Jump to content
tripled79

Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Stephen said:

You do realize that pretty much every single 3D release on the Jag is doing at best, a few hundred polygons per SCREEN?  The oldest original demo that shipped with the Playstation ("The Dinosaur" demo) pushes more polygons than anything the Jag could hope to do.  It's 2020 - let's try to be realistic about this.  I had my Jag since 1994 and my Playstation since 95 and it's been painfully obvious for those 25 years what each system can and cannot do.

Have you counted them? :-D And rendering a few hundred polygons for 1 frame makes them a few thousand for 15 frames per second. ;-) 

Just to give you an example with Iron: the skyscrapers exploding into 20-30 cubes, that would be 100-150 polygons per frame  at least, so render that 20x in a sec and you have way over 2000-3000 for ONE explosion. 

 

Edited by agradeneu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JagChris said:

We're actually not talking about gameplay but performance. 

 

Your performance is a great one :)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you and old school getting married. 

 

Okay I disagree with you about it being edge case optimization. And here's why. Carmack cited efficiency being the reason he used the 68k instead of the GPU in some areas. Now the only way I can imagine there is an efficiency problem compared to the 68k would be because the overlays were swapped in and out Helter Skelter. The standard Brute Force overlay technique everything seems to use on the Jaguar. So if that causes such an efficiency issue that they would step down to the 68k and use it instead and then jump back to the GPU that is quite significant. And a little bit more than edge case.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JagChris said:

When you and old school getting married. 

 

Okay I disagree with you about it being edge case optimization. And here's why. Carmack cited efficiency being the reason he used the 68k instead of the GPU in some areas. Now the only way I can imagine there is an efficiency problem compared to the 68k would be because the overlays were swapped in and out Helter Skelter. The standard Brute Force overlay technique everything seems to use on the Jaguar. So if that causes such an efficiency issue that they would step down to the 68k and use it instead and then jump back to the GPU that is quite significant. And a little bit more than edge case.

 

Jaguar DOOM might look great, but it is one of the most inneficient pieces of random can-of-worms code shite I have ever seen. Citing Carmack and Jaguar together does your argument zero favours.

Look, Chris, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you are really in over your head. 

 

The reason for overlays in DOOM? because the C code was compiled into 68000, and then, LINE FOR LINE, ported to the GPU. Making it about 5x bigger than it needed to be.

Please, try to grasp basic facts and understand simple issues before waving your beliefs around - We all want to see the best for the Jaguar. WITHOUT the rose-tinted goggles.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CJ, get off your BS. He stated himself why he did it. He had a compiler for the GPU. That may explain the bloat. 

 

For all your complaining about the code, you can't do anything near it. You know just enough to alter it and get in over your head. 

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JagChris said:

CJ, get off your BS. He stated himself why he did it. He had a compiler for the GPU. That may explain the bloat. 

 

If you look at the code.. you'd know that is a lie.  That code is HAND CONVERTED from the 68000.  It's even commented.

 

I'm out, a debate with you is worse than the one I just watched live.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CJ one of the reasons I know you're full of it is the way you come at things. Insults and on the attack. Instead of a reasonable discourse where you with civility and respect tell me, or others why you disagree, or it's wrong. 

 

I'm tired of it. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2020 at 12:05 AM, JagChris said:

The frame rate was never really my bitch with Rebellion. But tell us all again about the stuff you make up.

 

I'm referring to the 30-60 fps debate. 30fps! Oh it's reprehensible! Harumph harumph! Pretentious.

 

Though it would have been nice to have it and makes no sense why they didn't.

 

Having looked into the accounts the Kingsley Bros have made over the years.. 

 

One claims credit for working on the A8 version of Star Raiders in an interview, yet he would of been how old at the time it was coded? If even born? 

 

 

Then we have them claiming they came up with the 3 separate campaign and first person view point and it was they who convinced Atari... talk for Jaguar AVP, where as Purple Hampton gives a very strong, very well reasoned and very consistent account, that it was him.. 

 

I now put Rebellion in with Jane Whittaker when it comes to credibility. 

 

They change versions of events from interview to interview. 

 

 

And the Dactyl Joust Demo being brought to the fore again as a topic of discussion by other posters is enough to put this thread on ignore also. 

Edited by Lost Dragon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stephen said:

You do realize that pretty much every single 3D release on the Jag is doing at best, a few hundred polygons per SCREEN?  The oldest original demo that shipped with the Playstation ("The Dinosaur" demo) pushes more polygons than anything the Jag could hope to do.  It's 2020 - let's try to be realistic about this.  I had my Jag since 1994 and my Playstation since 95 and it's been painfully obvious for those 25 years what each system can and cannot do.

Looks like the polycount of one building explosion is way higher than I thought lol. First screenshot shows 2 explosions. Count this Sherlock! ;-)

 

191554655_Screenshot(281).thumb.png.f92cba91502d894e98f23f4f21e2a49d.png905388542_Screenshot(279).thumb.png.9c89bbd8504389df38d2b082704cb4d4.png

 

Also, lets be clear that there is a HUGE difference between a graphic demo and and an actual game. Not saying the Jag could rival the PS, but we are talking about thousands of polygons calculated and rendered here, not hundreds.

Edited by agradeneu
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, agradeneu said:

Looks like the polycount of one building explosion is way higher than I thought lol. First screenshot shows 2 explosions. Count this Sherlock! ;-)

 

191554655_Screenshot(281).thumb.png.f92cba91502d894e98f23f4f21e2a49d.png905388542_Screenshot(279).thumb.png.9c89bbd8504389df38d2b082704cb4d4.png

 

Also, lets be clear that there is a HUGE difference between a graphic demo and and an actual game. Not saying the Jag could rival the PS, but we are talking about thousands of polygons calculated and rendered here, not hundreds.

Not sure what I did to deserve the "Sherlock" name.  Also, please re read what I said.  "Hundreds of polygons per SCREEN" - not hundreds rendered per second.  What I am seeing up there are again - a few hundred flat shaded blocks.  Quick math - three rows of 12 blocks, 4 deep.  144 objects - BUT, most are not visible.  I assume the code is smart enough to do object and face culling.  My original statement stands.  Few hundred polygons PER SCREEN at best.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Not sure what I did to deserve the "Sherlock" name.  Also, please re read what I said.  "Hundreds of polygons per SCREEN" - not hundreds rendered per second.  What I am seeing up there are again - a few hundred flat shaded blocks.  Quick math - three rows of 12 blocks, 4 deep.  144 objects - BUT, most are not visible.  I assume the code is smart enough to do object and face culling.  My original statement stands.  Few hundred polygons PER SCREEN at best.

The engine needs to calculate way more polygons than what is actually drawn on screen, especially in a true 3D world.

Your statement is misleading and incorrect for practical reasons: as we are talking about games and animation, the engine needs to render 1 screen multiple times, e.g. 20 frames per sec. That means the game needs to calculate and draw thousands of polygons, not hundreds, TO GET A GAME RUNNING.

I read and understand you correctly, "few hundreds polygons per screen" is meaningless rethorics, at best. 

Otherwise if you are reffering to graphics for a slide show presentation, not animated games, you would be somewhat correct.

Edited by agradeneu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polygons per second and polygons per screen have nothing to do with what I was stating.  I'm fully aware of how animation works.  In no way is my statement of "few hundred polygons per screen" incorrect, nor is it misleading.  How about I re-phrase it then.  "Few hundred polygons per frame" rather than screen?  We'll circle this back to what I also said earlier.  No way in hell could the Jag pull off Pitfall 3D.  Unless we measure the game speed backwards - it would take seconds per frame :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lost Dragon said:

And the Dactyl Joust Demo being brought to the fore again as a topic of discussion 

This didn't actually happen, did you read the context of the post or did you just see Dactyl Joust and got mad?

 

  

20 hours ago, agradeneu said:

Does not make it a "bad framerate", isn't it? All 3D games on 3DO are dropping frames as well, often going under 15 FPS or lower, e.g. Po'ed, Road Rash, NFS. 

Anything over 20 FPS was really high quality before Playstation. Actually, the first Iron Soldier had one of the most fluid animation for early 3D on consoles.

 

 

 

The 3DO comparison doesn't work here since we are talking about the Jaguars capabilities and while the 3DO has a bad frame rate it's games usually have more going on than a Jaguar game. Look at NFS that's below 30fps but it looks great.

 

18 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

I'm always skeptical of demos like Dactyl Joust because there's no telling what the performance would be like once you put in the rest of the elements that make a game a game. That could really drag down the framerate into something closer to some of the more infamous Jaguar games.

While some Jaguar homebrews are really good, a lot of them definitely play it on the safer side in terms of trying to push the system or show something not shown technically on the system before. Anyone developer who has claimed to push the system or has tried to push the system has never really produced an actual game to demonstrate something like that in a remotely convincing way. But heck, if someone ever did, there certainly would be some long suffering Jaguar superfans ready to deify them.

Well from the looks of it that demos doesn't have good performance in the first place, but the 3D and texturing seems nice but as you said without a fool game it's just another demo.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for polygon discussions between Jaguar, PSX and other, that's not really relevant at the time. You could have a PSX game with lower polygons than a Jaguar game, hypothetically, and due to the PSX texture features and other capabilities, the average laymen would still think the PSX version has more polygons in motion or in screens.

 

Also someone brought up the 32X, a weaker system than the Jaguar and can run a decent version of Virtual Fighter at a decent frame rate. It's likely anything the 32X can do the Jaguar can do better, there may be an exception but I can't think of one right now.

Edited by Leeroy ST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stephen said:

Polygons per second and polygons per screen have nothing to do with what I was stating.  I'm fully aware of how animation works.  In no way is my statement of "few hundred polygons per screen" incorrect, nor is it misleading.  How about I re-phrase it then.  "Few hundred polygons per frame" rather than screen?  We'll circle this back to what I also said earlier.  No way in hell could the Jag pull off Pitfall 3D.  Unless we measure the game speed backwards - it would take seconds per frame :)

You obviously weren't.

We were NOT talking about Pitfall, you made a statement about Iron Soldier and I just adressed that. Strawman arguments - this is the point to end the discussion. Not wasting my time, sorry. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

Also someone brought up the 32X, a weaker system than the Jaguar and can run a decent version of Virtual Fighter at a decent frame rate. It's likely anything the 32X can do the Jaguar can do better, there may be an exception but I can't think of one right now.

The 32X can actually do 50,000 polygons per second, while the Jaguar can supposedly only do up to 10,000 polygons per second (although I've read reports of that number being too low, but still the end result being shy of the 50,000). Obviously the Jaguar is better overall hardware than the piggybacked 32X, but there are definite pluses/minuses to both architectures when it comes to 3D. Certainly the 32X had better developers coding for it, although it had more than its fair share of duds too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, agradeneu said:

Looks like the polycount of one building explosion is way higher than I thought lol. First screenshot shows 2 explosions. Count this Sherlock! ;-)

 

191554655_Screenshot(281).thumb.png.f92cba91502d894e98f23f4f21e2a49d.png905388542_Screenshot(279).thumb.png.9c89bbd8504389df38d2b082704cb4d4.png

 

Also, lets be clear that there is a HUGE difference between a graphic demo and and an actual game. Not saying the Jag could rival the PS, but we are talking about thousands of polygons calculated and rendered here, not hundreds.

This thread is getting a bit too "complex":D

 

But hey, Agradeneu's point is exactly what I was hinting at.

 

If you count this polygon-fest, over-enthusiastic explosion and redistribute this amount of polys into fixed level geometry, yup you'd have pretty complex 3d environments that would lead people to respect the Jag's 3d abilities.

 

For whatever reason, this game devs thought it would look cooler to use this much rendering power on explosions than on fixed level geometry.

 

Case is, no matter how you do the math, this is really respectable poly count for a 1993 console.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

The 32X can actually do 50,000 polygons per second, while the Jaguar can supposedly only do up to 10,000 polygons per second (although I've read reports of that number being too low, but still the end result being shy of the 50,000). Obviously the Jaguar is better overall hardware than the piggybacked 32X, but there are definite pluses/minuses to both architectures when it comes to 3D. Certainly the 32X had better developers coding for it, although it had more than its fair share of duds too.

Those peak numbers are very theoretical, but its confimed that Zero 5 calculates/renders around 20.000 polys/sec. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_5_(Atari_Jaguar_game)

Edited by agradeneu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bill Loguidice said:

The 32X can actually do 50,000 polygons per second, while the Jaguar can supposedly only do up to 10,000 polygons per second (although I've read reports of that number being too low, but still the end result being shy of the 50,000). Obviously the Jaguar is better overall hardware than the piggybacked 32X, but there are definite pluses/minuses to both architectures when it comes to 3D. Certainly the 32X had better developers coding for it, although it had more than its fair share of duds too.

Polys per second is marketing number you can manipulate according to marketing needs.

 

It depends on shading type, textures, if any sort of lighting is rendered, etc. The claimed number can be really high or really low depending on such factors.

 

And if that wasn't enough, also depends a ton on the code's optimization.

 

Take our friend, the N64.   It has games that look worse than the 3DO, and has games ***almost*** Dreamcast like graphics.   Variation so high depending on the team's abilities behind, of course. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Pitfall, I think the limitations has to do with the fact that the game was originally developed for a 16-bit console, having a tile based 2d engine. I am also struggling with similar problems with my current game, that I am sure came up during the conversion of Pitfall.

If the game would be developed like a NeoGeo game instead (having huge sprites instead of a lot of small fixed size tiles I am sure it would have benefited the Jaguar more)

 

Regarding 3D. I could stay with only 2 early 3D games. These are TIE fighter for the PC, and Battlesphere for the Jaguar. Why, it has to do with a lot of factors besides from the number of polygons. I have tried a lot of space combat sims, including all the new ones. None could fill the void from TIE fighter until I came across Battlesphere (I don't know if Battlesphere is considered a homebrew, as it came out after the Jaguar was officially not supported by Atari anymore) But this game is the one that puts that Jag at the top of the game consoles in my opinion.

 

By the way, from a technical point of view, the PlayStation 2 is by far the worst game console of all times (basically it is a PS1 with a co-processor, e.g. reality engine) I think the SEGA Dreamcast outshined the PS2 in every technical aspects. Still the PS2 is considered one of the most successful consoles of all time, but look at it today? No one will ever develop a game for it, and I am sure that people only developed games for it because they were paid huge sums of money by Sony.

(No offense for the PS1 it was great for it's time, but PS2 weren't in the technical domain compared to the Dreamcast, and the Dreamcast did also have great arcade titles, like  Soulcalibur, Crazy Taxi, House of the Dead etc.)

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, phoboz said:

Regarding Pitfall, I think the limitations has to do with the fact that the game was originally developed for a 16-bit console, having a tile based 2d engine. I am also struggling with similar problems with my current game, that I am sure came up during the conversion of Pitfall.

If the game would be developed like a NeoGeo game instead (having huge sprites instead of a lot of small fixed size tiles I am sure it would have benefited the Jaguar more)

 

Regarding 3D. I could stay with only 2 early 3D games. These are TIE fighter for the PC, and Battlesphere for the Jaguar. Why, it has to do with a lot of factors besides from the number of polygons. I have tried a lot of space combat sims, including all the new ones. None could fill the void from TIE fighter until I came across Battlesphere (I don't know if Battlesphere is considered a homebrew, as it came out after the Jaguar was officially not supported by Atari anymore) But this game is the one that puts that Jag at the top of the game consoles in my opinion.

 

By the way, from a technical point of view, the PlayStation 2 is by far the worst game console of all times (basically it is a PS1 with a co-processor, e.g. reality engine) I think the SEGA Dreamcast outshined the PS2 in every technical aspects. Still the PS2 is considered one of the most successful consoles of all time, but look at it today? No one will ever develop a game for it, and I am sure that people only developed games for it because they were paid huge sums of money by Sony.

(No offense for the PS1 it was great for it's time, but PS2 weren't in the technical domain compared to the Dreamcast, and the Dreamcast did also have great arcade titles, like  Soulcalibur, Crazy Taxi, House of the Dead etc.)

 

 

For the "worst game console of all time" Shadow of the Colossus and God of War 2 look damn impressive. :-D

When I first saw Jack and Daxter 3D engine, I tought the detail was really  insane  - and I had a good PC and the Dreamcast that time.

So I disagree with that, the PS2 even could keep up with newer hardware like the Game Cube.  

Never had one, btw, but I followed the coverage, and often was impressed what games it could run.

Edited by agradeneu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, agradeneu said:

For the "worst game console of all time" Shadow of the Colossus and God of War 2 look damn impressive. :-D

When I first saw Jack and Daxter 3D engine, I tought the detail was really  insane  - and I had a good PC and the Dreamcast that time.

I am sure the developer finally managed to also push the PS2 to it's limits. And every console has its gems. But I doubt that anyone would make the effort today for the PS2 (without a lot of money upfront)

 

By the way, is there a good library available for the Jag to draw triangles effiectly, e.g. if someone would like to make a 3D game for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, agradeneu said:

For the "worst game console of all time" Shadow of the Colossus and God of War 2 look damn impressive. :-D

When I first saw Jack and Daxter 3D engine, I tought the detail was really  insane  - and I had a good PC and the Dreamcast that time.

Yeah, that's a crazy statement. It's definitely better hardware than the Dreamcast, although the Dreamcast could hang with a lot of the early- to mid-life PS2 stuff. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...