DEMOs

Page 2/6
1 | | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

By st1mpy

Paladin (885)

st1mpy's picture

02-10-2022, 15:59

Would msx be able to do those cga tricks if it had a cga card? Or is it too slow compared to PCs?

By Pentarou

Champion (472)

Pentarou's picture

02-10-2022, 16:27

PingPong wrote:

My observations are only related to the tech specs, game quality is not strictly related to hw features.

No, you claim that the MSX VDP "sucks" because it can't do the tricks that other machines can.

Quote:

only in what it has to offer out of the box,

Quote:

extremely limited and hard to trick:

PingPong wrote:

I can program a sucking game even on a Gfx Card used on nowadays pc.

I don't doubt that Tongue

PingPong wrote:

the vdp it's incredibly poorly designed. .

FFS! It was done in 1979! Games weren't the main target, otherwise you would have had something similar to the Atari which was a chipset (costly!), not for sale (only atari) and it still sucked according to you.

Do you know that the arcade games of 1978~1980 (*) were all basically copies of Space invaders and/or variations running on the same hardware??
I.e. Black and white characters on a black screen with NO SCROLLING.

(*) Galaxian came out in late 1979 and it was revolutionary, but the VDP was designed prior to it.

By erpirao

Paragon (1292)

erpirao's picture

02-10-2022, 16:26

PingPong wrote:
Pentarou wrote:
Quote:

what a shitty chip is the VDP.

Maybe, but the GAMES from the machines capable do do those "tricks" sucked 35 years ago and still suck today.

My observations are only related to the tech specs, game quality is not strictly related to hw features.
I can program a sucking game even on a Gfx Card used on nowadays pc.

the vdp it's incredibly poorly designed.

For example:
take the screen 1 mode, could be a great mode without having 12KB of memory to manage, but what in the hell one could design a color attribute table of ONLY 32 Bytes? 256 bytes was a so huge waste of memory?
take the screen 3 mode: multicolor... almost useless.
take the screen 2 mode: the multiple banks could have been more useful with a minimum effort... let's try to play with it and you get sprite artifacts, based on chip temperature!!!
.... the list could be more more more lengthy ...

I think we have forgotten the year each "VDP" is released:
tms9918:1979 tms9918
Vic-II: Nov-1981 vic-II / 1981-1982
mc6845: 1980/1981
the vdp of the msx is 2 years older than the graphic systems
2 years is a long time in the world of graphics chips.

By erpirao

Paragon (1292)

erpirao's picture

02-10-2022, 16:29

st1mpy wrote:

Would msx be able to do those cga tricks if it had a cga card? Or is it too slow compared to PCs?

the amstrad CPC is z80+crtc (MC6845)+psg, and you can see that it has gotten quite a bit of performance out of it.
an msx with crtc?, similar to the amstrad CPC 464/6128

pinball dreams amstrad cpc 6128

By sd_snatcher

Prophet (3597)

sd_snatcher's picture

02-10-2022, 17:06

Again this topic? I wonder how many nearly identical threads like this we have seen in the last ~20 years...

It's always the same:

  • Idealization/super valuation of the other machines characteristics based on demo tricks
  • Ignoring the MSX strengths
  • Comparing the MSX with much more expensive hardware
  • Focusing only on the MSX1 and ignoring the other generations
PingPong wrote:

why we cannot do wonderful things on a MSX VDP ?

Yes, we can. But only when someone use their time to code, instead of wasting time arguing on forums. :)

By PingPong

Prophet (3997)

PingPong's picture

02-10-2022, 22:25

st1mpy wrote:

Would msx be able to do those cga tricks if it had a cga card? Or is it too slow compared to PCs?

the 8088 is not so incredibly faster than a z80, maybe faster due to 4.77Mhz than for the chip itself

By PingPong

Prophet (3997)

PingPong's picture

02-10-2022, 22:46

Quote:
Pentarou wrote:
PingPong wrote:

My observations are only related to the tech specs, game quality is not strictly related to hw features.

No, you claim that the MSX VDP "sucks" because it can't do the tricks that other machines can.

because of tech reasons and spec.

Quote:
PingPong wrote:

I can program a sucking game even on a Gfx Card used on nowadays pc.

I don't doubt that Tongue

ok, me too i do not have any doubt on what you can get out in terms of game quality from this marvellous piece of hw that is the tms vdp.

Quote:
PingPong wrote:

the vdp it's incredibly poorly designed. .

FFS! It was done in 1979! Games weren't the main target, otherwise you would have had something similar to the Atari which was a chipset (costly!), not for sale (only atari) and it still sucked according to you.

Do you know that the arcade games of 1978~1980 (*) were all basically copies of Space invaders and/or variations running on the same hardware??
I.e. Black and white characters on a black screen with NO SCROLLING.

(*) Galaxian came out in late 1979 and it was revolutionary, but the VDP was designed prior to it.

this is irrelevant, msx came out on 1983 they should have choosen a better alternative, even a 6845 can do better (see amstrad cpc for example, no specialized hw but better results with same vram amount).
it is clear that TMS vdp was a chip made for the purpose of improving the general quality of games like space invaders, ( the TI/99 team asked for game support ) . It was, however a failed attempt to go more far than space invaders itself.

By PingPong

Prophet (3997)

PingPong's picture

02-10-2022, 22:51

Quote:
PingPong wrote:

why we cannot do wonderful things on a MSX VDP ?

Yes, we can. But only when someone use their time to code, instead of wasting time arguing on forums. :)

while this demo is relatively impressive, for a vdp guy it simply turn pale when compared with the cga demo we had seen.
For example can you double the horizontal resolution of a vdp screen mode?
Now, start to use your time to code and let me see a 512x212 msx 1 screen mode. then I will stop arguing.

By PingPong

Prophet (3997)

PingPong's picture

02-10-2022, 22:55

Quote:

the vdp of the msx is 2 years older than the graphic systems
2 years is a long time in the world of graphics chips.

this is not only a 'date of design' problem. the V9938 is newer than the VIC-II however there are a lot of things possible on VIC-II that v9938 cannot easily achieve (like horizontal scrolling)

By sd_snatcher

Prophet (3597)

sd_snatcher's picture

02-10-2022, 23:23

PingPong wrote:

this is not only a 'date of design' problem. the V9938 is newer than the VIC-II however there are a lot of things possible on VIC-II that v9938 cannot easily achieve (like horizontal scrolling)

Another topic where people do idealized comparisons... And we already discussed this:

The V9938 and the VIC-II do scroll horizontal exactly the same way: it's just a screen offset. But while on the V9938 you have 16 pixels of offset, the VIC-II only have 8. The only advantage of the VIC-II is that it has border masking. Personally, I don't mind the panning borders. Not to mention that the CRT TV I used back then had so much overscan that the panning borders didn't even show up.

And, on the vertical scrolling, the V9938 has full screen scrolling, while the VIC-II also has only 8 pixels of offset.

Page 2/6
1 | | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6