Artlover Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 And I don't want to say anything else at the risk of starting a flame war. Isn't that what the past 200 someodd pages has been? What differences does it make now. This war ain't going anywhere, as is always the case, might as well start another that isn't going to end up anywhere either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+remowilliams Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 This war ain't going anywhere, as is always the case, might as well start another that isn't going to end up anywhere either. Let's just roll gun control and P&R into this and have one galactic sized cluster f*ck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emkay Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I bought one because I wanted a change of pace from Windows. Don't generalize. If so, you could have chosen Linux instead. I chose Mac OS X because there are some programs I wanted that were only on Mac OS X. And I don't want to say anything else at the risk of starting a flame war. The Thread has already 200 pages of useless flamewar inside... so what? Apple was named many times in this thread, so I wanted to figure something out. My last word to this part : No software on the Apple exists that makes it necessary to buy one. Back to " Topic ? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApolloBoy Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 And I don't want to say anything else at the risk of starting a flame war. Isn't that what the past 200 someodd pages has been? What differences does it make now. This war ain't going anywhere, as is always the case, might as well start another that isn't going to end up anywhere either. LOL! But seriously, I realize this thread is essentially a big flame war, but what I wanted to say was I didn't want to start another one based on emkay's Apple rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artlover Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 This war ain't going anywhere, as is always the case, might as well start another that isn't going to end up anywhere either. Let's just roll gun control and P&R into this and have one galactic sized cluster f*ck. Jesus, Republicans sure love guns! "Indeed. But I think you misunderstand. I am not here to keep the darkness out. I'm here to keep it in. Call me . . . the Guarding Dark. Imagine how strong I must be." -Sam Vimes (Thud!, Terry Pratchett) Which Discworld is that from anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potatohead Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 LMFAO@Remo! IT COULD BE EPIC! Seriously, Wolfram it's not because I won't give an inch. Go back and read my posts. There are some things the C64 does well, there are other things it does better than the Atari does. I like the C64. Always have. I owned one for a time, and had friends with the machines. Did mods for those guys too. It's just no Atari. I just don't value those things it does better in the same way you do. You've got the same choice Atariski had; namely, either come to acceptance on the reality that I don't see it your way, or not. If you are going down the "or not" path, like I said, the door is open. You do need to bring some new material to the table however. The material posted for consideration so far didn't get it done. When you are doing advocacy, it's always good to keep the powder keg fresh. Once the time tested material fails to fly, it's time to either fish or cut bait. You are there big. Just a safety tip from me to you. That's just honest and rational. Sorry man. I'm not feeling it. Atari is the better machine, and I've stated why, and I feel good about that. I've no grudge, going as far as to sort some stuff out on multiple occasions --and in your favor too. The archive is there. Go ahead. Check it out. What do you want? A lie? I can do that for a fee, you know. PM me, and let's talk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artlover Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 What do you want? It's been 18 minutes without a reply. I think you killed the thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gklinger Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Perhaps it's time for everyone to hug it out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potatohead Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 No PM either. Must be considering his offer. (rubs hands, thinking BIG) Wolfram, it's a straight up time / dollar deal. Low dollars = modest lie, good for a short time. High dollars = me getting some cool new gear, and a really well thought out, psycho level drive them bat shit nuts lie, good for a very long while, and satisfaction guaranteed. (Trust me on that last one. I know what I am doing.) I can arrange for free samples too. You let me know k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchman Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I know you have some emotional bias toward bounding boxes t Oh no, Wolfram is frequenting 4chan now, all hope is gone for sure. Next he'll discover 'rickrolling', beware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I am basing it on unbiased observation. It's crap in comparison to Atari 800/XL/XE machines that I have. None of the Ataris have broken down for me over many years. C64, used only a few times, broke down. It's not an attack but a true statement. You are right, but the samples are not representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artlover Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Low dollars = modest lie, good for a short time. Ok, I'm really really tired. I was skimming this and read that as "low dollars for a good time". Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. Unless you're a girl. Anywho, I think I'll go to bed now before I misconstrue anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwhyte Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) Edited April 24, 2009 by dwhyte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potatohead Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 That's funny! Just re-read it, and yeah it sounds ugly. I'm a guy too, so it's NOT gonna work! After a visit to 4chan, that post could go that way for sure! I think I'll just leave it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchman Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Conclusion: atariksi 10 Wolfram 0 and the winner is: Atari 8-bit range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youki Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 This thread makes me want to hook up my 64, but I'm still not sure about the best affordable way to get games over to it. The 1541 Ultimate is a little out of reach. Personnally i have 2 MMC2IEC , one with the original firmware and the other with a sd2iec firmware. I'm very happy with that device, mainly the second with the sc2iec firmware. You can then find them here http://www.nkcelectronics.com/mmc2iec-comm...tion-devic.html http://www.nkcelectronics.com/sd2iec-daughter-boar2.html http://www.nkcelectronics.com/sd2iec-boar2.html More info here : http://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/SD2IEC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malducci Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 There are many games on Atari that use the hardware collision detection. You are exaggerating by saying "countless". Exaggerating? So the tens of thousands of 2D games since the NES in '83 to 2D nowadays on XBOX live and PSN is exaggerating? The point of saying "GOOD" games to those that use software bounding boxes is subjective. No. Take for instances a platform game. If the main character gets even just one pixel to collide with another sprite, and you base your hit detection on that, that will make for some really poor gameplay and great frustration. Shooters, platformers, run n' gun, etc. Smaller than the displayed object 'hit boxes' allows for more complex and less limited gameplay design. If pixel accurate detection was such a big deal, then why did systems stop including it in hardware? The NES had it, and it was ignored. The Genesis had it and it was ignored. The SMS had it and it was ignored. The TG16, the SNES, quite a few arcade system too. All had pixel accurate hardware collision detection and guess what? It wasn't used. They may be good for you and not good for me. If you don't want to take my word for it, ask some other people here familiar with Atari game internals whether they use hardware collision. I don't need to. I do classic 2D game development myself and understand game engine designs. I have no doubt very simple and old games like Tank or Centipede can lend themselves to pixel accurate collision, but I was under the impression that Atari 8bit computer dev community was moving to a more capable game design than that. Even if you don't own a C64, by siding with a C64 view.. Oh man... It's not a c64 view or thing. It's a game thing and it has nothing to do with c64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Apple targeted schools! Duh. Just one more wrong badram. & businessmen. Visicalc does ring a bell I guess ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Is it just me, or do I get the feeling that Wolfram is a sockpuppet of Oswald? ?!! and you are the sockpupet of who ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 c64 could display 16color off the shelf Can you PLEASE stop saying this? It's NOT a 16 color bitmap mode no matter what you say or think. It's a tile based system. It's not the same. can you please correct me in what I've really stated, and not correcting me in something I havent stated ? "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 No. Take for instances a platform game. If the main character gets even just one pixel to collide with another sprite, and you base your hit detection on that, that will make for some really poor gameplay and great frustration. Shooters, platformers, run n' gun, etc. Smaller than the displayed object 'hit boxes' allows for more complex and less limited gameplay design. I agree that in platformers, you can get better results with bounding boxes in case of player/playfield interaction. I think shooters benefits more from pixel perfect collision, especially when there are many "missiles" and non rectangle shaped objects. The essence of it, is to find the balance between the two techniques. In games like "Wizzard of Wor" I would use both: bounding boxes to prevent the player from going through walls (playfield) and pixel perfect to check if the bullet hit the target. If pixel accurate detection was such a big deal, then why did systems stop including it in hardware? The NES had it, and it was ignored. The Genesis had it and it was ignored. The SMS had it and it was ignored. The TG16, the SNES, quite a few arcade system too. All had pixel accurate hardware collision detection and guess what? It wasn't used. Doesn't really prove anything. The sprites had vanished completely later on, since they can be generated by software more flexible with more powerful processors. In full 3D games there is no need for sprites and collision is not detected by "the content of the screen memory" but by the game engine. You can't deny that having pixel perfect collision hardware wise at the screen resolution and processing power of the C64 or A800 is an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) c64 could display 16color off the shelf Can you PLEASE stop saying this? It's NOT a 16 color bitmap mode no matter what you say or think. It's a tile based system. It's not the same. can you please correct me in what I've really stated, and not correcting me in something I havent stated ? "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I think he misread your post. There is a difference between the "c64 could display 16color off the shelf" and "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" (which is not true, otherwise we could say that the Atari can display 256 color off the shelf too ) Edited April 24, 2009 by jvas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) c64 could display 16color off the shelf Can you PLEASE stop saying this? It's NOT a 16 color bitmap mode no matter what you say or think. It's a tile based system. It's not the same. can you please correct me in what I've really stated, and not correcting me in something I havent stated ? "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I think he misread your post. There is a difference between the "c64 could display 16color off the shelf" and "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" (which is not true, otherwise we could say that the Atari can display 256 color off the shelf too ) c64 can display all of its colors without having to help with the cpu. its a very hard fact. a8 is not able to do more than 5 at 160x200, and having to use 80x200 brick resolution to display 16 different color... which are still limited by hue/chrome. c64 charmode without cpu help: it just looks better. c64 gfx modes doesnt need cpu help to make up for the a8, its vice versa. that tells a thing or two about the gfx HW. Edited April 24, 2009 by Wolfram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvas Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) c64 could display 16color off the shelf Can you PLEASE stop saying this? It's NOT a 16 color bitmap mode no matter what you say or think. It's a tile based system. It's not the same. can you please correct me in what I've really stated, and not correcting me in something I havent stated ? "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I think he misread your post. There is a difference between the "c64 could display 16color off the shelf" and "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" (which is not true, otherwise we could say that the Atari can display 256 color off the shelf too ) c64 can display all of its colors without having to help with the cpu. its a very hard fact. a8 is not able to do more than 5 at 160x200, and having to use 80x200 brick resolution to display 16 different color... which are still limited by hue/chrome. "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" suggests that there is a certain resolution, where the colors of every pixel can be any of the 16. It is not the case. The Amiga and the ST can do that. In gr11 on A800 the color of every "pixel" can be any of the 16, though the resolution is only 80x192. "c64 can display all of its colors without having to help with the cpu" is a totally different statement. Edited April 24, 2009 by jvas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfram Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 (edited) "c64 CAN display 16color off the shelf" suggests that there is a certain resolution, where the colors of every pixel an be any of the 16. I have not said that, nor suggested. what I have said was right. the end. edit: this post has been answered while I was editing it. I have recopyed the original text for correctness. Edited April 24, 2009 by Wolfram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts