Thread: Amiga Vs ST
View Single Post
Old 30 July 2009, 15:34   #193
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 40
Posts: 7,067
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Wow, you really must know you stuff if you claim this Please can give us mere mortals more details of how David Braben should have coded Frontier.
Just like hitchhickr said : "Goldrunner: I don't like the man but i reckon Braben is no fool, Frontier was released in 1993 and probably wasn't coded with plain 68000 based machines in mind but at least 68020 based ones."

Braben is not a fool, he is talented for designing a game such as frontier. After, the way he has choosen to code it on amiga is NOT the way to get the best in speed out of the machine.

And then you're right about what you write below :
"On an 68000 based Amiga 500 it would have been faster to fill surfaces and draw lines with the blitter than with the processor itself but maybe that would mean some major rewrite of the gfx drawing logic part of the program with all that it implies in term of dev time, cost, new beta testing sessions, etc. (and they were late on schedule as i recall)."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Maybe you can just post a snippet of code from Frontier with your comments on how Dvaid Braben should have done it. In fact, just a basic outline of how the Blitter and Copper should have been used for pure 3D work work will do.
There is no need to be a software engineer to understand what happening here : If you code 'A-la-ST' on amiga, the results can't be good. The 68K role on ST is different from the one used in an amiga. Those 2 machines are not similar in the way they work at all. It's easy to understand : by using only the CPU to make calculations, and since the ST has a faster CPU, of course it's a bit faster. 8mhz versus 7,19mhz the faster win ! CPU alone the ST win over amiga, CPU + custom the ST is not up the task.
The amiga is not made to be coded like an ST, period !

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Also, could please let us know how you know that David Braben ignored the Amiga custom chips? Have you looked at the code or something to find out, again, please post the result of your finding.
No problem, in the interview you posted about braben and frontier, he says himself that the code on amiga and ST is the same. Since the ST 68K is faster, the game is faster, and less on amiga due to his less powerfull 68K. I'm not reinventing the wheel here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Maybe you think it must be crap coding because it runs slightly faster on a ST, well, that means virtually all pure 3D games are crap since they will all slightly faster on the ST. But maybe all these game where just crappily coded aslo, I mean, what did the top programmers of the day know back then anyway.
Amiga crap coding = St code straight port ; bad use of custom chips or none use of them. My thoughts are clear on that. Some 3D games on amiga are not purely relying on CPU alone, robocop 3, Epic. How would you think those are running with a good speed on amiga ? Some very good coders made some brilliant games. They knew how to code the custom chips for best results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
BTW, David Braben worked on Frontier for nearlly five years, to actually state what you have is doing him and his work an injustice. I truly find it beyond belief you can actually state it, basically just to justify the ST's version slight speed increase. Are you also going to state that Virus is crappily coded on the Amiga?
That's not my words. I have stated that Frontier in itself is a very good game. But the coding is not the best to run at maximum speed on amiga.
In itself the work he has done is brilliant 5 years spent to create such a game, with the result we know. The ST slighter speed is only due to the fact that the 68K on it runs at 8 mhz and that the code rely on CPU. I have never played Virus, so i won't comment on this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
And, please if you can't back up claims like this then don't post them. David Braben isn't here to defend his so called rubbish coding of the Amiga version, so please give him the benifit of the doubt and first back up you claims with evidence before blackening his good name.
David Braben has coded the game on amiga, like he was on a ST computer. The proof : He says in the interview that once compiled, the game runs on both machines since the code is the same ! He has coded it finally "ST in mind".

@Stephan Lindberg :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan Lindberg View Post
Actually i think the ST version of Jim Power is very good, ok it does not have parallax scrolling or smooth scrolling, but it's ok as JP really have some good gameplay to live on unlike SOTB (to use a horror example). The graphics could have been reworked but it's acceptable as it is, i'm not calling it "Amiga crap" even if i'm tempted after reading this thread If there ever was an ST version of Lionheart does it really have to be an exact copy of the Amiga one... only much slower? In those days fancy graphic-effects ment more than gameplay (and maybe still does ). So the Lionheart need to be redesigned to fit the ST hardware based on it's gameplay... will it still be the same game?
When i run Jim Power on my STE it just kills my eyes. The scrolling is not smooth. But the gameplay is not that bad, that's true.
Lionheart is using several hardware tricks. And it push A LOT of colors on screen, plus a 100's lines differential scrolling, etc..... This game is technically going way beyond
shadow of the beast. And the game still runs at 50 FPS. On ST you would have to remove some effects, tone down colors, etc.... At the end the game will loose his appeal.
The game would be also STE only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan Lindberg View Post
There was several NES games that was based on arcadegames with much superior hardware and obviously the NES version had reduced graphics but many times a very good gameplay... "Super contra" on NES would be a good example. Thats how superior hardware games should be converted to lesser systems... Amiga to ST that is. well, doing this kind of redesigned ST verions of original Amiga games was probably too much for small game companys of yesterday.
You know the story about Flashback conversion on atari ST ? The team Delphine Software asked to do the conversion REFUSED to port it on ST. They said it would be to much work for nothing. I got this from an ex-delphine dev. This game was coded amiga and PC in mind ; Did you ever note that on an A500 the game is quite slow, when it runs better on machines with 680X0 ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan Lindberg View Post
Also what i think Goldrunner mean by discussion in this thread is to get rid of the "ST crap" talk whenever there is a game that don't use more than 16 colours or is slow. Most of those games are bad for the ST also and the real problem is not the ST but the (bad) code, i'm not saying all those coders were bad there could be timelimits and stuff taht was the reason it was not as good it could have been.
Yes time limits was also an obstacle, meaning that only talented guys with 'how to bypass the pbs' in mind have done nicely done games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan Lindberg View Post
Take Gods for an example... do most Amiga fans only see the graphics as "ST crap" or a great work of art as it look so good and still only 16 colours? Actually calling it "crap" (with or without ST) in any way would be an insult to the graphician.
Gods graphics are very good. Doing such nice GFX with only 16 colors is great. And Dan Malone is a great one

Last edited by dlfrsilver; 30 July 2009 at 16:00.
dlfrsilver is online now  
 
Page generated in 0.10396 seconds with 9 queries