Atari v Commodore

[Wolfram]

ok. ok... maybe we should turn back to the original question and I try to explain as an Atari programmer for more than 20 years (Jesus... ok...I did not say I am a good one... )

 

well... what I love on the A8 while coding:

 

simple DLI setting up in combination of creativly using the display list. So I do not have to actually count rasterlines but I tell the display list "here colour change"...

 

having different graphics mode right out of the box (basic) was a plus as my first games where gr.1 games.

 

so...the actuall games used charbased stuff... I loved the larger colour palette even when I could use only 4/5 without tricks... it was a matter of choice....

 

but when it came down to sprite handling I hate this machine... really...I hated to move data around for a simple repositioning. I hated to waste 2 sprites to get a multicolour one...

 

ok... caming from VIC20 I was in wonderland...

 

for demo coding the machine was/is a dream... simply because I could do stuff with a 1979 machine what my 1040st could not do...

 

the "chunky" modes are great and the 16 shade modes....

 

but when I was turning into game development I realise the difference... and how hard it is to code on both machines and to push the machines... (I mean coding a game on both machines in parallel) both machines look similar through newbies eyes (sound, sprites, colours, charmodes) but in detail it takes more efford on one machine to do this as it does on the other... same like in the first months where Atari ST stuff was simply ported to Amiga and later the ST got weaker versions when Amiga was lead platform...

 

nowaday I would enjoy hardware sprites instead of software ones, colour ram instead of 5th bit charmodes+PM underlay+DLIs, highres text modes by char cell next to a 4 col char, 256 definable chars vs 128...

 

 

right. finally someone unbiased.

 

games - c64 wins hands down

demos - a8 wins hands down

[drac030]

RAM expansions that needs soldiering are nonstandard. If you had to soldier your PC to get 2gigs ram instead of 1, would you call that a standard expansion?

 

So, following this logic, if I turn 65XE into 130XE by expanding it to 128K with soldering, then you will call this "nonstandard expansion", and I won't be "allowed" by you to use such 128K because you claim that nonstandard expansions cannot be used.

 

At the other hand, if I have regular 130XE, then this is a "standard expansion" and you deign to allow me to use this, even though both computers (the expanded 65XE and the regular 130XE) are identical for software.

 

Your statement is both illogical and arrogant. Illogical as above. Arrogant, because you apparently think, that C-64 scene standards are universal enough to try to enforce them also on the Atari scene. They are not.

 

And by the way, Atari RAM expansions (like 320K RAMBO) do not need soldering, you can do them as external modules attached to the CART/ECI port of the XE. They are mounted internally just for convenience and better reliability. So your argument falls flat here.

[emkay]

Or Turrican. Clumsy playability, compared to the AMIGA version. But, who cares about playability? 16 colours and SID music proves all , if you're C64 biased.

 

/emkay mode on

 

or rescue on fractalus. shitty, almost no colors, slideshow framerate, not enough visibility, piece of junk compared to Call of Duty 2. but who cares about all that? 128 colors proves all if you're a8 biased.

 

/emkay mode off

 

Harharhar. IT's the vice versa.

 

I said, the ROF version runs better on the older system .

You wrote, A game on a 25 years newer machine looks better.

 

You better should rethink all your argues. Really!

[emkay]

Except - C64 doesn't have a game as good as Yoomp! yet.

 

 

turrican has much more replay value and fun factor if you ask me. or stunt car racer, or defender of the crown. well the list can go on endlessly.

 

Well, AMIGA and C64 were from the same age of system development. Turrican is written in the same time.

But the C64 version plays like on a ten years older machine

[emkay]

games - c64 wins hands down

demos - a8 wins hands down

 

Still not right.

 

C64 wins hands down with sidescrolling action shooters and hires colours & demos

A8 wins hands down with 1st person games and 3D demos, and the huge colour palette, making it possible to have a depth of 16 shades for 3D objects.

 

Others were mostly taste depending.

 

People say there exists an Archon version for the C64. But it is no complete one.

Remembering, seeing Archon played at GIGA TV. The moderator said "hey look, the shot can go through the blue bush" ...

 

No, it wasn't the "blue bush" it was the fact that a dark sided shot can go easily through dark elements, and cannot cross lighted elements.

 

Good Lord. The whole gamelogic is wrecked on the C64 by the missing colours there. But it is a C64 classic

Edited April 13, 2009 by emkay

[drac030]

c= factory ram expansion with DMA

 

With access via DMA copy, right? Not accessible directly to the CPU or video hardware, like on Atari?

[Fröhn]

With access via DMA copy, right? Not accessible directly to the CPU or video hardware, like on Atari?

Has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that you can copy/fill RAM with the speed of 1 MB/s ( >= 8 times faster than max CPU speed) and you can even write IO registers at that speed (for example: change background color every clock cycle).

 

There are cheaper RAM expansions which simply map memory (GeoRAM for GEOS etc).

[Wolfram]

Or Turrican. Clumsy playability, compared to the AMIGA version. But, who cares about playability? 16 colours and SID music proves all , if you're C64 biased.

 

/emkay mode on

 

or rescue on fractalus. shitty, almost no colors, slideshow framerate, not enough visibility, piece of junk compared to Call of Duty 2. but who cares about all that? 128 colors proves all if you're a8 biased.

 

/emkay mode off

 

Harharhar. IT's the vice versa.

 

I said, the ROF version runs better on the older system .

You wrote, A game on a 25 years newer machine looks better.

 

You better should rethink all your argues. Really!

 

nope, you were comparing a c64 game to its amiga version, so you could say its crap. well, I can argue like that aswell. lets compare games to ones on much better systems, so we can say they are crap. hurray...

[Wolfram]

games - c64 wins hands down

demos - a8 wins hands down

 

Still not right.

 

C64 wins hands down with sidescrolling action shooters and hires colours & demos

A8 wins hands down with 1st person games and 3D demos, and the huge colour palette, making it possible to have a depth of 16 shades for 3D objects.

 

Others were mostly taste depending.

 

People say there exists an Archon version for the C64. But it is no complete one.

Remembering, seeing Archon played at GIGA TV. The moderator said "hey look, the shot can go through the blue bush" ...

 

No, it wasn't the "blue bush" it was the fact that a dark sided shot can go easily through dark elements, and cannot cross lighted elements.

 

Good Lord. The whole gamelogic is wrecked on the C64 by the missing colours there. But it is a C64 classic

 

 

yeah okay, archon doesnt exists on the c64 then. you can calm down with that now

[Wolfram]

Except - C64 doesn't have a game as good as Yoomp! yet.

 

 

turrican has much more replay value and fun factor if you ask me. or stunt car racer, or defender of the crown. well the list can go on endlessly.

 

Well, AMIGA and C64 were from the same age of system development. Turrican is written in the same time.

But the C64 version plays like on a ten years older machine

 

/emkay mode on

 

and a8 ROF plays like a 50 years older machine compared to call of duty 2.

 

/emkay mode off

[emkay]

With access via DMA copy, right? Not accessible directly to the CPU or video hardware, like on Atari?

Has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that you can copy/fill RAM with the speed of 1 MB/s ( >= 8 times faster than max CPU speed) and you can even write IO registers at that speed (for example: change background color every clock cycle).

 

There are cheaper RAM expansions which simply map memory (GeoRAM for GEOS etc).

 

And the Atari can do it even faster by the direct memory access from the port.

This gives just an idea

It may be interesting to see a result of an external device, sending with RAM speed commands to the GTIA's registers.

Probably we don't need any Super CPU then, because we'd have thousands of real sprites of all sizes avalable then.... and much more

[emkay]

Except - C64 doesn't have a game as good as Yoomp! yet.

 

 

turrican has much more replay value and fun factor if you ask me. or stunt car racer, or defender of the crown. well the list can go on endlessly.

 

Well, AMIGA and C64 were from the same age of system development. Turrican is written in the same time.

But the C64 version plays like on a ten years older machine

 

/emkay mode on

 

and a8 ROF plays like a 50 years older machine compared to call of duty 2.

 

/emkay mode off

 

 

LOL, your mixing of independent stuff is getting funny more and more.

Last year, children played Yoomp! on the Games Convetion. Most said, it plays like on a today's PC

 

And, well, Rescue on Fractalus actually plays better on the A8 than a Call of Duty 2 on a 10 years old PC

[drac030]

It may be interesting to see a result of an external device, sending with RAM speed commands to the GTIA's registers.

 

http://madteam.atari8.info/index.php?prod=gtia2

[emkay]

yeah okay, archon doesnt exists on the c64 then. you can calm down with that now

 

Haha.

 

Archon exists, but to say it in C64 freak's words: It is not possible...

 

But as a not C64 biased guy I'd say "it is possible due to the accepting of missing and or dropped parts"

 

Just like Dropzone, that handles the whole level like a life simulation. The C64 fails by this due to CPU limits, and some moving objects were reduced. Even the shots didn't use bitmap movement, but charmode movement... and so on.

 

I've written it before in this thread. Due to the limits of the CPU, Turrican is hard triggering enemies. So it is possible to make a game that looks manifold. Also, many people blame the AMIGA version for this hard triggering, but the game had to be somehow similar to the C64 version.

But Games like Starraiders were, from the beginning, built to simulate something.

Even the Lucasfilm Games were intended to be simulations with supercomputer calculations, put onto the Atari, while the C64 version got CPU and graphics speed optimized for the C64. Nontheless the Atari version kept faster or even more colourfull, just like Koronis Rift.

Edited April 13, 2009 by emkay

[Crazyace]

With access via DMA copy, right? Not accessible directly to the CPU or video hardware, like on Atari?

Has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that you can copy/fill RAM with the speed of 1 MB/s ( >= 8 times faster than max CPU speed) and you can even write IO registers at that speed (for example: change background color every clock cycle).

 

There are cheaper RAM expansions which simply map memory (GeoRAM for GEOS etc).

 

And the Atari can do it even faster by the direct memory access from the port.

This gives just an idea

It may be interesting to see a result of an external device, sending with RAM speed commands to the GTIA's registers.

Probably we don't need any Super CPU then, because we'd have thousands of real sprites of all sizes avalable then.... and much more

 

I think you're wrong there , single cycle copy is way faster than the cpu - For graphics tricks it's brilliant , ( although I prefer the Atari banked memory for general 'computer' use

 

 

It may be interesting to see a result of an external device, sending with RAM speed commands to the GTIA's registers.

 

http://madteam.atari8.info/index.php?prod=gtia2

 

That's pretty cool - Most of the pictures seem to be C64 screens though.

 

The nice thing about the REU is it was an official c64 add-on, not a internal modification.

 

( Actually, for atariksi I guess if I wanted a fast data transfer having a direct dma to/from memory would beat joystick ports anyday. Do any of the parrallel buses on the XL or XE support that kind of DMA? )

[drac030]

I think you're wrong there , single cycle copy is way faster than the cpu - For graphics tricks it's brilliant , ( although I prefer the Atari banked memory for general 'computer' use

 

DMA copy is faster than CPU copy, but it is slower than no copy at all. On Atari an ext memory access costs you few cycles necessary to write a new value to the PORTB. Not to mention the fact that you can load code to the ext memory and execute directly from there (example usages: SpartaDOS X, MAE, probably many other programs which require 128k or more). This leaves much of the conventional memory free for other uses.

 

That's pretty cool - Most of the pictures seem to be C64 screens though.

 

Yes, they converted this and that for demonstration purposes. The project has been abandoned in early stage, though, as it was decided that the VBXE (which was nearly finished at that time) is more flexible, gives better possibilities and generates better display.

 

Do any of the parrallel buses on the XL or XE support that kind of DMA?

 

Ask candle

Edited April 13, 2009 by drac030

[Bryan]

I like it, Wolfram just created an account to be proven wrong over and over again. He'll end up like Frohn, TMR, Bryan. Why do these C64'er just can't accept the A8 being superior, already three years before?

Hey, frenchman just threw me into the 64 camp. Guess I'll have to stop all A8 development...

[Crazyace]

It's ok to be in the a8 or 64 camp ( or even in both ) - the zealot camp is the one to worry about

[Wolfram]

Except - C64 doesn't have a game as good as Yoomp! yet.

 

 

turrican has much more replay value and fun factor if you ask me. or stunt car racer, or defender of the crown. well the list can go on endlessly.

 

Well, AMIGA and C64 were from the same age of system development. Turrican is written in the same time.

But the C64 version plays like on a ten years older machine

 

/emkay mode on

 

and a8 ROF plays like a 50 years older machine compared to call of duty 2.

 

/emkay mode off

 

 

LOL, your mixing of independent stuff is getting funny more and more.

Last year, children played Yoomp! on the Games Convetion. Most said, it plays like on a today's PC

 

And, well, Rescue on Fractalus actually plays better on the A8 than a Call of Duty 2 on a 10 years old PC

 

if we can get back to our topic finally: amiga turrican is as much better as c64 turrican, as much better c64 turrican would be if a8 turrican existed.

[Wolfram]

RAM expansions that needs soldiering are nonstandard. If you had to soldier your PC to get 2gigs ram instead of 1, would you call that a standard expansion?

 

So, following this logic, if I turn 65XE into 130XE by expanding it to 128K with soldering, then you will call this "nonstandard expansion", and I won't be "allowed" by you to use such 128K because you claim that nonstandard expansions cannot be used.

 

At the other hand, if I have regular 130XE, then this is a "standard expansion" and you deign to allow me to use this, even though both computers (the expanded 65XE and the regular 130XE) are identical for software.

 

Your statement is both illogical and arrogant. Illogical as above. Arrogant, because you apparently think, that C-64 scene standards are universal enough to try to enforce them also on the Atari scene. They are not.

 

And by the way, Atari RAM expansions (like 320K RAMBO) do not need soldering, you can do them as external modules attached to the CART/ECI port of the XE. They are mounted internally just for convenience and better reliability. So your argument falls flat here.

 

its not my logic. its emkay logic. he says as the SID digi sound is not a standard built in feature, it doesnt even exists. It was just an ironic response to his bull***t. so dont take it seriously.

[Wolfram]

yeah okay, archon doesnt exists on the c64 then. you can calm down with that now

 

Haha.

 

Archon exists, but to say it in C64 freak's words: It is not possible...

 

But as a not C64 biased guy I'd say "it is possible due to the accepting of missing and or dropped parts"

 

Just like Dropzone, that handles the whole level like a life simulation. The C64 fails by this due to CPU limits, and some moving objects were reduced. Even the shots didn't use bitmap movement, but charmode movement... and so on.

 

I've written it before in this thread. Due to the limits of the CPU, Turrican is hard triggering enemies. So it is possible to make a game that looks manifold. Also, many people blame the AMIGA version for this hard triggering, but the game had to be somehow similar to the C64 version.

But Games like Starraiders were, from the beginning, built to simulate something.

Even the Lucasfilm Games were intended to be simulations with supercomputer calculations, put onto the Atari, while the C64 version got CPU and graphics speed optimized for the C64. Nontheless the Atari version kept faster or even more colourfull, just like Koronis Rift.

 

turrican is the prime example of what the a8 is not capable of.

 

supercomputer calculations on a8? yeah. give me a break. can you talk about the real world instead of your imaginations?

[drac030]

its not my logic. its emkay logic.

 

No, it is your logic, as it was you who called the 320K "nonstandard". The thing I am telling you (and Frohn) is that you, as C-64 guys, are not in the position to come here and tell us, what's standard on the Atari and what's not.

 

IIRC, emkay has nowhere said, that replaying samples on SID is "nonstandard" and therefore it is lame to use that.

[Fröhn]

DMA copy is faster than CPU copy, but it is slower than no copy at all. On Atari an ext memory access costs you few cycles necessary to write a new value to the PORTB.

That's true, but because most software is not bound to those few kB's of banked memory area you end up copying anyway.

 

Not to mention the fact that you can load code to the ext memory and execute directly from there (example usages: SpartaDOS X, MAE, probably many other programs which require 128k or more). This leaves much of the conventional memory free for other uses.

Going a bit OT now: That exists for C64 too. All those multifunction carts (final cartridge 3, action replay, retro replay etc etc) use banked code. You could see them as OS-extensions too since they introduce new commands, F-key shortcuts for dir, load, run etc and ofcourse fastload routines. For general purpose however, banked code is too difficult to handle. All cart games which exceed 8k or 16k copy themselves to RAM. And the only >16k cart game that I know of using code banking is "Toki" which banks in the music routine every frame. That's why the cracked version has no ingame music: 64k limit

[drac030]

That's true, but because most software is not bound to those few kB's of banked memory area you end up copying anyway.

 

That actually depends on the program and even more on the programmer. On Atari the banked area is 16K, it is pretty much. I gave you an example: the MAE is the assembler I often use (it stands for Macro-Assembler-Editor, it is probably unrelated to a C-64 asm of the same name), it loads itself into one of the banks and runs there, leaving the conventional memory for src/labels.

 

Of course, it may be convenient for a purpose to copy stuff, but when you're writing a program that uses the ext RAM, you have ways to avoid copying, if it is not desired, and design your code so that it uses banking most, copying seldom or not at all.

 

For general purpose however, banked code is too difficult to handle. All cart games which exceed 8k or 16k copy themselves to RAM.

 

Well, the banked code is undoubtfully more difficult to handle, than normal code, but I see nothing "too difficult" in it, yet nothing "too difficult for general purpose". I don't know, if this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpartaDOS_X purpose is general enough, but it uses both ext RAM 16k banking (very intensively, and it would be very slow, if possible at all, if the ext RAM was available via DMA copy only) and cartridge 8k banking. As being involved, I can tell you, that it was not so difficult to implement and works very well.

 

But at the other hand Atari coders are probably more used to memory banking and that's why it doesn't look too difficult for me.

Edited April 13, 2009 by drac030

[Gorf]

ok...must be alcohol... or other drugs...

 

I dont drink but may well consider it after this thread.

I'm constantly reminded of the Monty Python argument skit.

 

I paid for an argument!

no you didn't!