Does Jag Doom run in highcolor mode?

[Crazyace]

Such hyperbole always makes me want to play BattleSphere, but then the price always stops me

I was always surprised the 4play didn't make a PC version at least - there's nothing really special about it graphically, and the network play would fit a lot more on the PC. I guess I'll have to hope that there's a Jagfest this year where someone brings a copy

 

I'd disagree on not being able to reproduce it on the PSX though - even something like Phase Zero could be reproduced on the PSX. ( The CRY mode is the one thing that couldn't be - the PSX supports 24 bit RGB, but it's graphics hardware is completely designed around drawing 16 bit RGB pixels )

[Crazyace]

And what exactly is 16-bit CRY mode, I've read a bit of the Jag's hardware summary online (not any proper hardware doccuments though -and the FAQ on AA isn't too much to go by -and I can't seem to find soem articles on Jag sector which were there a year ago). I'd assume it was an indexted 16-bit color mode (so a selected palette from the full 24-bitmaster palette rather than a fixed RGB palette as with the 32x obviously), but does the Jag even work from an RGB palette or use soemthing else, like YCbCr colorspace? And from the sound of it, CRY is more than just a normal 16-bit indexed palette. (as in, more than just 65,536 entries seleced from a 24-bit palette)

Think of CRY mode in the same way as component video - or SVHS , one byte represents the colour (like chroma on SVHS) and one byte represents the brightness ( luma on SVHS ) - You have brightness that matches full 24 bit RGB , but a much more limited set of colours to pick from.

 

If it were one of the first games out for Jaguar, it would have rocked the gaming world

and the PS1 would never be able to generate such a AI and game logic monster. One MIPS

can not compete on it's best day against dual J-RISC chips. The best you could hope for

on the PS1 is a texture mapped wanna be.

This is getting more off topic, but, how about the saturn for comparison? I think this did come up before and you mentioned it could be closer at least (outside of networking -I'd immagine the Saturn would have used the cartridge port for any kind of network adaptor though -it did get a modem supported by the nelink/seganet service). Anyway, you've got the dual SH2s, plus a 11.3 MHz 68EC000 which was intended mainly for controllign the audio subsystem, but I beleive it wasn't limited to that. (it does work on its own bus though, the dedicated 512 kB of used for audio) There's also the SH1, but I think that's completely dedicated to controlling the CDROM drive. (and a DSP coprocessor intended to help with 3D math)

 

 

But again, I mean no disrespect to battleSphere or Scatologic for that matter, that really was an oversimplified comparison (albeit intended to be considdering the perspective of a relatively simple audience), and I definitely hope I eventually get a chance to play it. I doubt I'll be dissapointed.

 

That's the reality - both the Saturn and the PSX would be able to reproduce BattleSphere - they are more powerful systems than the jaguar. The only thing that would limit them is the fact that neither machine was ever pitched with multiplayer link cables by the manufacturer.

[Atari_Owl]

Graphically, in action, SS does not even come close and that one bit of color the CRY mode

of the Jaguar has over the 15 bit mode garbage is not only twice the colors but CRY is a special

mode of the Jaguar in that it comes closer to looking like TRUE color because if the way the

palette and color logic work.

 

I'm going to disagree slightly here in that whilst CRY does have some strengths (its EXTREMELY good for smooth intensity gradients) it has some very annoying limitations - in that because there are only 256 colours (predefined - they can't even be tuned - each with 256 intensities) its ability to do smooth colour gradients is quite poor compared with even a 15bit RGB mode. (Not that that has any bearing on SS of course)

Edited January 19, 2010 by Atari_Owl

[JagChris]

I'd disagree on not being able to reproduce it on the PSX though - even something like Phase Zero could be reproduced on the PSX. ( The CRY mode is the one thing that couldn't be - the PSX supports 24 bit RGB, but it's graphics hardware is completely designed around drawing 16 bit RGB pixels )

 

He's not talking about what it looks like. He's not talking about the texturing. He's not talking about the speed. He's not talking about the number of polygons. We all know the PSX could beat it at that.

 

He's talking about the physics and the AI on BattleSphere being something the PSX would have trouble with.

[Crazyace]

yes - and I'm saying that the PSX wouldn't have trouble with the physics and AI - It's a more powerful machine, after all.

[The_Laird]

Such hyperbole always makes me want to play BattleSphere, but then the price always stops me

I was always surprised the 4play didn't make a PC version at least - there's nothing really special about it graphically, and the network play would fit a lot more on the PC. I guess I'll have to hope that there's a Jagfest this year where someone brings a copy

 

I'd disagree on not being able to reproduce it on the PSX though - even something like Phase Zero could be reproduced on the PSX. ( The CRY mode is the one thing that couldn't be - the PSX supports 24 bit RGB, but it's graphics hardware is completely designed around drawing 16 bit RGB pixels )

 

Unfortunately Battlesphere came out just after you left last year, but it didn't stay on for long. There were quite a few people who REALLY wanted to play it but were less than impressed when they did. I don't see anything in this game that the Saturn & PS1 couldn't do, there are far more impressive games on the Jag than BSG. I will try to make sure we have a BSG at this years show!

[Crazyace]

I'll definitely come again - it was a good event. ( I'll actually looking forward to one this year , and I'll try to get some interesting code ready to show )

[Gorf]

Got it, I wasn't thinking about framerate so much when I wrote that, and I only have video capture uploads (obviously not fully demonstrating the framerate or graphical detail), I'll defeinitely try to check it out in persone some day. As rare as it is, probably most likely at a convention, unless I somehow meet someone locally who owns it personally.

The networking thing is certainly cool, but to be honest, I don't think that would have caught on too well for the masses durring the Jag's life. (I think Xbox was the first to have any kind of popularity with local networking -outside of PCs of course) I'm sure it would have been popular for hardcore fans though. (modem play would have been interesting though, fairly limited at that time though -but Doom in particular could have befitted from that -even the SNES and Genesis had breif online services)

 

Um no, this is when Doom was VERY popular because of it's networking ability as well as several other games at the time. Quake 1 and 2 followed right behind and it was'nt just hard core gamers.

History does not agree with your assesment of networking games.

 

OK, SS was definitely a weak comparison, it's a far simpler and more arcade style game, I was more talking about if from the really average consumer's perspective (no big time/hardcore gamer types), although they'd at least notice the drtail difference to some degree and the framerate, even if soem wouldn't epreciate the more complex/rich gameplay. This came up before, but other games (like the X-wing series) would definitely be closer to BS in that respect (non arcade style, complex space sims), not that I'm arguing those would be comparable in AI complexity and such. (I can't) I mean, SS would be more comprable than Star Wars arcade and stuf like that, but that wasn't even the issue... I mean SS doesn't even really have proper dogfighting (AI seems pretty simple)

 

X-Wing is nothing like BattleSphere. You also forget that BS is several very different space shooters in one.

For it's time X-Wing was a nice game, but it's no BS.

 

And what exactly is 16-bit CRY mode, I've read a bit of the Jag's hardware summary online (not any proper hardware doccuments though -and the FAQ on AA isn't too much to go by -and I can't seem to find soem articles on Jag sector which were there a year ago). I'd assume it was an indexted 16-bit color mode (so a selected palette from the full 24-bitmaster palette rather than a fixed RGB palette as with the 32x obviously), but does the Jag even work from an RGB palette or use soemthing else, like YCbCr colorspace? And from the sound of it, CRY is more than just a normal 16-bit indexed palette. (as in, more than just 65,536 entries seleced from a 24-bit palette)

 

 

It is a palette clut based 16 bit color mode. You select 256 16 bit base colors and put these

in the Jaguar CLUT(color lookup table). You then get 256 gradients of each color.

 

 

This is getting more off topic, but, how about the saturn for comparison? I think this did come up before and you mentioned it could be closer at least (outside of networking -I'd immagine the Saturn would have used the cartridge port for any kind of network adaptor though -it did get a modem supported by the nelink/seganet service). Anyway, you've got the dual SH2s, plus a 11.3 MHz 68EC000 which was intended mainly for controllign the audio subsystem, but I beleive it wasn't limited to that. (it does work on its own bus though, the dedicated 512 kB of used for audio) There's also the SH1, but I think that's completely dedicated to controlling the CDROM drive. (and a DSP coprocessor intended to help with 3D math)

 

Getting off topic?

 

Not even close. The J-RISC chips can run in parallel even out of main(with some contention of course) but this was

not efficient at all in the Saturn. However, the Saturn would have been better suited to coming closer to the ability

of BS's AI and game logic.

 

But again, I mean no disrespect to battleSphere or Scatologic for that matter, that really was an oversimplified comparison (albeit intended to be considdering the perspective of a relatively simple audience), and I definitely hope I eventually get a chance to play it. I doubt I'll be dissapointed.

 

I think it is more out of ignorance about the game than disrespect. You are going by the moronic responses of some

around the gaming community that never once lifted a joypad to play BS, only to say "my system has a space shooter too".

 

It's like saying I have a mini-van so who cares about your Targa 911.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Gorf

[Gorf]

Such hyperbole always makes me want to play BattleSphere, but then the price always stops me

I was always surprised the 4play didn't make a PC version at least - there's nothing really special about it graphically, and the network play would fit a lot more on the PC. I guess I'll have to hope that there's a Jagfest this year where someone brings a copy

 

The PC version would have suffered based on the same reasons the PSX would have. Single processors.

Todays dual core and quad core may be a very different story however.

 

I'd disagree on not being able to reproduce it on the PSX though - even something like Phase Zero could be reproduced on the PSX. ( The CRY mode is the one thing that couldn't be - the PSX supports 24 bit RGB, but it's graphics hardware is completely designed around drawing 16 bit RGB pixels )

 

Legrand said it could not be done. I'll take his word over yours. You might get a much more

detailed gfx engine but you are'nt going to come close matching the AI. Scott explained to

me how and why this is the case( I promised to keep it quiet) and trust me, it aint happening.

Im sure Legrand and Engel would have made such a release considering the amount of money they'd

have made....the other obvious reason why you are wrong is the PSX does not support more than

two consoles networked and this is where the Jaguar has a gigantic advantage over the PSX....BS

was written in such a way that the more jags you hook up, the more processing power you have.

But if you actually read my post to KK, instead of just out of hand dismissing and disagreeing

like you always do, you would have known that. The PSX, not the PC have this ability and this

is exactly because of their single processor nature.

 

As far as PZ goes, yeah you'd be able to pull off a less than atractive polygon based height

map landscape but you are NOT going to draw voxels like the blitter can. If this were the case,

not only would the PSX have done so, the PC would have back then as well. It is not until recently

that the PC can do this and that is only because of the ridiculous speed of the processors.

Neither the PC or the PSX are geared toward voxel...they are poly engines and the blitter in the

Jaguar in that time period will whip both there asses in this respect hands dwon.

 

I dont think you understand the difference in what a polygon and a voxel is, or you would known why the PSX or Saturn(or even the PC's of that day) could not pull them off.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Gorf

[Gorf]

That's the reality - both the Saturn and the PSX would be able to reproduce BattleSphere - they are more powerful systems than the jaguar. The only thing that would limit them is the fact that neither machine was ever pitched with multiplayer link cables by the manufacturer.

 

No that is not the reality. The very fact that they lack the networking is why they are too weak to ever

be able to match the Jaguar in this respect. It is the multi hook ups of the JAg and the unique means of

true parallel processing that not even the Saturn can do with it two SH2's. It would stand a much better

chance than the PSx but again, if you had actually read why I stated they can't, instead of once again

assuming you know what you are talking about, you'd have known this. The PSX and Saturn are graphically

more capable in the polygon arena but not in the computing arena. It aint the case.

[Gorf]

yes - and I'm saying that the PSX wouldn't have trouble with the physics and AI - It's a more powerful machine, after all.

 

Um, sorry my friend but no ......It is graphically more powerful in polygans ability.

It can not match the Jaguar in computing and voxel landscapes, deal with AI and game logic

on the level of BS and still maintain a 60 fps frame rate that only gets more efficient the

more units you network together. The PSX stops at 2 units...The Jaguar with BS can do 32.

The Jaguars work together and now you have serious multi processing going on. The PSX just

does not have the ability on the same level computationally. One MIPS can not out perform

two J-RISC's on its best day.

 

Show me just one game on the PSX that even comes close to the AI and game logic of BS. IT

never happened and it never will. Without any networking going on the Jaguar will out compute

the PSX.

 

 

I have been told by MANY PSX developers who also coded for the JAguar syaing that the Jaguar

is by far more capable in math just on one risc versus the MIPS.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Gorf

[Gorf]

Graphically, in action, SS does not even come close and that one bit of color the CRY mode

of the Jaguar has over the 15 bit mode garbage is not only twice the colors but CRY is a special

mode of the Jaguar in that it comes closer to looking like TRUE color because if the way the

palette and color logic work.

 

I'm going to disagree slightly here in that whilst CRY does have some strengths (its EXTREMELY good for smooth intensity gradients) it has some very annoying limitations - in that because there are only 256 colours (predefined - they can't even be tuned - each with 256 intensities) its ability to do smooth colour gradients is quite poor compared with even a 15bit RGB mode. (Not that that has any bearing on SS of course)

 

Try changing the CLUT lookup table...im pretty sure they can be...at least that is my experience.

Even if that is not the case. My point was that the 15 bit color modes KK is talking about does

not come close to CRY color.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Gorf

[Gorf]

Unfortunately Battlesphere came out just after you left last year, but it didn't stay on for long. There were quite a few people who REALLY wanted to play it but were less than impressed when they did. I don't see anything in this game that the Saturn & PS1 couldn't do, there are far more impressive games on the Jag than BSG. I will try to make sure we have a BSG at this years show!

 

Graphically. Yes. Computationally, you and CA could not be more hopelessly wrong.

[Atari_Owl]

Graphically, in action, SS does not even come close and that one bit of color the CRY mode

of the Jaguar has over the 15 bit mode garbage is not only twice the colors but CRY is a special

mode of the Jaguar in that it comes closer to looking like TRUE color because if the way the

palette and color logic work.

 

I'm going to disagree slightly here in that whilst CRY does have some strengths (its EXTREMELY good for smooth intensity gradients) it has some very annoying limitations - in that because there are only 256 colours (predefined - they can't even be tuned - each with 256 intensities) its ability to do smooth colour gradients is quite poor compared with even a 15bit RGB mode. (Not that that has any bearing on SS of course)

 

Try changing the CLUT lookup table...they can be...at least that is my experience. Also My point was that the 15 bit color

modes KK is talking about does not come close to CRY color.

 

Hi Gorf - i change the CLUT all the time - as far as i can see, CRY colours are always CRY colours, 00 is always blue, FF is always yellow - thats why its CRY=CyanRedintensitY, where one specifiec levels of C,R and Y.

 

and particularly for the greens that means no smooth colour gradients - blues seem better (probably reds too).

 

 

 

I suspect that its because Atari said that the human eye is less sensitive to greens than other colours and that's why they put green on a mid edge instead of a corner of the colour cube. I curse them for that regularly. Now if it was not a green landscape i could care less

Edited January 19, 2010 by Atari_Owl

[Gorf]

Hi Gorf - i change the CLUT all the time - as far as i can see, CRY colours are always CRY colours 00 is blue FF is yellow thats why its CyanRedintensitY.

 

and particularly for the greens that means no smooth colour gradients - blues seem better (probably reds too).

 

 

 

I suspect that its because Atari said that the human eye is less sensitive to greens than other colours and that's why they put green on a mid edge instead of a corner of the colour cube. I curse them for that regularly. Now if it was not a green landscape i could care less

 

WHHHOOOOOPSIES!....my bad......you are right in this...again, my point is that CRY is superior to the typical 15 bit

highcolor modes found on those consoles and PC cards.

[Atari_Owl]

Hi Gorf - i change the CLUT all the time - as far as i can see, CRY colours are always CRY colours 00 is blue FF is yellow thats why its CyanRedintensitY.

 

and particularly for the greens that means no smooth colour gradients - blues seem better (probably reds too).

 

 

 

I suspect that its because Atari said that the human eye is less sensitive to greens than other colours and that's why they put green on a mid edge instead of a corner of the colour cube. I curse them for that regularly. Now if it was not a green landscape i could care less

 

WHHHOOOOOPSIES!....my bad......you are right in this...again, my point is that CRY is superior to the typical 15 bit

highcolor modes found on those consoles and PC cards.

 

Oh Yes and thats a perfectly fair point.

The colour gradient problems would never be a problem with flat or gouraud shaded polys as there's no colour changes, nor would it be a problem in textures with contrast (most textures ) - merely stating that if one wants a smooth colour gradient its hard to achieve with CRY.

[Crazyace]

 

As far as PZ goes, yeah you'd be able to pull off a less than atractive polygon based height

map landscape but you are NOT going to draw voxels like the blitter can. If this were the case,

not only would the PSX have done so, the PC would have back then as well. It is not until recently

that the PC can do this and that is only because of the ridiculous speed of the processors.

Neither the PC or the PSX are geared toward voxel...they are poly engines and the blitter in the

Jaguar in that time period will whip both there asses in this respect hands dwon.

 

I dont think you understand the difference in what a polygon and a voxel is, or you would known why the PSX or Saturn(or even the PC's of that day) could not pull them off.

 

Comanche says hi,

( 1992 - seemed to be pretty good on my PC )

[Crazyace]

That's the reality - both the Saturn and the PSX would be able to reproduce BattleSphere - they are more powerful systems than the jaguar. The only thing that would limit them is the fact that neither machine was ever pitched with multiplayer link cables by the manufacturer.

 

No that is not the reality. The very fact that they lack the networking is why they are too weak to ever

be able to match the Jaguar in this respect. It is the multi hook ups of the JAg and the unique means of

true parallel processing that not even the Saturn can do with it two SH2's. It would stand a much better

chance than the PSx but again, if you had actually read why I stated they can't, instead of once again

assuming you know what you are talking about, you'd have known this. The PSX and Saturn are graphically

more capable in the polygon arena but not in the computing arena. It aint the case.

 

How much better does BattleSphere get when it's networked? ( I'm assuming you're saying that the networking is the advantage here - because you don't really make much sense otherwise )

My point about the networking is that there's no real difference between the hardware used for link cables on the PSX, and the Jaguar - only the wiring is different. So exactly the same networked AI could be implemented if it had to be.

And the Saturn and PSX are computationally more capable than the Jaguar as well as graphically more capable - ( The Saturn is generally even more capable than the PSX )

[Crazyace]

yes - and I'm saying that the PSX wouldn't have trouble with the physics and AI - It's a more powerful machine, after all.

 

Um, sorry my friend but no ......It is graphically more powerful in polygans ability.

It can not match the Jaguar in computing and voxel landscapes, deal with AI and game logic

on the level of BS and still maintain a 60 fps frame rate that only gets more efficient the

more units you network together. The PSX stops at 2 units...The Jaguar with BS can do 32.

The Jaguars work together and now you have serious multi processing going on. The PSX just

does not have the ability on the same level computationally. One MIPS can not out perform

two J-RISC's on its best day.

I have to disagree with you here - One MIPs with cache and 3D geometry coprocessor, can computationally match the two J-Riscs.

 

The networking on BS is a different topic, and I'm really looking forward to playing it ( networked if possible , although I guess only one person has enough Jaguars to really show it off )

 

Show me just one game on the PSX that even comes close to the AI and game logic of BS. IT

never happened and it never will. Without any networking going on the Jaguar will out compute

the PSX.

Once I play it I'll see if I can think of anything - but if the AI is so wonderful I think it's more the extreme skill of the programmers rather than something magical in the Jaguar chipset.

 

I have been told by MANY PSX developers who also coded for the JAguar syaing that the Jaguar

is by far more capable in math just on one risc versus the MIPS.

Now that's interesting - I guess that must be comparing the multiply and divide cycle times , as they aren't as quick in terms of cycle counts. However it's a major jump to generalise that to 'math' in general.

[Crazyace]

As far as PZ goes, yeah you'd be able to pull off a less than atractive polygon based height

map landscape but you are NOT going to draw voxels like the blitter can. If this were the case,

not only would the PSX have done so, the PC would have back then as well. It is not until recently

that the PC can do this and that is only because of the ridiculous speed of the processors.

Neither the PC or the PSX are geared toward voxel...they are poly engines and the blitter in the

Jaguar in that time period will whip both there asses in this respect hands dwon.

 

I dont think you understand the difference in what a polygon and a voxel is, or you would known why the PSX or Saturn(or even the PC's of that day) could not pull them off.

 

About 3 minutes on this - seems like Voxel's to me but I'll let you decide, as you seem to have a better understanding of my graphics knowledge

 

( It's a PSX demo )

[Gorf]

 

Comanche says hi,

( 1992 - seemed to be pretty good on my PC )

 

Oh yeah real great! To bad you are 8 bits short in color , a boxed in view and a much slower frame rate! Oh, btw is that a 100 MHZ Pentium or higher?(27MHZ Jaguar blows it's dooors off)

Next....

Edited January 19, 2010 by Gorf

[Gorf]

About 3 minutes on this - seems like Voxel's to me but I'll let you decide, as you seem to have a better understanding of my graphics knowledge

 

( It's a PSX demo )

 

Oh yeah another great one! Choppy, crappy, blocky, low color DEMO!!!! I friggin DEMO

that barely can run at 15 FPS from what it looks like. Now add few enemies and some AI

and watch that choke like a frog swallowing a horse. Nice try, but not really. The A8's

can do a full game with voxels....how sad is that?

 

Now....go see a REAL Voxel engine that is actually part of a game.

You 've already seen Owl's master piece that is clearly not only superior

in ever way, it is actually a game you can play, and I doubt its dropping

under 30FPS. I can't really comment much more on Owl's deal as I've only

seen but a few seconds of it but clearly it blows away this pathetic demo

on the PSX, which BTW points the camera downward to help the voxel engine

from drawing REAL heights.

 

 

show me the PSX doing this...then I might be impressed.

 

 

Notice the extreme heights of the landscape at 60 FPS in CRY color,

with voxel clouds and enemies. Try that on a PC or a PSX and you get

choke. Again, nice try but not really.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Gorf

[JagChris]

show me the PSX doing this...then I might be impressed.

 

 

Notice the extreme heights of the landscape at 60 FPS in CRY color,

with voxel clouds and enemies. Try that on a PC or a PSX and you get

choke. Again, nice try but not really.

 

 

wow forgot how fast phaze zero hauls ass. Guess I didnt notice until after watching the PSX demo. Did you guys see where a guy in the comments is claiming to be the creator?

 

i just randomly dug this video up searching for traces of phase zero... and you just made my day. =] phase zero was kinda my baby. i did some of the graphics, a bit of the programming, and a lot of the game design you see there. glad you liked it, even if it never really made it.

Edited January 19, 2010 by JagChris

[Crazyace]

 

Comanche says hi,

( 1992 - seemed to be pretty good on my PC )

 

Oh yeah real great! To bad you are 8 bits short in color , a boxed in view and a much slower frame rate! Oh, btw is that a 100 MHZ Pentium or higher?(27MHZ Jaguar blows it's dooors off)

Next....

 

No idea what PC it's running on ... but it came out in 1992, which was why I linked it for you, as you seem to think voxels weren't used till recently

 

About 3 minutes on this - seems like Voxel's to me but I'll let you decide, as you seem to have a better understanding of my graphics knowledge

 

( It's a PSX demo )

 

Oh yeah another great one! Choppy, crappy, blocky, low color DEMO!!!! I friggin DEMO

that barely can run at 15 FPS from what it looks like. Now add few enemies and some AI

and watch that choke like a frog swallowing a horse. Nice try, but not really. The A8's

can do a full game with voxels....how sad is that?

 

 

I think the only sad thing here is your grasp of framerates but it is a youtube video, so maybe you should check it out on a real playstation before making asinine comparisions with A8 games

 

Now....go see a REAL Voxel engine that is actually part of a game.

You 've already seen Owl's master piece that is clearly not only superior

in ever way, it is actually a game you can play, and I doubt its dropping

under 30FPS. I can't really comment much more on Owl's deal as I've only

seen but a few seconds of it but clearly it blows away this pathetic demo

on the PSX, which BTW points the camera downward to help the voxel engine

from drawing REAL heights.

 

 

show me the PSX doing this...then I might be impressed.

 

Notice the extreme heights of the landscape at 60 FPS in CRY color,

with voxel clouds and enemies. Try that on a PC or a PSX and you get

choke. Again, nice try but not really.

 

Owl's game and Phase Zero are both cool ( and it's a real shame PZ didn't make it out, as it's the kind of game the jaguar really needed ) - I think the enemies are just sprites though.

[kool kitty89]

And what exactly is 16-bit CRY mode, I've read a bit of the Jag's hardware summary online (not any proper hardware doccuments though -and the FAQ on AA isn't too much to go by -and I can't seem to find soem articles on Jag sector which were there a year ago). I'd assume it was an indexted 16-bit color mode (so a selected palette from the full 24-bitmaster palette rather than a fixed RGB palette as with the 32x obviously), but does the Jag even work from an RGB palette or use soemthing else, like YCbCr colorspace? And from the sound of it, CRY is more than just a normal 16-bit indexed palette. (as in, more than just 65,536 entries seleced from a 24-bit palette)

Think of CRY mode in the same way as component video - or SVHS , one byte represents the colour (like chroma on SVHS) and one byte represents the brightness ( luma on SVHS ) - You have brightness that matches full 24 bit RGB , but a much more limited set of colours to pick from.

OK, it is like YCbCr colorspace then. (so kind of like GTIA's 256 color palette, but with 16x the colors and shades ) But doing so using values indexed from 24-bit RGB. Hmm, wouldn't any indexed 16-bit palette mode on other platforms (slecting from 24-bit RGB) be ablt to acheive similar? (doesn't the PSX allow 16-bit indexing, or is it stuch with 16-bit RGB to work from? -probably 5-6-5 R-G-B -if not selectable between that and 6-5-5 and 5-5-6) Wait... 65.536 entries for selecting 24-bit values would take 192 kB of color RAM... so not for PSX at least...

 

 

 

 

As far as PZ goes, yeah you'd be able to pull off a less than atractive polygon based height

map landscape but you are NOT going to draw voxels like the blitter can. If this were the case,

not only would the PSX have done so, the PC would have back then as well. It is not until recently

that the PC can do this and that is only because of the ridiculous speed of the processors.

Neither the PC or the PSX are geared toward voxel...they are poly engines and the blitter in the

Jaguar in that time period will whip both there asses in this respect hands dwon.

 

I dont think you understand the difference in what a polygon and a voxel is, or you would known why the PSX or Saturn(or even the PC's of that day) could not pull them off.

 

Comanche says hi,

( 1992 - seemed to be pretty good on my PC )

Yeah, I think Gorf was talking more in terms of hardware acceleration standards (polygon optimized), with all software rendering it's just a trade-off for what kind of set-up you want to use, any case will require a lot of CPU resourse to back it up -that would go for polygon engines as well of course. (but again, it's all software/CPU driven, basicly controlling a simple bitmapped display -usually 256 colors for the DOS ones)

 

There are a bunch more examples of voxels on PC (like Blade Runner), all of which are software rendered iirc, including those relesed well after hardware acceleration was popularized, like Outcast in 1999: (voxel landscape along with polygon structures, player, enemies, and some objects -sound a little familiar )

 

 

How much better does BattleSphere get when it's networked? ( I'm assuming you're saying that the networking is the advantage here - because you don't really make much sense otherwise )

My point about the networking is that there's no real difference between the hardware used for link cables on the PSX, and the Jaguar - only the wiring is different. So exactly the same networked AI could be implemented if it had to be.

And the Saturn and PSX are computationally more capable than the Jaguar as well as graphically more capable - ( The Saturn is generally even more capable than the PSX )

How do the actual networking interfacing capabilities/mechanisms compare, BS uses the Jag's buggy DSP UART connector, right (with soem masterful workarounds to address the problems)? The PSX has serial and parallel ports on it (parallel only on early models, I think serial was kept though), and Saturn has the cartridge port (which would more or less be acting as a parallel port for a network adaptor plug-in), otherwise there's only the controller ports, and as I recall some networked PSX games used those. (I know that's what Technopop did for Zero Tolerance on the Genesis/MD, that limited to 2-player networking though -controller port 2 linked to controller port 2) Edited January 19, 2010 by kool kitty89