New Street Fighter 2 for CPC !!

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by hansel75

I know the Amiga port was crap, but saying this CPC version is 10x better is just ridiculous.

It's not. The CPC version in preparation shits from a great height on the Amiga version. But we all know why.

SF2 amiga was made with the ST in mind. So no hardware tricks, no speed, no colors (shit colors in real).

Also again your comparing a 128kb CPC6128 to the C64 and Speccy, i wouldn't say this is a fair comparison. Let's see them do this on a stock 64kb CPC464 and i will be more impressed.

It's not unfair. having 64kb more of memory only allow more space to store thing.

Look, it's like if an Atari ST user came and say :

"Your comparison is unfair to compare an 1mb Amiga to a 512kb Atari ST"

Adding more memory never made a computer more powerful. The CPC either with 64kb or 128kb has the same processing power.

The fact is only that it's impossible to make a game like SF2 with only 64kb of memory.

You can roll up the problem in every possible way, it will be impossible.

However, for oldish 8bits machines like the C64 or the Speccy :

The speccy use 2bits graphics and they took no space in ram. And even with this, the speccy version of SF2, the retail one, only works with 128k of ram.

About the C64, with 64kb of ram, the actual SF2 version is just ridiculous, and the computer is underpowered to run this kind of game.

In saying that it does look really good, but play speed looks very sluggish.

No kidding ?? The Amiga version is not even 1/10 smooth than that. The Amiga version is a slug fest, as does the C64 version. I played with it on my C64, and it's an abomination.

This CPC version is smoother than all the official release for computer of SF2.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot

Even so. If what the video depicts is actually a plain Amstrad CPC6128, then this demo is a heck of an accomplishment, putting the Amiga's own version of Street Fighter II to shame.

You got the point. The Amiga version is a shame compared to this one. And the Amiga version is 1mb.

And we can't compare the Amiga with the CPC in terms of hardware. The first is in a whole level of magnitude over the second.

Indeed. But that's what makes this CPC version really awesome. It's even better than the Amiga version !

Thus, producing a better replication of SF2 on the humbler machine is a meritable effort regardless of what compromises were made.

True. This doesn't mean that the devs have no difficulties to make this game.
They bring great care with the speed, and the graphics are good
and they are caring for the ram filling. 128kb doesn't mean everything is possible.

But i'm confident about one thing : with the hardware scroll ability of the CPC and its good CPU power, they should get a final version that will blast everybody's mind exactly like Pinball dreams, which shows that the CPC is the 8 bits king in the end

I, for one, would be looking forward for a complete version of this, though I don't think it will ever materialize.

They will I'm sure. Pinball Dreams posed the milestone, SF2 will be the next.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Adding more memory never made a computer more powerful. The CPC either with 64kb or 128kb has the same processing power.

This is so far from the 'full' truth I don't even know where to begin.

So yes, your CPU won't calculate anything faster with more memory. But that is a horribly one-sided way of looking at things. More memory means you can avoid calculating. The more memory you have, the less you have to recalculate.

The difference in speed can be astonishingly high (try calculating sinus/cosinus values or square root values using a Z80/6502/68000 and then try using a table - the difference can go up over an order of magnitude, meaning you can get a 10 fold+ performance increase by using more memory).

In fact, using pre-calculated results for anything (math, graphics, etc) is pretty much the Nr. 1 performance trick from way back when.

A small graphics example might be useful so show what I mean. Using more memory than strictly needed, you can blit faster on the Amiga. The speed difference can vary, but is at least 27% and can go up to at least 50%* - assuming you have the memory.

*) Though this does mean accepting some limitations on how you can blit. Limitations that would work very well for fighters and other games with few on screen objects though.

For another 16 bit example, take the Atari ST version of Shadow of the Beast, which according to the coder would've run at twice the framerate if he had been allowed to use 1MB extra memory.

A more 8-bit example is the Atari XL/XE version of Space Harrier, which needed a 1 megabyte flashrom to be able to run. And that rom was used in large part to accelerate the drawing speed of the objects on screen by removing the need to mask out the background.

In all these cases, the extra memory made the computer much faster in the real world. Even though processing speed did not change.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by roondar

This is so far from the 'full' truth I don't even know where to begin.

Well i see what you mean Roondar. But going for the precalc route is not always the good way to make thing. It use a ton of memory, when actually the CPC devs try their best to do great coding instead of using the Atari ST way of doing things.

So yes, your CPU won't calculate anything faster with more memory. But that is a horribly one-sided way of looking at things. More memory means you can avoid calculating. The more memory you have, the less you have to recalculate.

I don't say specifically that what you say is silly or stupid, but is it actually the method used on SF2 CPC ? i don't have the infos on that matter. I'll try to get those.

The difference in speed can be astonishingly high (try calculating sinus/cosinus values or square root values using a Z80/6502/68000 and then try using a table - the difference can go up over an order of magnitude, meaning you can get a 10 fold+ performance increase by using more memory).

Well good to be posed, clever questioning. I'll ask to the SF2 folks which way they used.

In fact, using pre-calculated results for anything (math, graphics, etc) is pretty much the Nr. 1 performance trick from way back when.

Yes, but don't forget that the CPC has only 128k of memory, and with too much data, you limit the graphics you can have in ram.

A small graphics example might be useful so show what I mean. Using more memory than strictly needed, you can blit faster on the Amiga. The speed difference can vary, but is at least 27% and can go up to at least 50%* - assuming you have the memory.

I was not aware of this ability of the Amiga, interesting !

*) Though this does mean accepting some limitations on how you can blit. Limitations that would work very well for fighters and other games with few on screen objects though.

ok.

For another 16 bit example, take the Atari ST version of Shadow of the Beast, which according to the coder would've run at twice the framerate if he had been allowed to use 1MB extra memory.

The Amstrad CPC looks like the Atari ST, but it has better hardware abilities.

The CPC has vertical and horizontal hardware scrolling, a thing that the ST doesn't have (well the STE...).

About Beast ST, patched version can use more than 512kb, and the scrolling is still slow like hell. But the ST has NO hardware scroll ! So Preshifting the graphics is the only possible way, and it needs a tons of RAM !

By using the CPC hardware Scrolling, you don't need to use the preshifting method.

The CPC has a hardware scrolling natively, exactly like the C64, unfortunately, almost no coder used it back in the day.

A more 8-bit example is the Atari XL/XE version of Space Harrier, which needed a 1 megabyte flashrom to be able to run. And that rom was used in large part to accelerate the drawing speed of the objects on screen by removing the need to mask out the background.

That's a megasoupped-up release then. SF2 CPC run on a standard 128k machine.

In all these cases, the extra memory made the computer much faster in the real world. Even though processing speed did not change.

What i can say is that on CPC the games using 128k of ram are not faster than their 64k counterparts. The speed is always the same. The main advantage of using 64kb more, is to store more sprites frames, more music and SFX.

[nobody]

i think the CPC has "hardware scrolling" that moves a character (8 pixels) if i am not mistaken. It has been used in the abysmal (compared to the c64) version of Wonderboy.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by nobody

i think the CPC has "hardware scrolling" that moves a character (8 pixels) if i am not mistaken. It has been used in the abysmal (compared to the c64) version of Wonderboy.

In fact, it appears to be easy to use, and you need to change register 12 and 13 of the CRTC to produce the hardware scroll.

The CPC can do pixel scroll, look at Pinball Dreams. 8 pixels was a constraint when CPC devs were using 64kb (remember, the CPC is graphically like a 16 bits machine, so it means that the graphics are big in ram).

The CPC shows all its real flavour with 128kb. 64k was a joke to start with.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

In fact, it appears to be easy to use, and you need to change register 12 and 13 of the CRTC to produce the hardware scroll.

The CPC can do pixel scroll, look at Pinball Dreams. 8 pixels was a constraint when CPC devs were using 64kb (remember, the CPC is graphically like a 16 bits machine, so it means that the graphics are big in ram).

The CPC shows all its real flavour with 128kb. 64k was a joke to start with.

I hate to be pedantic here, but the CPC does not have hardware scrolling the the way the C64 or Amiga has. These machines have a standard mechanism for scrolling that works irrespective of screen, screen mode used or machine used. This is not the case on the CPC.

Now, there is a trick used by demo coders to move the screen smoothly regardless, but that trick does not work on all CPC's and is much more like the C64's AGSP scrolling (in that AGSP scrolling is also a trick that also doesn't work on all machines) than built in hardware scrolling. IMHO, confusing the graphics chip to do stuff it wasn't designed for* is not the same as having built in hardware scrolling.

*) easy to prove this is the case: not all models of the CPC graphics chip can actually display these effects - so it was clearly not designed with this feature in mind.

For reference, I found the information about the scrolling done here and the relevant bit of text I've quoted below:

Originally Posted by PulkoMandy@pouet.net

* With a screen height of 1 pixel, you can have multiple "screens" between two VBLs. This needs careful timing, but you can select almost freely the starting address for each line. It's the key of most effects you can do on the CPC. That's why demos often consist of plasmas and wobblers, these are super easy to do. Batman Forever does a much better use of it, and mixes it with software rendering effects to get impressive results. Almost everything in the demo uses this.

* Hardware scrolling is limited to a character resolution (8 mode2 pixels horizontal, 8 lines vertical). However, using the same trick as above, you can generate chars that are less than 8 pixels, and you can do vertical smooth scroll. Horizontal one needs at least double buffering, with each buffer shifted 1/2 char. Knowing that when you remove the borders, one screen buffer is about 24kbytes, and given the memory structure, actually fills 32kbytes of memory. It can get tricky if you have two of them like this to manage...

Emphasis mine. The net result is that a (horizontal) smooth scroll on the CPC takes 64 Kbytes of memory just to deal with the display. Which explains why all these new demos and games need 128KB to work.

Such a method is very nice to have and it looks great, but it is limited as you need so much memory to make it work (incidentally, this also proves my point that the extra memory in the CPC128 is in fact being used to help accelerate graphics by quite a lot - though perhaps not in SFII, the video shown never has the screen scroll at all).

Do note that I am not writing this to slag of the CPC in any way (I love all 8 bit computers), but rather to provide a slightly less 'hype' based point of view.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by roondar

I hate to be pedantic here, but the CPC does not have hardware scrolling the the way the C64 or Amiga has. These machines have a standard mechanism for scrolling that works irrespective of screen, screen mode used or machine used. This is not the case on the CPC.

The CPC has from factory the ability to do hardware scrolling. Not like the ST on which syncscroll is something done by making the computer do what it's not supposed to do.

check this :

Register 12 Display Start Address (High) xx000000 32
Register 13 Display Start Address (Low) 00000000 0

Register 13 Allows you to offset the start of screen memory for hardware scrolling, and if using memory from address &0000 with the firmware.

This shows that the CPC has from the start registers made for hardware scrollings, and those 2 are dedicated to that.

Well, so.....

The CPC has some games doing hardware scrollings, vertical and horizontal.

Mission Genocide on CPC is a mode 0 game, and is doing a 1 pixel step scroll in vertical.

Now, there is a trick used by demo coders to move the screen smoothly regardless, but that trick does not work on all CPC's and is much more like the C64's AGSP scrolling (in that AGSP scrolling is also a trick that also doesn't work on all machines) than built in hardware scrolling. IMHO, confusing the graphics chip to do stuff it wasn't designed for* is not the same as having built in hardware scrolling.

The CRTC was made from factory to do Hardware scrollings. It's made for that via specific registers.

The mostly incompatible CRTC used on CPC is the CRTC2, which is a shit in a box. Most CPC have CRTC0 and CRTC1 which do not have any incompatibilities with the hardware scrolling ability.

*) easy to prove this is the case: not all models of the CPC graphics chip can actually display these effects - so it was clearly not designed with this feature in mind.

You're basically distorting a right fact to a wrong one.

You can do hardware scrolls on CRTC0,1,2,3,4

The tricks and the effects you're talking about are NOT related to hardware scrolling ability, but are effecting other possibilities on the CPC.

For reference, I found the information about the scrolling done here and the relevant bit of text I've quoted below:

Check instead here :

http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/CRTC

this explains exactly what you can do or not with the different CRTC types.

Emphasis mine. The net result is that a (horizontal) smooth scroll on the CPC takes 64 Kbytes of memory just to deal with the display. Which explains why all these new demos and games need 128KB to work.

64kb more are needed not only to achieve the hard scroll, but it's also needed due to the amount of data to store in RAM.

The CPC devs work mostly in mode 0, which takes more RAM than mode 1.

So 128kb is not an option. If it was the Amiga, i would prefer the 1mb version of a game instead of the 512kb one, because you have more graphics, more music, more SFX, more sprite frames, etc, etc, etc.

Such a method is very nice to have and it looks great, but it is limited as you need so much memory to make it work (incidentally, this also proves my point that the extra memory in the CPC128 is in fact being used to help accelerate graphics by quite a lot - though perhaps not in SFII, the video shown never has the screen scroll at all).

The CPC limits have been exploded. Since Pinball Dreams, the CPC took back its throne of the best 8 bits (not difficult, it was the last one to come on market).

I have a CPC 128k and also a CPC 64k. Both run at the exact same speed. Having 128k instead of 64k DOESN'T SPEED UP the computer or any operations visible on screen.

You have 64kb more ? You just enjoy more space in RAM, end of the story

Do note that I am not writing this to slag of the CPC in any way (I love all 8 bit computers), but rather to provide a slightly less 'hype' based point of view.

Your point of view is the oldish one, when the CPC got the shittiest conversions from the C64 and the speccy. This time is over now, and it started with Pinball Dreams which is more faithfull to the Amiga than the C64 version will never be, scrolling and color wise

[hansel75]

Also this new CPC6128 SF2 port appears to lack any scrolling compared to most other ports, it's just a static play area, i guess it's because it's tricky to get good scrolling from the CPC's.
And i have to wonder if this new port would look as good or be as smooth if it had full 50hz scrolling backgrounds as well.
It's also taken 25yrs for the CPC to get a better version, again to little to late to change history and the experiences CPC users had to endure back then.

And from what i can see, this new CPC6128 version is barely a demo at the moment, 1 background, 1 character, limited moves and gameplay.
I will be more impressed if they finally manage to release a full version with all the features of the other formats, like scrolling and faster movement, all characters and backgrounds, all animation and moves etc.
Maybe we might have to wait another 25yrs for this to happen

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

This CPC version is smoother than all the official release for computer of SF2.

Smoother, but slower and lacking any scrolling and all the features!
We could also argue that if someone was to make a better version now for the other formats, that they would also be getting a much better experience then what US Gold gave everyone back in the 90's.
It's not really fair to compare a new port in 2016 with 30yrs of knowledge about a machines architecture, to US Gold's shitty release in 1992 regardless of the format.

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

It's not unfair. having 64kb more of memory only allow more space to store thing.

Are you saying that having twice the memory is not an advantage when comparing systems? I find this comment to be ridiculous, of course it's an advantage.
If someone ported a game to the C128 in 2016, then compared it to some crappy CPC464 port from 25yrs ago, you would be the first to complain about it being an unfair comparison.

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The Amiga version is not even 1/10 smooth than that. The Amiga version is a slug fest

So that would make the CPC6128 version run at 170fps, because as far as i know the original Amiga version was running at 17fps!

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The Amiga version is a shame compared to this one. And the Amiga version is 1mb.

As you can notice, it's 10 times better than any Speccy, C64, or even Amiga version

Indeed. But that's what makes this CPC version really awesome. It's even better than the Amiga version !

Yes the Amiga version is crappy, but come on mate, your enthusiasm for the CPC is just overkill and there's no need to exaggerate so much, check the pics below, does the CPC6128 version really look 10x better then the Amiga version?

Originally Posted by roondar

I hate to be pedantic here, but the CPC does not have hardware scrolling the the way the C64 or Amiga has.

The net result is that a (horizontal) smooth scroll on the CPC takes 64 Kbytes of memory just to deal with the display. Which explains why all these new demos and games need 128KB to work.

If this is true, then would i be right in saying that the stock 64kb CPC464 is not able to smooth scroll in graphically intense games?
Because the CPC464 was the most popular selling model and the one that should be getting compared to the C64 etc, and not the enhanced 6128 model.

[kovacm]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Adding more memory never made a computer more powerful. The CPC either with 64kb or 128kb has the same processing power.

In case of ST it will! With 4MB you could preshift EVERYTHING

You know that Shadow of the Beast on ST was even crapier than it should because publisher requested to fit game in 512KB of RAM!


EDIT: I only now see that roondar already replay to you regarding this statement "more memory never made a computer more powerful"...

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

By using the CPC hardware Scrolling, you don't need to use the preshifting method.

you do not use preshifting only for background but also for sprites

[Amigajay]

People keep saying it's for CPC, in reality I'm guessing it's really for the CPC Plus? And these two machines are far from just having more memory, the Plus range have hardware sprites, 4096 colour range, pixel scrolling etc, it came out 6 years after the CPC so it's really the A1200 of the CPC range.

Of course that's not to say it's not great, but these things need to be made clear, 1984 vs 1990 tech isn't so 'groundbreaking' IF it's for CPC Plus.

Well from the videos looks to be just CPC 6128 not the Plus, so yes impressive, I find lots of old versions, so I guess this has been a long haul project.

Maybe the Amiga version could be a static screen to help things immensely?!

[trydowave]

I think the "what 8bt was best" debate could end right now if everyone discussed it honestly.

C64 released in 82
Spectrum 48k released in 82
Amstrad CPC464 released in 84
Spectrum 128 released in UK in 86 (Amiga 1000 released in 85!)
Amstrad CPC6128 released 85
Amstrad plus range released in 1990

If the amstrad version of sf2 (which i think is great btw) is on the plus than its unfair to compare it to the 64 version. A computer that came out 8 years earlier.

As a C64 fanboy i compare it to the speccy 48 and CPC464. Rivals of the day. When doing that there's no doubt its the 8bit king in my opinion

Although i am biased. I prefer the c64 to the amstrad and speccy 128 models.

[PortuguesePilot]

Originally Posted by hansel75

Also this new CPC6128 SF2 port appears to lack any scrolling compared to most other ports, it's just a static play area, i guess it's because it's tricky to get good scrolling from the CPC's.
And i have to wonder if this new port would look as good or be as smooth if it had full 50hz scrolling backgrounds as well.

I see no problem with that if the result is a more fluid and - especially - a more fun gaming experience. That's part of what I meant with the "regardless of what compromises were made" line on my previous comment.

Originally Posted by hansel75

It's also taken 25yrs for the CPC to get a better version, again to little to late to change history and the experiences CPC users had to endure back then.

And? At least it's there. It may be only a demo and little more, it may never materialize as a full version, as I said, but it's there. I don't see anyone doing a remake for the C64 or any other 8bit (or even 16bit for that matter. SF2 is a fish bone on the Amiga's throat ever since US Gold released that half-assed version. We deserve a far better version for our beloved computer). So, regardless of any criticism that anyone feels inclined to throw at this, I still think that it's a meritable effort filled with lots of quality, made by enthusiasts with obvious love for an old and quite admittedly limited machine. Only bitter people would consider this a bad thing.

Originally Posted by hansel75

And from what i can see, this new CPC6128 version is barely a demo at the moment, 1 background, 1 character, limited moves and gameplay.
I will be more impressed if they finally manage to release a full version with all the features of the other formats, like scrolling and faster movement, all characters and backgrounds, all animation and moves etc.
Maybe we might have to wait another 25yrs for this to happen

Fully agreed here.

Originally Posted by hansel75

Smoother, but slower and lacking any scrolling and all the features!
We could also argue that if someone was to make a better version now for the other formats, that they would also be getting a much better experience then what US Gold gave everyone back in the 90's.
It's not really fair to compare a new port in 2016 with 30yrs of knowledge about a machines architecture, to US Gold's shitty release in 1992 regardless of the format.

Again, of course it's not fair. But at least the CPC folks are doing something about it. Unfortunately I don't see any other 8bit guys doing it. That would be fair, wouldn't it? Comparing more recent remakes of SF2.

Originally Posted by trydowave

I think the "what 8bt was best" debate could end right now if everyone discussed it honestly.

C64 released in 82
Spectrum 48k released in 82
Amstrad CPC464 released in 84
Spectrum 128 released in UK in 86 (Amiga 1000 released in 85!)
Amstrad CPC6128 released 85
Amstrad plus range released in 1990

Why don't you mention the SAM Coupé, MSX, MSX2, MSX2+ and Turbo-R? Or even the C65 and C128?

Originally Posted by trydowave

If the amstrad version of sf2 (which i think is great btw) is on the plus than its unfair to compare it to the 64 version. A computer that came out 8 years earlier.

Agreed. But this version of SF2 still looks like a nice achievement regardless of being on the Plus hardware. What matters to me here, more than returning to fruitless debates about what machine is better, is that some guys are making a better version of a beloved game for the machine they adore regardless of all its limitations. I find that commendable.

Originally Posted by trydowave

Although i am biased. I prefer the c64 to the amstrad and speccy 128 models.

We all have our personal favourites and our own nostalgia-fuelled passions that sometime defy reason, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't appreciate anything good that springs on any other system. I, for one, appreciate every new little game that pops up for any old system. I welcome them all, regardless of their technical merits, and all I care is that 1) they're fun to play and 2) they breed new life to an ageing system.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by hansel75

Also this new CPC6128 SF2 port appears to lack any scrolling compared to most other ports, it's just a static play area, i guess it's because it's tricky to get good scrolling from the CPC's.

It was tricky, but no more. CPC devs know how to handle it correcty these days.

And i have to wonder if this new port would look as good or be as smooth if it had full 50hz scrolling backgrounds as well. It's also taken 25yrs for the CPC to get a better version, again to little to late to change history and the experiences CPC users had to endure back then.

There were 2 problems : 1) C64 and speccy versions got way more month of development for a same version of a game against 2/3 weeks for the CPC version. That's why most versions were crap. Teams spent more time to polish the CPC version compared to the 2 other ones. This time is over since a long while now, and the CPC is taking back the 1st place.

And from what i can see, this new CPC6128 version is barely a demo at the moment, 1 background, 1 character, limited moves and gameplay.

It shows 1 background, 2 different sprites, and limited moves.

The game is made for CPC 6128.

Here are the characteristics :

already implemented :

Custom disk access
Animation system, with varying sizes and sprite reposition per frame
Pixel perfect collision detection
Input handling for both players
Compression (using Exomizer)
Video split (score at #8000, play area at #C000) See the bump when jumping, will not be there, but when falling after hit.
Memory banking (player data is stored in upper 64Kb, 32Kb/character)
Music routines - using WYZPlayer
Input State Machine
Ryu moves + 3 special moves

Things have went further since. the game use an hardware scrolling, but it's turned off in the video. Basically with it activated, the framerate is the same than without, it doesn't slow down the CPC.

You can notice the 64kb more RAM are use to store each opponents (32kb each!).

Ryu sprite is finished and has 3 special moves.

I will be more impressed if they finally manage to release a full version with all the features of the other formats, like scrolling and faster movement, all characters and backgrounds, all animation and moves etc.
Maybe we might have to wait another 25yrs for this to happen

The Speccy and C64 have a lot of frames removed. The CPC sprites use more frames than the previous, and this is evident when you look at the way the sprites move. Even the Amiga is under.

Smoother, but slower and lacking any scrolling and all the features!

This is not the final version, the hardware scrolling is disactivated for the moment. And no, it's not slower. I have seen the C64 in action, there's nothing to brag about !

We could also argue that if someone was to make a better version now for the other formats, that they would also be getting a much better experience then what US Gold gave everyone back in the 90's.

The Speccy version is already 128kb, so no cigar and even with 64kb more, i don't see the C64 doing better than it has already.

It's not really fair to compare a new port in 2016 with 30yrs of knowledge about a machines architecture, to US Gold's shitty release in 1992 regardless of the format.

Because you think the engineers in 1992 were crap ? No, there was a political choice of making games for the most selling computers, and that's it.

Are you saying that having twice the memory is not an advantage when comparing systems? I find this comment to be ridiculous, of course it's an advantage. If someone ported a game to the C128 in 2016, then compared it to some crappy CPC464 port from 25yrs ago, you would be the first to complain about it being an unfair comparison.

I agree. It's an advantage in term of storage ability in RAM. You can have more music, more sfx, more frames, but that's all.

So that would make the CPC6128 version run at 170fps, because as far as i know the original Amiga version was running at 17fps!

The CPC version from what i see run higher than 17fps.

Yes the Amiga version is crappy, but come on mate, your enthusiasm for the CPC is just overkill and there's no need to exaggerate so much, check the pics below, does the CPC6128 version really look 10x better then the Amiga version?

Yes i'll choose the CPC ultra colored version over the washed-up Amiga (ST soupped up) version any day !

If this is true, then would i be right in saying that the stock 64kb CPC464 is not able to smooth scroll in graphically intense games?

Just to illustrate, quite quickly, people having 464 machines upgraded to 128k. Because yes 64kb doesn't allow to use the CPC to its best. This machine use a 16 bits like display, so this take a lot of memory if you want to do something great graphically and in term of animation.

Because the CPC464 was the most popular selling model

That's wrong, the most sold model is the 6128. The 464 was the most sold only in countries like UK and Spain.

3 millions of CPC sold, and 1,2 millions just in France, and the 6128 was the choice machine.

and the one that should be getting compared to the C64 etc, and not the enhanced 6128 model.

Even if you compared a C128 to a CPC 128kb, it doesn't change a thing.

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by kovacm

In case of ST it will! With 4MB you could preshift EVERYTHING

Ah yes ! the preshift illness !

You know that Shadow of the Beast on ST was even crapier than it should because publisher requested to fit game in 512KB of RAM!

Of course. Most people only had 512kb of ram and not 1mb of ram. Publishers were making games for the most sold machines on the market.

[Neil79]

It isn't a PLUS game, it's a 6128 - 128k ram one

Street Fighter II titled 'Street Fighter II - CPC Edition' which is being developed by DaDMaN, McKlain and AugustoRuiz for the Amstrad CPC 6128 (128Kb RAM)

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by Neil79

It isn't a PLUS game, it's a 6128 - 128k ram one

Thanks for Confirming what i said !

[Neil79]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Thanks for Confirming what i said !

Ya, it's been in development for a very long time. Hopefully the wait is worth it

[Neil79]

[Lord Aga]

Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot

this demo is a heck of an accomplishment, putting the Amiga's own version of Street Fighter II to shame.

If you gave a piece of paper to a five-year-old, let him draw a SF picture, then pick it up and shake it a bit next to the monitor, it would put the Amiga version of SFII to shame.