English Amiga Board Amiga Lore


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Retrogaming General Discussion

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 30 July 2009, 02:22   #181
Si-Pie
Registered User
Si-Pie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Newcastle Under Lyme/England
Age: 40
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
The Amiga's hardware also stole cycles off the 68K, particularly with the blitter running full blast, but there was still the opportunity for some parallel processing although I doubt the hardware in the Amiga would have been much use for 3D modelling hence David Braben's comments re: ST CPU speed.

The 68000 uses only the even-numbered memory access cycles. The 68000 spends about half of a complete processor instruction time doing internal operations and the other half accessing memory. Therefore, the allocation of alternate memory cycles to the 68000 makes it appear to the 68000 that it has the memory all of the time, and it will run at full speed.

However some 68000 instructions do not match perfectly with the allocation of even cycles and cause cycles to be missed. If cycles are missed, the 68000 must wait until its next available memory slot before continuing. However, most instructions do not cause cycles to be missed, so the 68000 runs at full speed most of the time if there is no blitter DMA interference.

If the display contains four or fewer low-resolution bit-planes, the 68000 can be granted alternate memory cycles (if it is ready to ask for the cycle and is the highest priority item at the time). However, if there are more than four bit-planes, bit-plane DMA will begin to steal cycles from the 68000 during the display.

Some of that was a quote from the Amiga Hardware Reference manual .
Si-Pie is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 30 July 2009, 02:51   #182
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 2,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Ultimately the ST was a better work tool and the Amiga a better console.
Amigas are not consoles, they're not bloody games machines so stuff the nonesense pal And lets ask who on this board wants to work with an ST and only use Amigas for games, no one
Thorham is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 04:15   #183
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 Ricardo View Post
Where was "dynamic palettizing" used in Amiga Golden Axe?
Dynamic palettizing is the palette changed dynamically during the game. It's used in Golden Axe in order to counter the lack of color. You can check the effect on level 1 when you go thru the 1st level part to the rock part, and the rock part to the Boss area. Dynamic palettizing is common in coin-op machines....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
In the early days the Amiga wasn't really supported because of its price
I stop you right here. The amiga was not really supported because most coders were only used to code mono-CPU machines like the atari ST at first. It's known for a fact that the amiga custom chips are not easy to code and use. This has nothing to do with the price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
then games got ported from ST to Amiga, not really using the Amiga's hardware.
Not used at all ! Pure 68000 coding from atari ST ! Take a look at Mercs code, crippled of TRAP instructions and no hardware calls !. The game is slow as hell like most US gold that were straight ST ports. I can list other games, and strangely, they are all slow, have crap playability, and have horrible palettes and use ST graphic files => Alien Storm, Mercs, Mega twins, etc, etc....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Then games were developed for both, starting to use the Amiga's custom chips. Then there was Amiga development with a really bad ST conversion because the hardware wasn't up to it and finally the ST died and Amiga went it alone for a while.
We had unambitious games, poor colors, rubbish sounds, poor playability in many cases.... For how many good ones ? Really bad ST conversion because the games to convert where almost impossible to port from the amiga to the ST. Look at Jim Power, Mr nutz, Lionheart. Those games are only possible on machines using co-processors and custom chips !

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Whilst the Amiga has lots of lovely hardware I always felt restricted by the custom chips only being able to access 512K, once 1MB of memory was common. FAT Agnus meant more memory was accessible on the A500+, A600 and A1200 (gross agnus ) but commercially I had to write for the common platform which was A500.
Ok, your move creep Which programs did you code for Amiga ? We are all here very curious to know your deeds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
The Amiga's hardware also stole cycles off the 68K, particularly with the blitter running full blast, but there was still the opportunity for some parallel processing although I doubt the hardware in the Amiga would have been much use for 3D modelling hence David Braben's comments re: ST CPU speed.
Yes it steal cycles off. That's how it is created. The 68K on amiga is not the main part, to the contrary of the Atari ST where it's the main one.
On ST the 68K handles everything alone, from the toilet paper managing to the "mum, i'm hungry i want to eat" crying sound On amiga the 68K task is to drive the custom chips ; The same way a 68K on a coin-op machine
drive the sound via a z80 which drives the sound chip and the tiles generated/displayer/VDP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
The Amiga's hardware sprites were a frustration to, I thought they were a bit messy and were only suitable for games which had been designed to use them if you see what I mean. Although their usage created some nice, interesting code.
Good coders know how to bypass this..... it's too limited to be used...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
The Amiga's hardware also had some timing issues, not all Amiga's were built the same. Software which was at the limit of the machine worked OK on some Amiga's but on others there were display glitches etc so certain things were restricted. Whereas an ST was an ST, worked on all of them.
Bullshit, on the moment you code for A500,1000,2000 , it's up to you as coder to respect the compatibility. About timing issue, it's worse on atari ST/STE since one of them didn't had any blitter. You remember above what i wrote about the role of the 68K on an atari ST and on amiga ?
If you code a game for an STF, meaning you will use software tricks, you code is made to use fully the CPU. This means that to make the code use the blitter, you have to code from scratch, because here the CPU will drive blitter operations (since blitter use is coded in 68K ASM). That was one reason why developers almost never used STE particularities. You are forgetting TOS incompatibilities also which gives : crash, graphic glitches,etc..... See ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
As far as games are concerned, the operating systems were meaningless - I never used any of the ST's OS and the only thing I ever asked the Amiga's OS was "what CPU have you got?", "how much memory"? and "where is is?" then all the vectors got overwritten and I took over
Yes that was the common rules to kick the OS and then took over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Ultimately the ST was a better work tool and the Amiga a better console, what made me laugh was how serious the people who wrote the Amiga's OS were thinking it was some kind of business machine - Commodore only got hold of it by accident, it should really have been an Atari in my opinion.
The ST was a better tool work ? if you mean as a dev machine, the answer is yes for converting to 8 bits machines, but far too limited to create games on amiga. We had Deluxe Paint for GFX, best sound at the moment,
and excellent ASM assemblers ! The amiga was made in mind to be the best computer the world could see back in 1985. It has so many possibilities in hardware, it's able to read many disk formats (C64, PC 720kb, atari ST, GCR mac disks...), ability to do ReadTrack (The atari ST cannot do that in standard, ex : On Maupiti islands, lankhor had to derivate the OS to do readtrack..... Not counting the video and sound possibilities.
The amiga is a WAY more complete and equilibrate machine. After the professional tools availables depends not on the computer but the willing of companies to code them on a target machine. The amiga never was an atari, i see the fantasm about "Nya nya nya, the amiga is in fact an atari
blablabla. Tramiel has lost, commodore has bought the machine, period !

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
As Jay Miner said, "I am not surprised at what people have done with the Amiga but it still amazes me what people do with the Atari 400 and 800". For me the Amiga will always be the Atari 16000
Ahahah, stop dreaming, our machine will never be an Atari and it never was !
dlfrsilver is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 06:43   #184
Goldrunner
Registered User
Goldrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Formby
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfrsilver View Post
The game is good, the way it's coded is crap (it's coded like it was running on an ST).
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. Maybe then we can get some Amiga programmers to recode the whole thing from scratch and make it truly awesome. I mean what does the author of Virus and the co-author of Elite know anyway, surely nothing against dlfrsilver obvious knowledge. 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.

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. 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.

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?

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.

Goldrunner, a truly gobsmacked lover of the Amiga and ST!

Last edited by Goldrunner; 30 July 2009 at 07:06.
Goldrunner is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 08:58   #185
frank_b
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston USA
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si-Pie View Post
The Amigas blitter is 2x more efficient at copying and 3 x more efficient at masking sprites.
Assuming no DMA contention. Bitplane DMA contention slows the blitter on the Amiga down a fair bit. The STE one is a full implementation of bitblt with some extensions. It has a nice indirect addressing mode called smudge mode which can be used for very fast bitplane mirroring/scaling. A one pass cookie cutter mode would have been nice but the blitter on the STE gets an undeserved bad rep* It can hit the whole 24 bit address range (RAM/ROM/IO registers) too.

Frank

*yes it can bit shift for free before soemone brings that up!
frank_b is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 10:46   #186
hitchhikr
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: somewhere
Posts: 358
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.

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).

Last edited by hitchhikr; 30 July 2009 at 11:42.
hitchhikr is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 14:04   #187
Stefan Lindberg
Zone Friend
Stefan Lindberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stockholm/Sweden
Age: 40
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfrsilver View Post
Look at Jim Power, Mr nutz, Lionheart. Those games are only possible on machines using co-processors and custom chips !
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?
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.

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.

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.
Stefan Lindberg is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 14:11   #188
Thorham
Computer Nerd

Thorham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Rotterdam/Netherlands
Age: 41
Posts: 2,960
I agree, crap graphics don't make a game crap, crap gameplay makes a game crap
Thorham is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 14:25   #189
Sensi
Unregistered User
Sensi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 1,644
Why to play a game with great gameplay on Atari ST when you can play it on Amiga with better graphics and sound
Sensi is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 14:26   #190
killergorilla
Lesser Talent
killergorilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 7,924
Because you might not own an Amiga...
killergorilla is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 14:47   #191
Si-Pie
Registered User
Si-Pie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Newcastle Under Lyme/England
Age: 40
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by frank_b View Post
Assuming no DMA contention. Bitplane DMA contention slows the blitter on the Amiga down a fair bit. The STE one is a full implementation of bitblt with some extensions. It has a nice indirect addressing mode called smudge mode which can be used for very fast bitplane mirroring/scaling. A one pass cookie cutter mode would have been nice but the blitter on the STE gets an undeserved bad rep* It can hit the whole 24 bit address range (RAM/ROM/IO registers) too.

Frank

*yes it can bit shift for free before soemone brings that up!
Hi Frank yep thanx for that and yep I agree that DMA contention slows the blitter down for 4 and 5 plane PAL screen modes. I think that is what I was pointing out when I posted that quote from the Amiga Hardware Reference Manual about bit-plane DMA stealing cycles from the 68000 during display. I personally think the STE was what the ST should of been but Atari just released it too late.

I have seen another post from you by the way on another forum but cant remember which one. You do some calculations on the Amiga Blitter and STE Blitter and gave quite abit of info on them.

Ive read alot of posts on here from people who seem to be knocking both machines. I dont think almost any person who was an ST fan from back then deny that the Amiga had a hardware advantage over the ST but I personally think that just because a machine isnt best on the market doesnt mean it shouldnt have fans or be liked. I owned an Amiga and was and still am a big Amiga fan but I still respected the ST and the contribution it had in the market! These are machines that belong to a great era in computing and hardware differences aside both should be remembered as great machines.
Si-Pie is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 14:58   #192
Paul_s
needs more ice cream

Paul_s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Amigaville
Age: 39
Posts: 3,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
I can't believe this Atari ST bashing is still going after nearly 30 years. Everyone here must be in their 30's by now, but mention the Amiga Vs ST, and its smash, bang, and wallop, straight back to the schoolyard and the incredibly the petty hardware and software comparisons. Unlike most here I will not be bashing the ST, but defending it while giving credit to the superior Amiga.

The Amiga was and is an incredible computer that is most areas beats the ST. However, the ST benefited from the lower prices in the early days, which gave it the largest market share and the Amiga had to play catch-up for the rest of the 8o's. The faster CPU was another advantage, those who think the difference was nothing should talk to David Braben who said the ST version of Frontier runs 25% faster than the A500 version. The inbuilt MIDI ports meant the ST cornered the music world despite its rubbish sound chip, just like the Amiga did with video. And yes, you could buy MIDI ports for the Amiga, but the point is they where not standard.

Now we come to the so called weak graphics of the ST. Yes, it could normally only display 16 colours, although copper effects (like the Amiga's but done in software) could increase this to 32 or even more. Also, a couple of paint packages also broke this by allowing 512 colours on screen at once. Weak, yes weak against the Amiga's graphics but not against any other home computer of the time. BTW, the only way the Amiga could display 512 colours was with in HAM mode, but this caused terrible HAM artifacting and was a nightmare to use. When the ST displays 512 colours images with Spectrum 512 there is none of this artifacting, all colours live happily next to each other.

The ST did have lousy sound but this was rectified with the STE, its funny how this ST is never mentioned when ST bashing is going on! The STE also had a blitter and 4096 colours as standard. Obviously Atari where tying to catch up with Commodore by this time.

Both the Amiga and ST are great machine, if they weren't they would not have sold in the volumes they did. The only reason that ST bashing goes on is because they were based on similar technology, both have plus and minus points. I love both machines with equal measure and I think everyone here should be grateful the ST existed at all. After all in the early days it was the ST that drove the 16-bit market, and so many titles would never have appeared on the Amiga if the ST wasn't around, it would not have been profitable enough. This also hold true for the ST's later life when it was the Amiga that was profitable and the ST was fast becoming obsolete.

So, please everyone give the ST a break!
I will goto my grave with the ST/Amiga debate. I am still as angry in my 30's as I was in my teens.

Anyway, how would I release my anger?
Whose head would I flush down the toilet?
What could I do with my axe?

Anyway the Amiga and its technology were around a lot longer than the ST. They just stole some of its ideas and turned it into their own... and still didn't succeed
Which means that the original Amiga team = genius. Even to this day the way they did things are so cool it makes the Core 2 Duo seem a piece of carp in comparison.... shame that so much stuff these days is poorly made/designed apart from some cool people who continue to design hardware for our beloved Miggys
Paul_s is offline  
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: 7,063
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 offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 15:51   #194
Goldrunner
Registered User
Goldrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Formby
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_s View Post
Anyway the Amiga and its technology were around a lot longer than the ST. They just stole some of its ideas and turned it into their own... and still didn't succeed
Which means that the original Amiga team = genius. Even to this day the way they did things are so cool it makes the Core 2 Duo seem a piece of carp in comparison.... shame that so much stuff these days is poorly made/designed apart from some cool people who continue to design hardware for our beloved Miggys
The ST didn't succeed You mean the biggest selling 16-bit computer of the 80's wans't a big seller. I must have had my head in the sand because the ST did succeed and was a big commercial success. It also a bold statement to say all modern hardware is poorly made compared to the Amiga.

I'm beginning to realise that Amiga fanatics really can't look at other computers without comparing it to the Amiga, they simply can't give unbiased break to anything without bashing it. Some (like me) actually love using other machines like the Spectrum, Commodore 64, and ST. I can use the Spectrum without thinking its crap comapred to the Amiga, every machine had its place in history and every one has its own personality. There will never again be a time like the 80's for home computers, if you can stop bashing other machine for a second you may start enjoying it a little better.

Not one person here denies the Amiga's greatness, even those who like other machines. But Amiga purists simply can't give any credit to any other computer other than the Amiga. Instead we have non stop comaprisons to show how great the Amiga was. Even when faced with great machines like the Acorn Archimedes, Atari Falcon, an even the Atari STE, they simply claim, yeah but they didn't well so that is that. Problem is they did exist so you can't just brush them under the carpet and believe the Amiga was light years ahead of everything. There are, for example, many Atari Falcon users still around today, and even a cracking crew who serve them software.

I have been a long term member of Atari forum and believe or not computer bashing like this doesn't go on. In fact I see many posts there giving the Amiga credit, so why can't that happen here?
Goldrunner is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 16:04   #195
Anemos
70X7
Anemos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ἑλλάς
Posts: 1,072
AtariST has better constructions quality !
the END.
Anemos is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 16:11   #196
TCD
Global Moderator

TCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Posts: 24,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Not one person here denies the Amiga's greatness, even those who like other machines. But Amiga purists simply can't give any credit to any other computer other than the Amiga. Instead we have non stop comaprisons to show how great the Amiga was. Even when faced with great machines like the Acorn Archimedes, Atari Falcon, an even the Atari STE, they simply claim, yeah but they didn't well so that is that. Problem is they did exist so you can't just brush them under the carpet and believe the Amiga was light years ahead of everything. There are, for example, many Atari Falcon users still around today, and even a cracking crew who serve them software.

I have been a long term member of Atari forum and believe or not computer bashing like this doesn't go on. In fact I see many posts there giving the Amiga credit, so why can't that happen here?
Actually you are fueling the fire here a bit. Just in case you haven't noticed This thread was almost settled (except for s2325 'findings' and Paul_s usual rants ) before you came and tried to defend the ST. This thread was about showing an ST user that claimed the Amiga was crap (that was on the comments of the YouTube vid) that is not that way round Honestly this is an Amiga board and although we nearly all use other machines aswell (btw Sensi gave a very good hint in his post...) there is a reason why we are here. You don't want to see any ST bashing? Don't come to an Amiga board
TCD is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 16:14   #197
Goldrunner
Registered User
Goldrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Formby
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfrsilver View Post
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".
No, he said it is pixel identical not code identical. What he does say is that both are based on similiar code which what you expect when both machines use the same processor.

He goes on about the ST version using the well known feature of palette switching every cycle to simulate 4096 colours on screen. This is actually an ST only feature that he obviously added to make the ST version better. Yet, you still state they are code identical.

Once again, I ask you for the proof that David Braben never used any feature of the Amiga's custom chips? Also, if he didn't use them was it because he could'nt with a pure 3D game? I have proved he used an ST only feature, lets see if you can do the same.
Goldrunner is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 16:26   #198
Goldrunner
Registered User
Goldrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Formby
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid View Post
Actually you are fueling the fire here a bit. Just in case you haven't noticed This thread was almost settled (except for s2325 'findings' and Paul_s usual rants ) before you came and tried to defend the ST. This thread was about showing an ST user that claimed the Amiga was crap (that was on the comments of the YouTube vid) that is not that way round Honestly this is an Amiga board and although we nearly all use other machines aswell (btw Sensi gave a very good hint in his post...) there is a reason why we are here. You don't want to see any ST bashing? Don't come to an Amiga board
Ok, I will stop posting here since its going nowhere and return to my work on Guardians of the PaST. I hope people have no objection if I return now and then to post some intersting finding we may dig up. BTW, this is a great board with some very intersting threads and information! All the best to everyone here!
Goldrunner is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 16:27   #199
killergorilla
Lesser Talent
killergorilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 7,924
I think we should resolve this purely on sales.

Does anyone know how many Amigas and Ataris were sold over the last month?
killergorilla is offline  
Old 30 July 2009, 16:38   #200
TCD
Global Moderator

TCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Posts: 24,032
Guess it would be a draw then.
TCD is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:42.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.49591 seconds with 11 queries