Thread: Amiga Vs ST
View Single Post
Old 29 July 2009, 22:59   #177
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 40
Posts: 7,063
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Frontier on the Amiga crap, well that is new to me since i played it extensivelly on the Amiga when it came out and it is was far from crap.
The game is good, the way it's coded is crap (it's coded like it was running on an ST).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
The Amiga version is not a port from the ST, the Amiga version was developed first and then the ST (please see the scan I posted). Frontier was a pure 3D game meaning maths intensive calculations, so the blitter and copper would not have been used. Seeing as everything was done with the CPU it was bound to be slightly faster on the ST.
David Braben has been coding it CPU first in mind. That's the way ST games are coded. This is not the way games must be coded on amiga.
The CPU is much more used on an ST since it handles everything. When you look a game coded on amiga with amiga in mind, you find LOTs of hardware calls.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
If you know a way of using the Amiga's custom chips for Frontier then I suggest you post your ideas here, I'm sure Amiga programmers would be very interested. Even David Braben may learn where he went wrong with his Amiga version.
Some 3D games don't rely only on the CPU doing calculations. Games like Epic, Robocop 3..... mmhh ? We should ask Galahad or AHLE2 on youtube . It's not that David Braben did it wrong like 'crap game' it's more 'bad coding way'. If you code the amiga like an atari St, be sure it will be slow..
mercs, strider, most us gold games are ST ports with ST coding in mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
I may be wrong but I can't remember any copper paint package on the Amiga so that people didn't have to use HAM. If there is then I salute the Amiga once again for getting around the HAM problem when painting in high colour. Th ST managed a 512 colour at once by switching the palette every cycle, it amazing what you can do with crap hardware isn't it.
The trick used on WOD amiga is done via coding. So out of reach from users at first. the amiga can do dynamic palettizing (ex: Pang, Golden Axe). On pang it's impossible to see the palette changes, while it's visible
on golden Axe. When i say crap hardware i mean by it that it doesn't has anything particularly brilliant ; The ST hardware was rushed to face the amiga..... well known story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
I have seen you state this before on the Atari forums, but when people ask you to justify this claim you don't answer. So I will do the same and ask, please can you give me the technical reasons why the ST's blitter is weak. I can then conform your answer with ST programmers to see if your correct. Also, if Paul Cuisset made some test then please point me in the direction of his findings.
Ok, here is the facts : When the STE was out in France, a journalist of the french magazine Joystick asked to Paul Cuisset in an interview if he will be using the STE blitter in delphine games. Since Paul had one to make some tests, he answered that the STE blitter was not what he hoped..... Meaning he wanted the STE to have one as strong as the one of an A500,
to finally find something weak...... he was disappointed.

[quote=Goldrunner;578187]Yes the Amiga was and is a brilliant machine but you really should come down to earth with your blinkered view of other machines. For example, you stated the Atari ST was the lowest computer in 1989, erm what about the Spectrum, Amstard CPC, Commodore 64, etc, etc, that where still widely used at this date? The Amiga was 10 to 15 years ahead of everything else, what about the 32-bit Archimedes are you stating that this machine was 15 years behind the Amiga!?!?

Well, the problem here is that the acorn was an english only machine.
It was never exported outside England. I never seen one, never seen games running on it. You can't compare too the ST to the 8 bits, they were not in the same rank it's not fair to compare a 16 bit machine to 8 bitters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
I won't even mention that by the year 2001 (1986+15 years) every PC and MAC available was more powerful. I wouldn't even say the Amiga was 15 years ahead of the ST, ahead yes, but 15 years is basically absurd.
I was not talking too about PURE power, but technology. The amiga technology allowed so MANY possibilities.... The PC autorun is a license bought by microsoft to commodore (they were first on this with amiga CD32). There is a document floating on the net about this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
OK, software support on the ST basically died out by 1993, there where a few releases in 1994 like Frontier, Transartica, the Ishar Trilogy, etc, but by the main most companies had left the ST market by 1993. The Amiga lasted another year before the companies started leaving it. But its decline was a lot slower and commerical products still trickled into the market well after its commercial highs of the early 90's. It really is a testament to its users that the Amiga struggled on against the consoles and PC's.
Yes you are right here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
The Amiga golden age was the earlier 90's while the ST was the mid to late 80's. You say the Amiga had crap ST ports at that time, maybe you would have preferred no port at all if you dislike the games of this period so much, in fact the Amiga would'nt have got the port at all if the ST wasn't around since the Amiga's market share was to small. This trend obviously reversed in the 90's since the Amiga was the dominant platform.
It was not the case of the amiga market too small, it was because the game companies wanted to output games on MOST formats. The ST was the bridge between the amiga and amstrad CPC game conversions.
Exemple : Turrican 2. Coded by and on amiga. Converted to ST, and then the amstrad cpc version was coded and ported from a 1040 STE. The fact is that it was very often the case. The same happens with Ocean software. All their CPC games were done on atari ST via custom tools (I have them btw). And of course, when it's good for CPC, heh why not doing that also for amiga games ? The ST was the dev machine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
I really have no problem with the fact that the Amiga was more powerful than the ST, but please don't put it on such a lofty position and say everything else was crap. Everyting machine from the 80's had something to like and the ST is no exception. I am a devoted Amiga user and used the machine extensively is the early 90's, I even designed and developed a couple of commericial titles on the machine. But that doesn't mean I will bash other machines like the ST, in fact we all should embrace that golden age and stop sqabbling like children about our own favourites.
It's not bashing the ST by saying it had a weak hardware. It's the truth.
The CPC also had a weak hardware, and many games where really nice to play. i had some games surprises on atari ST (Wod, NZS, twinworld), you see, i don't hate this machine Having a strong hardware is a luck, a luck that allows to do more complex games, and many devs were limited on atari ST to do some effects coming from their imagination. The amiga power was a luck to coders to make better games, the more they do, the more they want abilities to do more advanced games that some hardware can't cope with. don't you agree ?
dlfrsilver is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.13203 seconds with 9 queries