On 26 Jun 2002 18:53:12 +0200, MagerValp <MagerV@cling.gu.se> said:
>The 2002 MiniGame 8-bit coding competition is now officially open, and >ready for your entries. For those of you who didn't participate last >year, the aim is to write a game in 1024 bytes of code, for one of the >classic 8-bit home computers. The deadline this year is 16th of >September, 12.00 GMT.
If only 1K 32-bit entries were allowed - I'm working on a nice implementation of blackjack for the Parrot virtual machine.
From: Cameron Kaiser <ckai@stockholm.ptloma.edu> -
Date: 30 Jun 2002 16:54:06 -0500
Local: Mon, Jul 1 2002 6:54 am
Subject: Re: It's time for the 2002 1K game compo
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Cantrell <use@barnyard.co.uk> writes: >>The 2002 MiniGame 8-bit coding competition is now officially open, and >>ready for your entries. For those of you who didn't participate last >>year, the aim is to write a game in 1024 bytes of code, for one of the >>classic 8-bit home computers. The deadline this year is 16th of >>September, 12.00 GMT. >If only 1K 32-bit entries were allowed - I'm working on a nice >implementation of blackjack for the Parrot virtual machine.
This reminds me. What's going on with It redirects me to a non-existent www2.parrotcode.org and I can't look at anything.
-- Cameron Kaiser * ckai@stockholm.ptloma.edu * posting with a Commodore 128 personal page: ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! ** ** **
On 30 Jun 2002 16:54:06 -0500, Cameron Kaiser <ckai@stockholm.ptloma.edu> said:
>David Cantrell <use@barnyard.co.uk> writes: >>If only 1K 32-bit entries were allowed - I'm working on a nice >>implementation of blackjack for the Parrot virtual machine. >This reminds me. What's going on with It redirects >me to a non-existent www2.parrotcode.org and I can't look at anything.
"Michael Smith" <michaelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message... > > From what I know the Atari 8bit computer are supposed to have access > > to 256 colours (don't know if they are accessible in BASIC) which if > > that statement were true would leave the other machines for dead! ;-)
> I don't remember much about Atari programming, but on my Atari XE I used to > frequently use a graphics mode in BASIC which allowed me either 64 or 128 > shades of a single color - red, green, or blue - or as many shades of > grayscale. It was very useful for my experiments with fractals and > raytracing. (Yes, raytracing. I was actually producing lighted, > texture-mapped objects with reflection and refraction on an 8-bit Atari in > BASIC! I wrote a great fractal zoomer too, with tons of optimizations to > make the render time bearable.)
I did some research into this (by digging up some of my old computer catalogues) & found one program which was written for an Atari (unfortunately it doesn't go into which model micro, but it sounds like something for the 400 or 800 series machines) which demonstrates the ability of having 256 colours on the screen at one (as opposed to having 16 colours on the screen at once @ 320x192).
Unfortunately, the only pitfall about that program is the screen resolution is dropped down to 80x96 & requires consumes a bit of space if anyone did want it as well as the copy I have in this magazine seems to look incomplete! Bad Show fellas :-(
Still, 16 colours on screen out of a possible 256 selections is pretty good considering my machine can manage max 16 colours out of 27! (But I've lived with it happily like that!)
Incidentally I'm not too sure about the full capabilities of the Atari XE (I'll check out oldcomputers.com museum which will refresh me of course), however I do believe that my Atari 7800 is the console equivalent of the Atari XE & from what I have to go by, there are some pretty serious graphics/colour capabilities which it can accomplish.
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Ross Simpson wrote: > Naturally I had the same views of writing a small game for the > Amstrad, but I'm pretty sure I won't be able to get a sprite routine & > a couple of sprites crammed into 1024 bytes. It would have to look > more like a man avoiding a bouncing star ('*') if I were to write one.
Hint: Use XOR mode sprites. Or a Plus machine.
> From what I know the Atari 8bit computer are supposed to have access > to 256 colours (don't know if they are accessable in BASIC) which if > that statement were true would leave the other machines for dead! ;-)
Nah, the CPC+ can run rings round it. So can the SAM Coupe, probably.
> > From what I know the Atari 8bit computer are supposed to have access > > to 256 colours (don't know if they are accessable in BASIC) which if > > that statement were true would leave the other machines for dead! ;-)
> Nah, the CPC+ can run rings round it. So can the SAM Coupe, probably.
They probably can, but you're not really comparing like with like...
The Atari 8-bit line was released in 1979, compared to 1990 for the CPC+ and 1992 for the SAM. Considering it's at least 10 years older it can certainly give some of the newer 8-bit machines a run or their money.
From: Richard Kilpatrick <rich@dmc12.demon.co.uk> -
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 22:44:52 +0100
Local: Tues, Jul 2 2002 6:44 am
Subject: Re: It's time for the 2002 1K game compo
|
|
|
|
|
|
In article <afqf7m$ggp8@ID-97241.news.dfncis.de>, Mike Wynne <mikey@hotmail.com> writes
>The Atari 8-bit line was released in 1979, compared to 1990 for the CPC+ and >1992 for the SAM. Considering it's at least 10 years older it can certainly >give some of the newer 8-bit machines a run or their money.
Actually, the SAM predates the CPC+ and was release in 1989. I had one of the first.
The Enterprise kicks both of their asses, anyway - the CPC thoroughly, and the SAM by way of being four years older (actually, five, but the time taken to get the design finalised...).
Richard -- Classic Consoles: Atari Jaguar, NES, Atari Lynx II |\ _,,,---,,_ Philips NMS8250/MSX-Audio/2 x 720k, 256k /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;, Apples? |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::. Music? '----''(_/--' `-'\_)Morticia
"Richard Kilpatrick" <rich@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
...
> Actually, the SAM predates the CPC+ and was release in 1989. I had one > of the first.
I stand corrected. Blame as I took the dates from them without thinking about it. Still, even in 1989 the Atari 8 bit machines had been out for a decade.
> The Enterprise kicks both of their asses, anyway - the CPC thoroughly, > and the SAM by way of being four years older (actually, five, but the > time taken to get the design finalised...).
Ahhh, I always wanted an Enterprise if only for the natty little joystick.
Mike Wynne wrote: > Ahhh, I always wanted an Enterprise if only for the natty little joystick.
Yep, I liked the keyboard design, and the hardware appeared to be pretty damn good as well. Shame that it was delayed and released late otherwise it would have had some success I am sure.
The CPC+ was a cost-reduced CPC with extra features. It might have been made in 1990 or whenever, but the featureset could have been done many years earlier if Amstrad hadn't been messing around with the Spectrum and had invested some time in making a computer to compete with the Atari and Amiga in the late 80's and early 90's.
Mike Wynne wrote: > Ahhh, I always wanted an Enterprise if only for the natty little joystick.
Yep, I liked the keyboard design, and the hardware appeared to be pretty damn good as well. Shame that it was delayed and released late otherwise it would have had some success I am sure.
The CPC+ was a cost-reduced CPC with extra features. It might have been made in 1990 or whenever, but the featureset could have been done many years earlier if Amstrad hadn't been messing around with the Spectrum and had invested some time in making a computer to compete with the Atari and Amiga in the late 80's and early 90's.