! Pinball Dreams is going to be released for CPC classics !

[Amiga1992]

Sorry, but you are mistaken in a very crucial thing here: screen aspect ratio matters a lot. Please put your CPC hat down for a bit and engage in a conversation about visual perception.

idrougge's comment is spot on: stamp-sized, or should we say more accurately, stamp-shaped!
The resolution you mention is more square than rectangular, and the way we perceive things, something square looks much smaller than something horizontally wider, like the shape of most 4:3 screens.

So, yeah, perhaps your screen has more pixels, but that doesn't make it perceptively bigger. It will look rather dinky as a square-shaped viewing port on a rectangular-shaped screen. All the "air" on the sides will only make it seem smaller. If the screen was square too, it might not seem as small. It will also seem taller than it actually is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertic...ontal_illusion

So even though your mathematical approach is correct and you actually have more pixels on screen than most displays, the proportion/shape/aspect ratio in which they are displayed makes them being perceived as less because of the surrounding area and the human eye's tendency to look more sideways.

Originally Posted by Akira

Sorry, but you are mistaken in a very crucial thing here: screen aspect ratio matters a lot. Please put your CPC hat down for a bit and engage in a conversation about visual perception.

idrougge's comment is spot on: stamp-sized, or should we say more accurately, stamp-shaped!
The resolution you mention is more square than rectangular, and the way we perceive things, something square looks much smaller than something horizontally wider, like the shape of most 4:3 screens.

So, yeah, perhaps your screen has more pixels, but that doesn't make it perceptively bigger. It will look rather dinky as a square-shaped viewing port on a rectangular-shaped screen. All the "air" on the sides will only make it seem smaller. If the screen was square too, it might not seem as small. It will also seem taller than it actually is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertic...ontal_illusion

So even though your mathematical approach is correct and you actually have more pixels on screen than most displays, the proportion/shape/aspect ratio in which they are displayed makes them being perceived as less because of the surrounding area and the human eye's tendency to look more sideways.

Hi Akira,

Of course, I talked about objective facts. If we go into debating about subjective perceptions and perception distortions, then there is no debate here, since each can have one and be all right!

But if we are going to talk about visual perception, we can say that each type of game has an ideal aspect ratio. Platform games usually look better in landscape, while vertical shoot em up are preferred in portrait. Arcade machines adapts the screen aspect ratio according to this and I think a portrait screen fits Pinball Dreams better because you can see a bigger board area at a time to aim and adjust the shot.

Therefore, what at first is an improvement: increase the default screen size and use a custom aspect ratio more appropriate to the game, in this debate has become in a defect.

[DamienD]

Heya Rhino,

Firstly, welcome to EAB

Don't worry too much about what idrougge says; he is EAB's resident "Mr positive" (not; sarcasm on 1000%) and loves to nitpick / criticise anything and everything

Keep up the awesome work and hope you finish this; it's mightly impressive and you're doing a great job

Also; Akira. You do realise that the Amiga version is also in "Landscape" and not "Portrait"??? This is how the game has been designed...

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by Rhino

But if we are going to talk about visual perception, we can say that each type of game has an ideal aspect ratio. Platform games usually look better in landscape, while vertical shoot em up are preferred in portrait. Arcade machines adapts the screen aspect ratio according to this and I think a portrait screen fits Pinball Dreams better because you can see a bigger board area at a time to aim and adjust the shot.

Therefore, what at first is an improvement: increase the default screen size and use a custom aspect ratio more appropriate to the game, in this debate has become in a defect.

What made Pinball Dreams a breakthrough game was that it didn't do what all previous computer pinball games did: squashing the table to fit it onto the screen. Instead, it selected to scroll the screen to follow the ball.

As you know, the Amiga can overscan and underscan as easily as a CPC – yet Digital Illusions chose not to underscan the screen. That was a deliberate choice.

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by Rhino

Therefore, what at first is an improvement: increase the default screen size and use a custom aspect ratio more appropriate to the game, in this debate has become in a defect.

I haven't said it's a defect, I was just trying to elaborate on what may make idrougge see this in a negative light.

Damien, I do realize the original game is in a "landscape" mode and I think this is where part of the "problem" occurs: since this is a port, maybe people expect it to display in a similar fashion. I'm not saying the original viewport is the best, though!

Personally, I don't like either solution: horizontally wide or more square.

I really loved the Pinball games on PSP because you could rotate the display then you would have a wide screen used vertically to play. Then you could see a LOT more of the table at once with little scrolling! I think for this game, that made it a lot better than the original (in that aspect, the physics were off and that was a big problem, unlike in your version Rhino, where physics are incredibly perfect!)

So yeah, I realize you increased the vertical resolution and can probably show a little more vertically, but since the horizontal resolution doesn't fill up the whole screen, and again, this displays on a horizontally-wide 4:3 monitor, it will look like you are "wasting" a lot of the space. You mentioned arcade games and this is a good point, usually, arcade game displays were optimized so you would have absolutely no empty space. Screen used perfectly with the game.

We have plenty of issues like this with home computers though, the Amiga is no stranger to empty areas either(like those 200 vertical screens that many hate so much), in the end, one cannot blame someone for thinking the screen looks "small" in this setting.


Here's a little comparison. Indeed, the CPC version shows more of the playfield at once than the Amiga version, but there's even more air on the sides than on the Amiga and this creates the effect of the screen seeming "small".
The PSP version in comparison even scrolls horizontally, but all screen is used, and on vertical mode that's 480 pixels worth of table tallness. There's very little vertical and horizontal scrolling



So even though I do think the way in which DI made it work with scrolling was really clever and not a problem, I personally prefer to see a bit more of the screen at once.

In motion, you can also have a feel for why it may seem smaller on CPC, since the graphics are actually smaller:


Anyway, I am not criticizing your compromise with the graphics, I think this s is a very clever way to make it fit in the CPC. I don'; t have a CPC to test anymore so I can't give any further comments But your work is great, keep it up! Maybe Batman Group wants to come back to the Amiga one day? I still remember your message about "getting into AGA" but, nothing happened

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by Akira

I haven't said it's a defect, I was just trying to elaborate on what may make idrougge see this in a negative light.

Damien, I do realize the original game is in a "landscape" mode and I think this is where part of the "problem" occurs: since this is a port, maybe people expect it to display in a similar fashion. I'm not saying the original viewport is the best, though!

Personally, I don't like either solution: horizontally wide or more square.

I really loved the Pinball games on PSP because you could rotate the display then you would have a wide screen used vertically to play. Then you could see a LOT more of the table at once with little scrolling! I think for this game, that made it a lot better than the original (in that aspect, the physics were off and that was a big problem, unlike in your version Rhino, where physics are incredibly perfect!)

So yeah, I realize you increased the vertical resolution and can probably show a little more vertically, but since the horizontal resolution doesn't fill up the whole screen, and again, this displays on a horizontally-wide 4:3 monitor, it will look like you are "wasting" a lot of the space. You mentioned arcade games and this is a good point, usually, arcade game displays were optimized so you would have absolutely no empty space. Screen used perfectly with the game.

We have plenty of issues like this with home computers though, the Amiga is no stranger to empty areas either(like those 200 vertical screens that many hate so much), in the end, one cannot blame someone for thinking the screen looks "small" in this setting.


Here's a little comparison. Indeed, the CPC version shows more of the playfield at once than the Amiga version, but there's even more air on the sides than on the Amiga and this creates the effect of the screen seeming "small".
The PSP version in comparison even scrolls horizontally, but all screen is used, and on vertical mode that's 480 pixels worth of table tallness. There's very little vertical and horizontal scrolling



So even though I do think the way in which DI made it work with scrolling was really clever and not a problem, I personally prefer to see a bit more of the screen at once.

In motion, you can also have a feel for why it may seem smaller on CPC, since the graphics are actually smaller:


Anyway, I am not criticizing your compromise with the graphics, I think this s is a very clever way to make it fit in the CPC. I don'; t have a CPC to test anymore so I can't give any further comments But your work is great, keep it up! Maybe Batman Group wants to come back to the Amiga one day? I still remember your message about "getting into AGA" but, nothing happened

Rhino didn't do a compromise, he has explained that the pixel ratio is not the same between the Amiga and the CPC.

The screen is bigger because the amiga has bigger pixels than the CPC.

The result is that on a CPC screen it seems smaller, when in fact you can't make it larger......

[idrougge]

Of course you can make it larger. He has stated as much, and also stated that he has underscanned the screen horizontally. If a CPC pixel is smaller, then it's counter-productive to also make the screen resolution smaller than the default.

[Amiga1992]

I think it's a design choice and he probably has reason to have done so.
Again I haven't seen this game on a CPC, but if for example, you can't keep vertical scrolling as smooth and quick as the original game, it would be best not to scroll that much, in which case showing a larger playfield would achieve that goal.
It could also have to do with having less bitmap information, from the screenshots you can see the graphics have been redrawn to be smaller (what a ton of work!). If you had 1:1 graphics, this viewport would not work.

Again these are just my assumptions, I'm sure Rhino will tell me I am wrong and maybe he can explain more details (or not). Personally I don't care about these compromises, it seems to me like they were necessary for the game to keep the essence in the lower spec'd platform. I Wouldn't define Pinball Fantasies by how the table is displayed, in which kind of viewport, but rather on how the game feels like playing, the ball mechanics, and the design of the boards.

The C64 had a port 11 years ago that was never finished (sadly!) and it kept its viewport closer to the original game. Actually, it's a lot smaller, but you can see that the scroll keeps up and it works. Of course other compromises had to be taken, and in this early preview, ball physics aren't that spot on, but well, we will never know how this game would have turned out :
[ Show youtube player ]

Thank you DamienD! Do not worry, all the feedback is welcome!

@idrougge
Sure!, DI reinvented pinball games! Regarding the screen, they used the default Amiga screen (320x256) like most games. What I did was enlarge a 9% the default Amstrad screen (from 64000 to 69632 pixels) and used a portrait format. Of course, it would have been better to use full overscan (384x272), but after all, the humble Amstrad also has its limits.

If we understand "overscan" as enlarging the default screen, and "underscan" as reducing it, then I did overscan, so, you call "underscan", "stamp-sized screen", etc... what is actually overscan and that was why I decided to reply you. But I'm going to stop here, since now you know these details, and they are pure mathematical.

@Akira
Thanks for taking the time to do that visual analysis!
I think you're right that there are factors why the screen looks smaller than it actually is, one can be the visual effect you commented before, and another the CPC video signal which shows the screen smaller than usual.
Btw, the screen aspect has not been conditioned by the scroll, since at 50fps it is as smooth as Amiga (you should see it in a real CPC).
About returning to Amiga, is something that we have pending, but for now we are more motivated on 8 bits.

Regards!

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by Rhino

Btw, the screen aspect has not been conditioned by the scroll, since at 50fps it is as smooth as Amiga (you should see it in a real CPC).

But the screen aspect is conditioned by the Amstrad resolution, correct ? I mean, you had to redraw the graphics smaller.


Going OT, sorry but want to reply to your last bit!: I have a funny story with CPCs. I got my first one after being told a million times by a french dude I used to talk with on old IRC that it was amazing, and never did much with it because I needed a new disk drive, a power supply, a display... so ended up selling it as it was.
Then it piqued my interest again, a friend gave me one he had lying around and I decided this time to modify it so I could use it (fuck those 3" disks! Fuck the need for a monitor/special power supply!). After a long time, I built a really cool one I could use a lot.

I got rid of this pimped up 6128 after realizing the only thing worth watching in it was... wait for it... Batman Forever I really hated every single game, how poor all of it was, especially the modern stuff everyone (*cough*Dennis*cough :P) told me was amazing.

But I am stubborn and with the sound of CPC fans still ringing in my head "it's a great machiiiiine", I got a GX4000 with a C4CPC. And again, I had this feeling, that everything absolutely sucked. So I got rid of that too.

With this, I am done with CPCs and will take your word for how good this is. Since the only thing I ever liked on the CPC was made by you guys, I am sure Pinball Dreams is great, but I am still always interested in hearing conversation about it even though I dislike this machine a lot

[dlfrsilver]

But I am stubborn and with the sound of CPC fans still ringing in my head "it's a great machiiiiine", I got a GX4000 with a C4CPC. And again, I had this feeling, that everything absolutely sucked. So I got rid of that too.

With this, I am done with CPCs and will take your word for how good this is. Since the only thing I ever liked on the CPC was made by you guys, I am sure Pinball Dreams is great, but I am still always interested in hearing conversation about it even though I dislike this machine a lot

ahaha

The difference is that i have spent a bit more time on my own C64s.

One french with secam PCB by procep and fully recapped, the whole thing, chips cooler, the new PLA (PLAncton), and also a C64C fully boxed, with an action replay, a 1541-II drive, a tape deck, an Epyx Fastload cart, a C64 SDIEC.

And let me enlight you : the SDIEC is great, but doesn't support all the specific or special loaders using the 6502 embbed inside the original drive (the ultimate 1541 being overkill in term of price), so many deprotected versions just doesn't work....

i think the most embarrassing thing about the C64 is the slow, oups sorry, the ULTRA slow disk drive, even with the Epyx Fastload, it's still slower than the regular 3 inches drive of the Amstrad CPC. And of course, the Epyx Cart is absolutely not compatible with the copy protected games (ex: stormlord, but it's not the only one).

You see ? and i keep them both

The Amstrad CPC has a faster disk drive, more colors, more capable and i still keep my 2x C64. (i have downloaded a lot of C64 games, and all you get is a 50fps scroll and quite a lot of the time small sprites, and quite often horrible graphics......

So basically, the CPC is 10x times more pleasant to use than the C64.

You can pick the basic => CPC for the win

The disk drive speed => CPC for the win

The overall possibilities => CPC for the win

Graphically => CPC for the win

The sound is a very personal affair. The CPC has shown it could do great tunes, and the C64 has also showed that some SID tunes can really boring or unpleasant to hear.

And i keep them when the C64 is only OK for SID sound and hum.... scrolls..

[Amiga1992]

Not gonna get onto one of your favorite system fights, but:

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

i think the most embarrassing thing about the C64 is the slow, oups sorry, the ULTRA slow disk drive, even with the Epyx Fastload, it's still slower than the regular 3 inches drive of the Amstrad CPC. And of course, the Epyx Cart is absolutely not compatible with the copy protected games (ex: stormlord, but it's not the only one).

Sure.
But Epyx Fastload is not a good fastload cartridge. AR/RR is where it's at.
And dude, all we who are serious about C64, have an 1541 Ultimate. SD2IEC is not good enough

In any case, I still don't understand the preaching. You love the CPC and that's great. I hate the CPC and that's great too.
At least I had experience with them, it's not just blind, sheeple-driven hate, I gave it a try, I listened to the fans, I got convinced, I tried it and, yet, it did not feel even remotely good! So cut me some fucking slack with the sermon already. I tried. THREE times!

Basically: being a fanboy is SO boring! Every computer I have and kept is because I truly enjoy to use them. I have no favoritism.

[dlfrsilver]

Sure. But Epyx Fastload is not a good fastload cartridge. AR/RR is where it's at. And dude, all we who are serious about C64, have an 1541 Ultimate. SD2IEC is not good enough.

Ouch. It's 145 euros, more than twice the price i paid my 1st C64.
Well ok, so SD2IEC is not good enough, so i guess that i will have to add up 145 euros to the list.....

And tell me, many people preach that the epyx fastload cart is good, and now you come saying the A/R must be used instead ?

That's quite a delirium !

Ok i will try then why my A/R.

In any case, I still don't understand the preaching. You love the CPC and that's great. I hate the CPC and that's great too.

I would say you hate the CPC for wrong reason, and you love the C64 for wrong ones too.

At least I had experience with them, it's not just blind, sheeple-driven hate, I gave it a try, I listened to the fans, I got convinced, I tried it and, yet, it did not feel even remotely good!

Me too, and you have my word about the C64. The basic and it's commands are so rigid and clumsy that you must have loved the CPC basic commands.

see ?

However, on my side, i must recognized that the rigid basic of the C64 gave me quite a hard time. I'm not used at all with rigid 8 bits systems ! When you mostly know from start the Amstrad CPC, which had the best basic of all the 8 bits machines, it gives quite a shock .

I seriously went out of my comfort zone. Did you with your CPCs ?

I don't think so

So cut me some fucking slack with the sermon already. I tried. THREE times!

Well you tried, but not hard enough ahaha

Basically: being a fanboy is SO boring! Every computer I have and kept is because I truly enjoy to use them. I have no favoritism.

I kept my C64s just because i don't like to be ignorant about a particular system. And since i spent quite a number of weeks now using it, it's sure that the 50 fps system has been used in most softwares, some games have great musics, but i also noticed that many CPC games just never had the amount of time spent on them as equal. Many software have no music in parts that would not make use of the full 64K for example. I was surprised to find that the c64 had music and sfx in place where the CPC could had them.

This confirms that the devs mostly procrastinated on the CPC. Today even the 64K games have musics and sfx. and the 128K games just reign supreme.

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Ouch. It's 145 euros, more than twice the price i paid my 1st C64.

That's OK if you want to be a cheapskate each one spends their money where they see fit!

many people preach that the epyx fastload cart is good, and now you come saying the A/R must be used instead ?

Leave the Epyx cartridge to US lamers (ouch! I kid, I kid . BUt seriously it isn't good )

I would say you hate the CPC for wrong reason, and you love the C64 for wrong ones too.

This is where you are totally wrong. I don't need any reasons to like or dislike one thing or the other. That makes us humans.

And I tried as hard as I deemed enjoyable and worth it. That is also up to me to decide. I didn't say "the CPC sucks", I said "I think the CPC sucks". Big difference between opinion and fact. More people in the world today need to understand this very important difference
If buying the machine three different times, investing all the time I did in making them run with 3.5 floppies, a new power supply, proper RGB, a flashcart for the console (which by the way was 75 euros, that is 5.3 times more than what I paid for a system I wasn't even so sure about but I went ahead and supported a hardware dev and gave it a chance) , etc., isn't enough, well, what the fuck, seriously, that's way out of most people's c comfort zones.

Aaaand I said I wouldn't engage in your derailing and here I am. Sorry thread! I'm zipping it now.

[lordofchaos]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The sound is a very personal affair. The CPC has shown it could do great tunes, and the C64 has also showed that some SID tunes can really boring or unpleasant to hear.

Sorry couldn't let this slide. In what universe does the CPC sound compare to the mighty SID? OK so you can get a decent sound out of the CPC with a talented musician, but a talented musician on the SID, no competition. I wouldn't even call it subjective. The SID has way more flexibility.

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by lordofchaos

In what universe does the CPC sound compare to the mighty SID?

Some people like the sound of nails screeching against a blackboard

[DrBong]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

And tell me, many people preach that the epyx fastload cart is good, and now you come saying the A/R must be used instead ?

That's quite a delirium !

Ok i will try then why my A/R.

No-one in their right mind would recommend an Epyx Fast Loadcart over an Action Replay (I think even most Americans would recommend Cinemaware's Warp Speed or Super Snapshot over an Epyx Fast Load!). From memory, an AR5 loads a 64K program in about 6 seconds, which craps over regular 1541 speeds and the floppy speeds of most 8-bit platforms that didn't use 3.5" drives. Anyway, check this thread if you're really interested in optimising your C64 set-up:

http://www.lemon64.com/forum/viewtop...b7b6c5de84e94e

@Rhino
Excellent job with the progress you're making on the Pinball Dreams conversion to Amstrad! IMHO it is much more impressive and masterful than the Street Fighter 2 128k conversion that I saw a while back. Having to deal with the physics of a good pinball game made for 16-bit machines is no mean feat on an 8-bit platform, even with the small luxury of 128k!!

@Akira
There is an additional reason to use a 256-pixel wide screen on the CPC: draw faster.

In my case, I love the CPC more so it can be done in it, than what has been done.

@DrBong
Thank you for your words!
I'm not a great Street Fighter expert, but from what I've seen, Augusto is doing a great job!
About PD, all we hope is give to the CPC version the essence of the original, which is the important thing!

Regards!

Btw, maybe somebody can help me... To finish Beat Box I only need to implement the "Mega Hit", but I do not remember exactly what it was. I know how to get it to turn on (flashing) and it only lasts for a few seconds, but I do not know what it does, the score it gives, bonus, etc ... Does anyone know? I have been playing and it seems to be difficult to get...




Thanks in advance!

[Cpt. Hindsight]

I'm not sure if the manual is helpful.



Awards the increasing value in the panel? Does it mean, it's doubling your current score? Is there some kind of a count-up? Tbh, I have no idea.