Would the Amiga be able to handle Angry Birds?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

But the resolution of the graphics need not have any impact on the game play. I really do not understand this objection. Objects can be moved behind the scenes at any resolution, and I don't see anything in Angry Birds that relies in especially fine details, on the order of an Amiga's low-res pixel.

I agree, the graphics side isn't an issue. I'm sure it would look great on an AGA machine. Its really the processing grunt that would be required.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Yes but the problem is not to make Angry Birds on a modern mobile phone; it is to make a physics-based game like Angry Birds on the Amiga. The fact is there is no need for it to be so accurate, so why fret over it?

Hehe. Yeah you're right.

It just got me thinking as I'm trying to write a basic physics engine using Android and wondered how the Amiga would cope. I guess for the Amiga hardware fixed-point math probably would be the best route. But with an FPU under the hood wouldn't that help considerably?

[Stuckemuck]

IMHO you don't need an FPU for some objects who are moving on the screen. At least we have some definitive pixel data to put the objects at (nothing like 0.43567234129 pixel from the left or else). And you won't mind if a ball flies across the screen with 280 or 280.53429921 pixel per second.
No matter if there are physics around or not. What thomas said was quite correct: The MOST time consuming part is to calculate the graphics/animation. The movement itself is just a poop, at least in assembler or fine coded C. The interaction of the thingies in Angry Birds is nothing more and nothing less than pure calculation, it doesn't matter that much on which algorithm it depends. I think what many people forgot is how fast a computer can calculate if it's really pushed to its limits.
Besides, Angry Birds isn't really much fun. It's just a good demo for tablets.
My 2 cents...

[s2325]

To fajnie, ale wyniki pisania w swoim jezyku (innym niz angielski) sa takie, ze rzadko pada jakas odpowiedz na post ktory malo kto zrozumie. Tak jak i na ten.

[Mrs Beanbag]

@Stuckermuck, ray tracing is nothing more and nothing less than pure calculation, maybe you should write a ray traced game, I'm sure it would run at 50fps!

[Schlachtwerk]

An attempt is definitely worth it, I love this little game and a Amiga version to be great, if they are not as lousy as the beta version of the Mega Drive, but on the Amiga AGA and a 68020 or better yet a 68030, it ought be manageable.

[ Show youtube player ]

The collision detection and physics is bad but on the Amiga with a 68020 or 68030 would be much more to it do not you think?

[Mrs Beanbag]

Even the Mega Drive can do better than that, I think. There is barely any physics at all.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by s2325

To fajnie, ale wyniki pisania w swoim jezyku (innym niz angielski) sa takie, ze rzadko pada jakas odpowiedz na post ktory malo kto zrozumie. Tak jak i na ten.

Tak,masz racje ciezko dostac odpowiedz na posty w innym jezykui niz angielski Dobrze,ze mam polska dziewczyne.

(Good job I have Polish girfriend).

[Retro1234]

Worms

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Boo Boo

Worms

And I quote Mrs Beanbag...

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

Worms engine is very simple by comparison. No rotation and the physics is certainly not very accurate, as solid as it feels when playing. Again, interactions between objects are the exception rather than the rule; interactions happen "at an instant", mostly objects are flying through free space, which is relatively trivial. Objects do not balance on top of each other. The terrain is essentially static. On Angry Birds the scenery is almost entirely composed out of moving objects in constant interactions with each other. This is a completely different kettle of fish.

[jimbob]

PD game Mouse impossible comes to mind. I don't remember much in the way of other objects than your cannonballs moving but it was a nice physics puzzler.

Also old boardgame crossbows and catapults, Ah, that was great.

I've also only watched a video of angry birds but I think you could get quite far with something like this on amiga. Scale back the number and detail of simulated objects to suit the target processor power. And for drawing the graphics, why not try B&W wireframe in 1 bitplane. If you could get the animation to look smooth and realistic like angry birds, even in B&W it would be a pretty unique thing on amiga.

[Mrs Beanbag]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Also old boardgame crossbows and catapults, Ah, that was great.

The physics on that was pretty impressive, at full frame rate, and that, just with some bits of cheap plastic and elastic bands!

I've also only watched a video of angry birds but I think you could get quite far with something like this on amiga. Scale back the number and detail of simulated objects to suit the target processor power. And for drawing the graphics, why not try B&W wireframe in 1 bitplane. If you could get the animation to look smooth and realistic like angry birds, even in B&W it would be a pretty unique thing on amiga.

I think, what you could do is draw the moving rectangular objects really simply (filled polygons in one or two bitplanes maybe, with a single pass over the whole screen for the fill) and redraw them with more detail when they come to rest. Round objects can simply be pre-rotated bobs.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

The physics on that was pretty impressive, at full frame rate, and that, just with some bits of cheap plastic and elastic bands!


I think, what you could do is draw the moving rectangular objects really simply (filled polygons in one or two bitplanes maybe, with a single pass over the whole screen for the fill) and redraw them with more detail when they come to rest. Round objects can simply be pre-rotated bobs.

How dare you, my mighty buttresses are not cheap!

Sadly, I'm a rubbish programmer, so I've no idea really how it would be done in detail. I was just thinking about what Thomas said about drawing the graphics being the slow part. I imagined an artillery type game with lots of interactive scenery and thought it would still be fun and look neat even with really simple graphics, if the physics was convincing.

I remember a PD asteroids type game that was in B&W 2D wireframe and I think the asteroids were just polygons, wish I could remember the name, it was really fast and great fun despite or maybe because of the primitive graphics.

[s2325]

Cabaret Asteroids? [ Show youtube player ]

[jimbob]

It was a lot like that but I don't think so. I think there was a white line border around the action with score and stuff down one side. Player ship was larger and the asteroids were regular polygons.

Point is games like that work if the thrust and inertia work well. In an artillery game, if it matters where you aim, and unexpected things happen when the walls come tumbling down, then it will be good, regardless of graphics.

[Mrs Beanbag]

I do agree with you, and I think sometimes there can be too much of a hang-up when writing Amiga versions of things, about trying to do an exact conversion of a much more modern game that only runs on ridiculous set-ups with 68060s and so forth...

One cuts one's suit according to one's cloth.

There are many new games I see, that I think, you could dispense with the 3D graphics and render it into flat 2D scrolling in 16 colours, and have all the same gameplay elements, and it would be just as much fun.

[s2325]

Outliner? [ Show youtube player ]
Hemroids? [ Show youtube player ]
Gasteroids? [ Show youtube player ]
WBsteroids? [ Show youtube player ]

[Mrs Beanbag]

Wizeroids? [ Show youtube player ]

[jimbob]

Omega race was the game I was nearly remembering, not quite asteroids but a simliar game-

[ Show youtube player ]
http://amr.abime.net/issue_329_coverdisks

[Stuckemuck]

Originally Posted by Mrs Beanbag

@Stuckermuck, ray tracing is nothing more and nothing less than pure calculation, maybe you should write a ray traced game, I'm sure it would run at 50fps!

What a nonsense, this is not an adequate comparisson. Raytracing has absolutely nothing to do with moving some objects on the screen within given physics. Sure there are lots of things an Amiga isn't capable of. But I think it's the right machine for such a task if an adequate programmer jumps on the train.