hardware is best at "vertical" color manipulation. The DLIs are great, and the sprites can be "cut" and reused further down the screen. Unfortunately this isn't a very flexible design for games that aren't designed around these hardware limitations. I agree that the colors are nicer, but that's a personal subjective evaluation IMO. Color use is just not as flexible as the C64. Where's the Atari's color text mode?

 

- 128K with 16K banking (That's the most important thing, the extra 64K, Atari can save a lot of speed with this extra RAM or can create more complex games)

 

The Atari OS and custom chips takes a significant portion of the 64k memory map. The C64 has a much greater RAM area to use for the default configuration of machine. The bank windows is at $4000-7FFF, right in the middle of the memory map, and it's 16k. Using it requires careful placement and manipulation of your code, screen, and data. I think that they would have been much better off with an 8k bank window. The C64 has memory enhancements as well, IIRC.

 

- Flexible internal design for programming (Always let us to save memory and create interesting effects on screen)

 

I'd say this is subjective. The C64 has some pretty flexible internal design as well. You can write directly under some of the i/o chips without banking anything out for instance... oh, and the hardware sprites.

so you are saying c64 is brain dead since it doesn't have the custom chips etc that atari does and there for uses less ram? no thanks I'll take the atari custom chips thank you.

As for color text modes. BFD.

[atariksi]

>>C-64 version has better graphics, sound and more colours. Another example where C-64 definitely outperforms Atari

 

Is it really C64 outperforming Atari or is it that the game is more targetted for the peculiarities of C64 wider sprites and color RAM? What if the game was written using Atari's particular hardware like GPRIOR mode 0, required shading, hardware collision detection, smooth hscroll/vscroll or horizontal re-use of colors? I haven't mentioned the more technical things-- just trying to establish my point that you can't draw a conclusion about the machine from some games that may exploit some strength of C64.

[oky2000]

Sorry frenchman but I think you have your English a bit confused. TMR is totally right, your statement makes no sense as it reads. You're saying you have to prove the A8 CAN'T do something?! I could put my finger up my nose then proclaim, "See, the Atari can't scroll the screen". I'm sure that meaning wasn't your intenetion but as it reads that's what it means.

 

 

Pete

 

My English is correct: YOU cannot prove that the A8 can't do what the C64 can. I say to YOU: PROVE the A8 cannot do this. Learn to program the A8, and show me. You might be fibbing for all I know.

 

That still makes no sense lol How can you prove the A8 can't do something? You can try and fail, someone else might try and succede, so do you take the 1st persons attempt and say, ok then, it's not possible? Until recently nobody had done something that looked like Project M1 but it wasn't impossible.

 

 

Pete

 

Exactly, those C64ers can't just go around saying it can't be done on A8. They are just presuming. How would they know. Finally you understand, that wasn't difficult now, was it?

 

If the A8 was launched in 1978 and 30 years later something hasn't been done then it sure as hell probably cant be done. Stop being a twat frenchman and face facts if after 30 years someone hasn't coded something for either machine then someone must prove it IS possible. What a retarded argument derrrrrrr

 

(_8(|)

[oky2000]

I personally think the A8 has a lot to offer hence me starting work on code for it but that doesn't mean I don't still think the C64 is a superior games machine not only based on hardware (and really I'm just talking the joys of hardware sprites, music does not make a game) but on it's back catalog of top titles.

 

Totally agree with you on that, except maybe the bit about music.. I think in the 64s case that perhaps music did in fact make some games.

 

Music was quite important for the budget games, let's face it most early 1.99 mastertronic games were a bit rubbish but at least the C64 versions had a decent soundtrack...better than most of the rubbish in the charts Music won't make an average game costing 9.99 any more palettable but if all you had was 1.99 at least you could listen to some damned fine tunes while playing an average game to be fair.

 

It got to the stage where people just wanted to check the inlay card and see if Hubbard did the music...which was pretty much a guaranteed sale at the time for a couple of quid

[Heaven/TQA]

weeble-tards..

LMAO!

Don't laugh, I'll probably get banned for that

 

when will it end... is there a filter for us coders to get away of the "my house is better than your house"? I am more interested in the interesting stuff...

[AtariNerd]

Of course I managed to miss PeteD's last post............