New Turbo "screenshot"

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Did anybody already check this thread?

 

That screenshot looks possible too. If these are "doctored" images, the "doctor" knew the limitations of the 2600 quite well.

[Csonicgo]

COULD YOU do that, Thomas? it looks possible- we need some more new programmers....

[NE146]

He did do that already.. in a sense. Not that particular screenshot but similar

[Csonicgo]

hehe..... I want to move the car from side to side............ enduro style, but with buildings..... that would rock the hizzouse.

[NE146]

Why don't you just download the rom

 

http://www.atariage.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23555

[Csonicgo]

YAY!

[Csonicgo]

APRIL FOOL? What the crap?

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

That screenshot looks possible too.

 

Uhm... did you realize that they both show exactly the same?

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[rasty]

Hi there!

 

That screenshot looks possible too.

 

Uhm... did you realize that they both show exactly the same?

... time and score!

 

Regards!

Rasty.-

[Thomas Jentzsch]

APRIL FOOL? What the crap?

Just three minutes to realize? That was fast!

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Uhm... did you realize that they both show exactly the same?

[Brad2600]

We need to pester Bushie2600 to release his Turbo proto...

[Tempest]

I think that "screenshot" is an even earlier mock up for Turbo than the one that's been floating around for years. If you look at it, the diagonal buildings would most likely be too difficult to pull off. This is probably why they went to the "front view" buildings.

 

Still that screenshot is very interesting. I wonder why no one noticed it before now?

 

Tempest

[Bushie2600]

We need to pester Bushie2600 to release his Turbo proto...

 

I sold it on eBay.

[+Nathan Strum]

That looks pretty cool. I wonder though which is older. Was this the original concept, and they had to scale it back? Or was the other one the original concept, and they found a way to improve it?

 

Well, I'm certainly looking forward to April 1st next year.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I think that "screenshot" is an even earlier mock up for Turbo than the one that's been floating around for years.  If you look at it, the diagonal buildings would most likely be too difficult to pull off.

It's not that difficult. You can see that there are no windows below the horizon. This saves some time and would allow to update the playfield graphics more often. But I'd need a better scan to say more. Does anybody have one?

 

Still that screenshot is very interesting.  I wonder why no one noticed it before now?

Me too. Maybe everybody should have a closer look at all his boxes now.

[+Nathan Strum]

But I'd need a better scan to say more. Does anybody have one?

 

Nope. The JPEG compression on that one is pretty bad, too. But I took it into Photoshop, and cleaned it up to give an idea of what it might look like...

 

[Csonicgo]

beautiful!

[Thomas Jentzsch]

beautiful!

Yes, but also incorrect.

 

I am quite sure that each building is at least 4 pixels wide. If your look at the upper and lower border you can just recognize that.

 

And IMO the gap between the 2nd and 3rd building looks like it might only be 1/2 pixel wide (which is almost impossible). Therefore I would like to see a higher resolution scan.

[+Nathan Strum]

I am quite sure that each building is at least 4 pixels wide. If your look at the upper and lower border you can just recognize that.  

 

And IMO the gap between the 2nd and 3rd building looks like it might only be 1/2 pixel wide (which is almost impossible). Therefore I would like to see a higher resolution scan.

 

A higher (res and uncompressed) scan would be a big help.

 

I had to do a bit of fudging to get the playfield 40 pixels wide. When I extrapolated how many pixels there were across the scanned image, it came out too high. So it's not an exact match of the scan, but the resolution is more in keeping with what the 2600 can do. A mock-up of a mock-up, as it were.

 

(I figured if I did a straight clean-up of it, then someone would have pointed out "Hey! You can't have that many pixels in a playfield!")

 

I took an average pixel's width, created a grid based on that, and got (from left):

End of closest building - 6 pixels

Front of buildings - 16 pixels (4 x 4 buildings)

Gap between buildings - 7 pixels

Front of other buildings - 16 pixels (4 x 4 buildings)

End of other closest building - 7 pixels

 

Which ends up at 52 pixels. (Recounting on fingers and toes...) Yep. 52.

 

(Edit: I posted a pic of the grid overlay here. The lines don't exactly line up on the near buildings, but do on the far ones.)

[Thomas Jentzsch]

End of closest building - 8 pixels

Front of buildings - 16 pixels (4 x 4 buildings)

Gap between buildings - 8 pixels

Front of other buildings - 16 pixels (4 x 4 buildings)

End of other closest building - 8 pixels

My count is:

End of closest building - 2 pixels (yes, it sure looks wider, but that place is the one where "adjustments" would be easiest)

Front of buildings - 15 pixels (3 x 4 + 1 (the closest one) x 3 buildings)

Gap between buildings - 6 pixels (equals three score digits)

Front of other buildings - 15 pixels (3 x 4 + 1 x 3 buildings)

End of other closest building - 2 pixels

 

Which would result in 40 pixels.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Which ends up at 52 pixels. (Recounting on fingers and toes...) Yep. 52.

Wasn't that 56 a few minutes ago?

[+Nathan Strum]

Which ends up at 52 pixels. (Recounting on fingers and toes...) Yep. 52.

Wasn't that 56 a few minutes ago?

 

I really need to learn to count before I post.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

(Edit: I posted a pic of the grid overlay here. The lines don't exactly line up on the near buildings, but do on the far ones.)

How do you easily create a grid overlay (I am using PSP)?

[+Nathan Strum]

I opened the image in Photoshop. Then, used the marquee selection tool to select the area around the two smallest buildings on the right side. (These had a clear roofline, and appeared to be 4 playfield pixels wide each.) Photoshop will display how big of an area you have selected in the Info panel.

 

I then divided that width (36 pixels) by eight (2 buildings, 4 pixels each), which gave me 4.5 Photoshop pixels per playfield pixel. To make it easy, I doubled the image size so that each grid would be 9 pixels wide. You can set Photoshop's grid to however many pixels you want.

 

Then I just turned on the grid, nudged the image over until the buildings lined up with it, and took a screenshot of the Photoshop window. (Much easier than actually drawing a grid.) So what you're looking at is part of Photoshop's interface.

 

The reason for the whole 56/52 thing, is I left that file at work, and was just guessing until I recreated the grid at home.