Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

Great SID Tune links, BTW!

 

Of course, you can have nice music on both systems. It would be more interesting to look at the hardware perspective on both and see if one is achievable on the other rather than what has been done.

 

 

Actually, I'd prefer to do comnparisions of the stuff that is done already. You'll clearly see the advantage of the SID for making music. Another clear thing is that the used software for POKEY music is all but perfect. POKEY's biggest suffer is the lack of analogue filters and the volume resolution. Many people blame Pokey for the 8 bit pitch resolution, but this fact is not that essential for creating music. You can build very much "tricks" for gaining similar volumes, slides etc. as SID can do. It seems, for coders it is too hard to create sufficient software. And, if you want to "top out" SID Music (not sound), you need CPU powers, leaving not enough time for other stuff then.

 

Don't both systems have 4-bit volume? Atari has four 4-bit volume controls, C64 has one so what's the lack of volume resolution?

[Rybags]

4 bit master volume and sustain level (per channel) on SID, but the actual sampled amplitude of the waveforms should be 8 bits (?)

[emkay]

4 bit master volume and sustain level (per channel) on SID, but the actual sampled amplitude of the waveforms should be 8 bits (?)

 

To be honest 4bit + 4bit is not equal to 8bit ... It's actually 5bit

 

You get more differences for sampling when using the four parallel digi voices of Pokey together

 

But, as you may hear in many SID tunes, they are faded in and out softly, after all voices are tuned together with a 4 bit volume correctness. And if the volume doesn't fit correctly at higher notes, just use the filter...

Because of a missing linearisation of the POKEY frequencies, you have already to stick to "2bit" volume regulations between low and high notes.

Only with the timed filter programming (I call it Hardsynth) you can go big steps further in volume and frequency variations , beyond the limits of the POKEY's Hardware, but you're restricted to 2 independant voices then.

[Rybags]

What I meant is that the actual waveforms that SID generates are 8 bit accuracy... e.g. you can directly sample what's going on via it's random number register, sawtooth and triangle waves will have graduated steps 1 at a time.

 

I'm not sure what happens so far as translating such samples according to master volume or sustain level - e.g. what happens if a voice is outputting level 248 at maximum sustain level of 10 with master volume at 11.

[Fröhn]

I'm not sure what happens so far as translating such samples according to master volume or sustain level - e.g. what happens if a voice is outputting level 248 at maximum sustain level of 10 with master volume at 11.

The topmost 8 bits of the oscillator is converted to analog, and the ADSR circuit output (which is far more than 4 bit) is converted to analog too. After that the ADSR signal is used to amplify the oscillator signal via analog transistors. The output of that is then filtered, added to the other channels and finally again amplified with the 4 bit volume.

[Allas]

37 - OGRE

 

Atari screenshots

 

A great strategy game, one of the best that I've played on a 8bit system, great graphics and very addictive. Atari is using the artifact colors, the screen looks very clear, similar to a Macintosh OS, and the best of all, is faster than the C64 version.

 

C64 screenshots

[potatohead]

Faster is almost always good.

 

I do think this one benefits from the C64 color timing and ability to display non-artifacted 320 pixel graphics more than the Atari does with artifacting.

 

This is the first set of screenies where I think the Atari one lacks some. The rest have all been roughly equal in some cases, and very nice on Atari for the remainder.

Edited December 29, 2008 by potatohead

[atariksi]

4 bit master volume and sustain level (per channel) on SID, but the actual sampled amplitude of the waveforms should be 8 bits (?)

 

To be honest 4bit + 4bit is not equal to 8bit ... It's actually 5bit

 

You get more differences for sampling when using the four parallel digi voices of Pokey together

 

But, as you may hear in many SID tunes, they are faded in and out softly, after all voices are tuned together with a 4 bit volume correctness. And if the volume doesn't fit correctly at higher notes, just use the filter...

Because of a missing linearisation of the POKEY frequencies, you have already to stick to "2bit" volume regulations between low and high notes.

Only with the timed filter programming (I call it Hardsynth) you can go big steps further in volume and frequency variations , beyond the limits of the POKEY's Hardware, but you're restricted to 2 independant voices then.

 

It's easy to get 5-bit DAC from using 2 4-bit DACs using STA/STX consecutively and it sounds the same as playing 5-bit samples on 8-bit DAC on Sound Blaster although the Atari one is delaying one part of the sample by 2 microseconds. You can turn off the screen and get more volume resolution by combining more than 2 DACs and using Fast pot scan/Inc/Dec method. But as far as pure 100% accurate DACs go, both machines are 4-bit volume resolution.

 

POKEY has filtering (perhaps not as much) and I would think it's musical notes would require more at least 8-bits to sample.

[atariksi]

Faster is almost always good.

 

I do think this one benefits from the C64 color timing and ability to display non-artifacted 320 pixel graphics more than the Atari does with artifacting.

 

This is the first set of screenies where I think the Atari one lacks some. The rest have all been roughly equal in some cases, and very nice on Atari for the remainder.

 

I suppose if it employed PM underlays and replicated P0/P1 they would OR with the artifacted colors (PF1) and give you more color choices and still leave you the other players for use as normal sprites. I just never counted artifacted colors since they were inconsistent between machines so it's hard to optimize for a machine. SID also had differences between their versions to prevent optimizing audio for a particular SID. That's one of the problems with lack of hardware standards in modern PCs as well.

[potatohead]

I don't know that color is at issue with this title.

 

It's spartan, where color is concerned. Clean resolution makes sense for this title, more than color does. Having what is a 160 pixel effective resolution on a color capable screen kind of hurts this particular kind of display.

 

If it were me, I would probably turn the color down to almost nothing, or run this one mono chrome on the Atari. Too many artifacts, and not well managed.

[Shawn Jefferson]

I agree, I always liked Ogre, but the screen is too "blurry". I'd rather just play it with artifacting turned off (which is what all my stuff is doing now anyway with S-video.)

[potatohead]

If this one were to be done with more color, it would be a good pan 'n scan title. Make the map bigger than the screen and move it as the player moves, maybe putting the text display as a PM HUD or something.

[Allas]

38 - PITFALL 2

 

Atari screenshots

 

This time, Atari came with a great Activision game. A second part of a well known character: Pitfall. Atari version was programmed in the same style of Activision classics, have a exclusive second map after you finished the first adventure, better graphics sprites and strong music.

 

C64 screenshots

Edited December 30, 2008 by Allas

[+Stephen]

38 - PITFALL 2

 

Atari screenshot

 

C64 screenshot

 

C64 sure looks better in this shot. The rest looks pretty much equal.

 

Stephen Anderson

Edited December 30, 2008 by Stephen

[Allas]

38 - PITFALL 2

 

Atari screenshot

 

C64 screenshot

 

C64 sure looks better in this shot. The rest looks pretty much equal.

 

Stephen Anderson

 

First, don't believe so much on screenshots, in this game you have to play at least on emulators.

You're right the C64 trees are well drawn, but it seems forgot the blue sky. The little characters along of the puzzle are painted with lot of colors on Atari version (even Pitfall Harris have 4 colors, and I count more colors on other characters). After this, take a view of the motions of the things, really you have to play some time on both platforms.

 

If this all don't convince, take in consideration Pitfall have a second giant map adventure. Only for this detail, the Atari version should be the best version. After all, the appreciations are a subjective thing. But, try, screenshots or youtube videos only say the 50%.

[xxl]

warhawk

[potatohead]

The detail in the background is a nice to have on C64, but lack of color keeps things from really standing out.

 

I don't see a significant advantage to C64 on this basis.

 

Both works could use some better use of color, IMHO. Had that been done, perhaps the level of detail would stand out better on the C64 version. Don't know.

 

We see this a lot across titles. H.E.R.O. suffers from the same deal. More busy screen as a trade off for lack of color differentiation.

 

My personal preference is for the more clean look. I'm quite sure that's just my overall bias having played the Atari ports first though.

 

Does the C64 port, include the Adventurers levels? Those were just great. You get to them after completing what is essentially the 2600 game. More sprites, more colors, more action, more challenge. Would be nice to see some screenies of those to compare. Wonder how the C64 sprites get used with all the vertical stuff happening at that point in the game, and how those compare to the Atari ones and their colors overall.

[atariksi]

38 - PITFALL 2

 

Atari screenshot

 

C64 screenshot

 

C64 sure looks better in this shot. The rest looks pretty much equal.

 

Stephen Anderson

 

First, don't believe so much on screenshots, in this game you have to play at least on emulators.

You're right the C64 trees are well drawn, but it seems forgot the blue sky. The little characters along of the puzzle are painted with lot of colors on Atari version (even Pitfall Harris have 4 colors, and I count more colors on other characters). After this, take a view of the motions of the things, really you have to play some time on both platforms.

 

If this all don't convince, take in consideration Pitfall have a second giant map adventure. Only for this detail, the Atari version should be the best version. After all, the appreciations are a subjective thing. But, try, screenshots or youtube videos only say the 50%.

 

What graphics mode is each one using?

 

You can overlay PMs at 320*200 on foreground color on Atari (and set the foreground text color as well) although it looks like it has to be at least two pixels thick to make it give a consistent color output.

[Crazyace]

They are both standard 160x200..

There's no reason for the trees not to look identical on both versions , I reckon it's probally just lazy coding ( The entire map defined as a single charset, and there being 256 chars on the c64 compared to 128 on the a8 )

In the same way - there's no reason for the sky not to be blue in the c64 version..

I actually like the way that the score and activision logo are 'overlays' on the scrolling map on the c64 version.

Maybe the A8 version came first - and looked ok compared to the 2600 original, and then the c64 version was a port of that.

[emkay]

They are both standard 160x200..

There's no reason for the trees not to look identical on both versions , I reckon it's probally just lazy coding ( The entire map defined as a single charset, and there being 256 chars on the c64 compared to 128 on the a8 )

In the same way - there's no reason for the sky not to be blue in the c64 version..

I actually like the way that the score and activision logo are 'overlays' on the scrolling map on the c64 version.

Maybe the A8 version came first - and looked ok compared to the 2600 original, and then the c64 version was a port of that.

 

Perhaps a matter of a point of view ...

On the Atari you see straight grown and healthy trees while on the C64 they look very old , broken , and sick

On the Atari all four trees look different while on the C64 always two look the same.

 

From a special point of view (thinking about horror movies or else) the C64 trees are drawn with a higher artistic achievement. But do they really fit to the game?

Well, ofcourse the Atari trees look a bit dull, but "dull" in a neutral way. Just to fill the screen for the main game, which is an action game and not a horror game.

[emkay]

Some experiment: Exchanging the sky.

 

Here you see more the intentions for the graphics drawn in the games. On the Atari some game designer drew some trees for the game.

On the C64 version, an artist used clever colours to enhance the image. He chose to use black in the background because the trees get brighter then and, additionally the C64 has not enough brown colours to finish a complete image then.

Edited December 31, 2008 by emkay

[Crazyace]

Maybe,

 

I still think it's actually a 128 char vs 256 char limitation.

[+MrFish]

They are both standard 160x200..

There's no reason for the trees not to look identical on both versions , I reckon it's probally just lazy coding ( The entire map defined as a single charset, and there being 256 chars on the c64 compared to 128 on the a8 )

In the same way - there's no reason for the sky not to be blue in the c64 version..

I actually like the way that the score and activision logo are 'overlays' on the scrolling map on the c64 version.

Maybe the A8 version came first - and looked ok compared to the 2600 original, and then the c64 version was a port of that.

 

Perhaps a matter of a point of view ...

On the Atari you see straight grown and healthy trees while on the C64 they look very old , broken , and sick

On the Atari all four trees look different while on the C64 always two look the same.

 

From a special point of view (thinking about horror movies or else) the C64 trees are drawn with a higher artistic achievement. But do they really fit to the game?

Well, ofcourse the Atari trees look a bit dull, but "dull" in a neutral way. Just to fill the screen for the main game, which is an action game and not a horror game.

 

You have a point emkay. But, I think part of this perception comes from the fact the background is black. The trees look a little more ominous at night. If a daytime background is added it doesn't look so much this way:

 

 

The Atari trees could have been done better. I think ActiVision didn't want to do much work going from the 2600 to 8-bit.

[emkay]

Maybe,

 

I still think it's actually a 128 char vs 256 char limitation.

 

Perhaps you are right with the Atari version. But I guess it is more a 16K limitation there, because the whole game has less , fitting into a 600XL or 400

On the C64 the missing sky is clearly a colour limitation, because the screen makes nor a real sense when using the blue sky. The artistic intention would be lost then, while on the A8 and in a 64K version, the sky and the trees could use the needed colours for this.

[Crazyace]

Good point...

 

Also I saw this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitfall_2

 

The Atari 5200 and Atari 8-bit versions, called the Adventurer's Edition on their title screens, are special because of the unique additional content. The programmers who were porting the game to the Commodore 64 and the two Atari platforms, took two different approaches to the task. While Tim Shotter rewrote the code from scratch for the Commodore version, Mike Lorenzen, the Atari version designer, reused David Crane's code from the 2600 version. This approach shortened the debugging process, allowing Lorenzen to add an entirely new level to the game, that would be playable after the initial game was finished.[1]

 

Marketing would not allow the two versions to be different, and demanded that the additional game be stripped from the Atari version. Instead, Brad Fregger, the producer, and the designers decided to leave it in and make it an easter egg.