# The real powers of the Atari weren't Scrolling games with Sprites ;)

## Recommended Posts

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 10:36 PM, Heaven/TQA said:

my raycaster alone has 96 turning steps from left to right... without moving in x and z which changes hole

set of chars. In 96x60 that never fits into 1 charset. Don’t need to proof it’s simple maths.

After some "re read", I have the question, for what 96 turning steps were any good?

Simple maths:

Let's say: A quick turn needs 1 Second.

Using the 96 turning steps ...

Common speed for 3D on an 8 bit is about 3-9 fps.

Let's say the turn is optimized and we have 9fps .

96 turning steps divided by 9 frames per second  would result in more than 10 seconds for a turn.

Or way round:

Let's say a game runs really fluent at about 14 fps.

Doing a Turn in one second means to have 14 turning steps. Not more needed.

14 steps means also a max of 14 different steps shown on the screen.

160 pixel divided by 14  results in approximatley 12 columns.

ANTIC mode 6 allows 20 columns. So the needed resolution is given.

The game has only 3 fps ? 160 /3  54 pixel per step. Means 7 chars in Mode 6 (or 7) .

6 fps ? 160/6  27 pixel  about  4 chars in Mode 6

... for the wall creation in a 3D environment.

More frame calculations weren't needed there.

The lower the resolution, the lower calculations were needed.

That's also why modern PCs with 4K Gaming need several hundred fps , to have things fluently running on the screen.

##### Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Heaven/TQA said:

I want to point out that it depends on the code and not on gfx mode.

Particular in this game, you might be right. But in a higher resolution, the game would get even worse, and possibly won't run on NTSC machines.

##### Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, emkay said:

After some "re read", I have the question, for what 96 turning steps were any good?

Simple maths:

Let's say: A quick turn needs 1 Second.

Using the 96 turning steps ...

Common speed for 3D on an 8 bit is about 3-9 fps.

Let's say the turn is optimized and we have 9fps .

96 turning steps divided by 9 frames per second  would result in more than 10 seconds for a turn.

Or way round:

Let's say a game runs really fluent at about 14 fps.

Doing a Turn in one second means to have 14 turning steps. Not more needed.

14 steps means also a max of 14 different steps shown on the screen.

160 pixel divided by 14  results in approximatley 12 columns.

ANTIC mode 6 allows 20 columns. So the needed resolution is given.

The game has only 3 fps ? 160 /3  54 pixel per step. Means 7 chars in Mode 6 (or 7) .

6 fps ? 160/6  27 pixel  about  4 chars in Mode 6

... for the wall creation in a 3D environment.

More frame calculations weren't needed there.

The lower the resolution, the lower calculations were needed.

That's also why modern PCs with 4K Gaming need several hundred fps , to have things fluently running on the screen.

The turning steps means here the granularity of movement.

bard’s tale has 1 turning step so to say.

##### Share on other sites

Framerate and resolution:

Approximately 16 fps . It looks somehow like C64 but is 320x200 pixel movement.

Scarabaeus on the C64 , the labyrinth animation is about 7 fps.

Rescue on Fractalus  6fps

Doom Spectrum 7fps

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Heaven/TQA said:

The turning steps means here the granularity of movement.

bard’s tale has 1 turning step so to say.

Yes . And that's the point. If you use 1 step for a rotation, you don't need 96 steps for that. And, if an engine is able to handle a maximum of 14 fps, you don't need a higher "granularity" than 14 steps.

##### Share on other sites

Depends... when Player stands still you don’t want chunky movements.

##### Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Heaven/TQA said:

Depends... when Player stands still you don’t want chunky movements.

The chunkiness is depending on the fps. If a door is rather close, and moves at 14 fps, the movement resolution is lower than ANTIC 6 resolution.

And, yes, walls that appear in a wider distance, would move "chunkier" than in a native 160 pixel mode.

Comparing to the labyrinth in Scarabaeus , wich is fluently enough at 7 fps, 14 fps would look smooth as silk .

Edited by emkay

##### Share on other sites

The Commodore 64 was much better than any Atari computer and I am unanimous in that!

• 1

##### Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Random Terrain said:

The Commodore 64 was much better than any Atari computer and I am unanimous in that!

That's the hardest part.

You know what Atari and C64 coders have in common (mostly) ?

They are  C64 fans.

And to get the best Software for the Atari, we'd need Atari fans who do ambitious coding on that platform.

##### Share on other sites

RT, quit trolling! The Atari was a far better machine and withstood far more punishment, I didn't see any of those breadboxes for long in any factory, cable television setting, or serious industry at all. Atari's 8 bit machines, (and later the ST but more so the direct descendant of the 8bit- The Amiga), were working in conjunction to make the magic happen for community calendars, guides, movies, prompters, and sound. The C64 was used a prop while the Atari's were used in production, engineering, sound, and writing.

Good luck getting most of that one off custom proprietary and protected IP from any of the houses at that time or finding it today, relegated to some dungeon near a studio lot, or buried deep in a dank catacomb of factory debris.

Edited by _The Doctor__
• 1

##### Share on other sites

Scarabeus is a simplified animation and has nothing to do with what I am talking about. That can be done in Turbo Basic as it just copies chars on screen.

we always come back to the point what do you want? Bard’s tale like stuff (which Scarabeus is imho) or raycasters like ID software did. Both are totally different pairs of shoes.

##### Share on other sites
7 hours ago, emkay said:

The chunkiness is depending on the fps. If a door is rather close, and moves at 14 fps, the movement resolution is lower than ANTIC 6 resolution.

And, yes, walls that appear in a wider distance, would move "chunkier" than in a native 160 pixel mode.

Comparing to the labyrinth in Scarabaeus , wich is fluently enough at 7 fps, 14 fps would look smooth as silk .

Game calculations are done in VBL which has higher “resolution” than the FPS count. So you need higher res in your calculations. The renderer just draws the result as fast as he can.

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, emkay said:

The chunkiness is depending on the fps. If a door is rather close, and moves at 14 fps, the movement resolution is lower than ANTIC 6 resolution.

And, yes, walls that appear in a wider distance, would move "chunkier" than in a native 160 pixel mode.

Comparing to the labyrinth in Scarabaeus , wich is fluently enough at 7 fps, 14 fps would look smooth as silk .

Game calculations are done in VBL which has higher “resolution” than the FPS count. So you need higher res in your calculations. The renderer just draws the result as fast as he can.

as we are in 8bit Land you have to decide first what look do you want and then how you can achieve it. It’s not PC which can everything with ease.

maze game <> Racing game <> 3d flight

all of them might look like 3d but maybe they are fakes and the fake differs from game to game.

Leaderboard Golf <> capture the flag <> beach head <> AR the dungeon <> pole position <> time machine <> star raiders...

all kind of 3d... again might be harsch but sit down and think what you want “3d” is not enough as design document.

Edited by Heaven/TQA
• 1

##### Share on other sites

Harsch statement #2.

Even 30 years with Atari it is obvious you lack coding experience. With coding experience you would get a feeling for what is possible and how and what not and why.

I lack coding experience in games that’s why i don’t give my 2 cents in most games threads except when stuff is related to a topic which is game-demo related.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
On 6/27/2019 at 11:23 PM, emkay said:

Interesting that NONE of the good coders takes part here . Even better, I never had such crap discussions as with always the same guys here .Really, every time I just want to explain thing, that ARE possible, the same guys appear just for searching for the cause to write nonsense.  It's not my fault, if you're not able to write that stuff. So, why don't you just keep distant ?

your best technical achievment is an image with a scroll. what do you want to talk about wih your "skills"? there is nothing to talk about.

• 1
• 4

##### Share on other sites
On 6/26/2019 at 11:56 AM, emkay said:

Flimbo's Quest, it possibly will end up in a playable game, luckily all enemies just move horizontal.  Thanks to Megabit Cartridges .

In Flimbo Quest there also enemies moving vertically (by a small degree or by a whole playfield Y, level4+; small enemies and big ones). We have covered it already. After a million years you still wont know how it all works.

Stop yapping your random BS dude.

• 3
• 1

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, solo/ng said:

In Flimbo Quest there also enemies moving vertically (by a small degree or by a whole playfield Y, level4+; small enemies and big ones). We have covered it already. After a million years you still wont know how it all works.

Stop yapping your random BS dude.

The funny part of your post is "We" .  I could write "we built the world, and you never will know how it all works"

About the horizontal movement. It is about the technical stuff and that the levels only moves horizontal. The enemies do move up and down, but the relative vertical position won't change. Luckily the game doesn't use 8 way scrolling.

Normally, I would appreciate what you were doing there. But that narcistic touch of your holy majesty keeps the desert dry.

##### Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Heaven/TQA said:

Harsch statement #2.

Even 30 years with Atari it is obvious you lack coding experience. With coding experience you would get a feeling for what is possible and how and what not and why.

I lack coding experience in games that’s why i don’t give my 2 cents in most games threads except when stuff is related to a topic which is game-demo related.

1. Maze Game, Racing Game, Flight Game ... 3D is 3D . The technical ways on small computers get limited. . It can be done with the same engine. The main difference is how the graphics have to be set.

2. Why do you guys always bring the "emkay has to show code" crap in? I want to communicate about the stuff that gets done... or not.

Again: It's about showing where to spend time gets some positive result, and where not. Best example "IVOP" with his mix ... Screaming Wings in the vertical Scroller can be done by one guy for a budget, Screaming Wings in a horizontal Scroller needs a team and years work (coarse comparison) .

I gave more than one time examples of my knowledge about it, it's just the ignorance of others that pulls it down, again and again.

And yes, there is also some speculative part im my suggestion about 3D, as we don't really have such polished to the expense  3D stuff, as the Atari has a lot of that "scrolling" games available.

##### Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, emkay said:

1. Maze Game, Racing Game, Flight Game ... 3D is 3D . The technical ways on small computers get limited. . It can be done with the same engine. The main difference is how the graphics have to be set.

2. Why do you guys always bring the "emkay has to show code" crap in? I want to communicate about the stuff that gets done... or not.

Again: It's about showing where to spend time gets some positive result, and where not. Best example "IVOP" with his mix ... Screaming Wings in the vertical Scroller can be done by one guy for a budget, Screaming Wings in a horizontal Scroller needs a team and years work (coarse comparison) .

I gave more than one time examples of my knowledge about it, it's just the ignorance of others that pulls it down, again and again.
I throw that "code yourself" in because hearing is believing.

And yes, there is also some speculative part im my suggestion about 3D, as we don't really have such polished to the expense  3D stuff, as the Atari has a lot of that "scrolling" games available.

1. yes... in Unity maybe...

Are you sure claiming Pole Position & QBert & Crystal Castles & Scarabeus & Wolfenstein & etc share same "base" e.g. engine? come on...

2.  Well... as you treat ppl like they know nothing even with a track record of releases. your track record are 2 games... a turbo basic written quiz game (3d???) and ST/XL board game I bet written in basic, too. Your Pokey stuff I don't comment as I am not qualified enough from my point of view to add anything.

3. might be... in general whining is not an option but do it yourself then if nobody jumps on your waggon.

• 2

##### Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, emkay said:

2. Why do you guys always bring the "emkay has to show code" crap in?

Maybe because you come across as being superior and an expert and maybe people assume you've made games etc? 🤔

• 2

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Heaven/TQA said:

1. yes... in Unity maybe...

Are you sure claiming Pole Position & QBert & Crystal Castles & Scarabeus & Wolfenstein & etc share same "base" e.g. engine? come on...

2.  Well... as you treat ppl like they know nothing even with a track record of releases. your track record are 2 games... a turbo basic written quiz game (3d???) and ST/XL board game I bet written in basic, too. Your Pokey stuff I don't comment as I am not qualified enough from my point of view to add anything.

3. might be... in general whining is not an option but do it yourself then if nobody jumps on your waggon.

1. Why do you bring Pole Position , QBert and Crystal Castles in ?

QBert  Crystal Castles, just a fixed screen. (At least ISO 3D handling)

Pole Position is fully different.

Also you put again words in that don't come from my side.

Games CAN be done , using the same engine. That doesn't mean "Game have been done using the same engine".

2. If people state they know everything and put such wrong assumptions in, they disqualify themselves. Even worse that I have to repeat it on and on. Particular when people were asking about software and what's possible, some true word would do better, and could eventually result in real working software , done by people who have fun and time to do that. Not leading into a dead end by the given information.

3.  Would you expect a plane flying under water? Some clues: A Plane is for the Air, while under water some Submarine would do better.

##### Share on other sites

Me referring to this:

maze game <> Racing game <> 3d flight

all of them might look like 3d but maybe they are fakes and the fake differs from game to game.

Leaderboard Golf <> capture the flag <> beach head﻿ <> AR the dungeon <> pole position <﻿>﻿ ﻿time m﻿a﻿chine <> star raid﻿ers...﻿

﻿

all kind of 3d... again might be harsch but sit down and think what you want ﻿“3﻿d” is not enough as design document

• 1

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heaven/TQA said:

Me referring to this:

maze game <> Racing game <> 3d flight

all of them might look like 3d but maybe they are fakes and the fake differs from game to game.

Leaderboard Golf <> capture the flag <> beach head﻿ <> AR the dungeon <> pole position <﻿>﻿ ﻿time m﻿a﻿chine <> star raid﻿ers...﻿

﻿

all kind of 3d... again might be harsch but sit down and think what you want ﻿“3﻿d” is not enough as design document

You actually could do all of those games using the same engine.

The lawn in Leaderboard, the Walls in Capture the Flag, the "surrounding" in Beach Head, The Dungeon creation / Labyrinth... OK , if we think about the same game for Time Machine any graphics calculations weren't much useful ?

It's only the question of "where are more details needed" . And 3D calculations only were useful to a degree where the player won't recognize the difference between calculation , prerendering or just some animations.

##### Share on other sites

I have no idea what he's talking about. Not that it matters.

• 1

##### Share on other sites

And your reply shows that you never coded on A8 esp 3d... you are so “PC high level” that you don’t get what A8 coders or 8bit coders say and reply.

that is one the reason both parties don’t match.

• 1