That would be an interesting topic too. Let's collect games which are using more than 128 KB if there. Know few of them:
- Black Land (uses even a second CPC as memory expansion if connected via VN96)
- A Tribute to the Sisters (uses up to 4 MB in connected, depending on the source media of the game)
Any other candidates?
Can I download the full version of Sisters yet?
Interesting... what does it use 4MB for?
A CPC game that uses 4MB??? :-\
Quote from: TFM/FS on 21:30, 01 March 11
That would be an interesting topic too. Let's collect games which are using more than 128 KB if there. Know few of them:
- Black Land (uses even a second CPC as memory expansion if connected via VN96)
- A Tribute to the Sisters (uses up to 4 MB in connected, depending on the source media of the game)
Any other candidates?
QuoteCan I download the full version of Sisters yet?
??? here we go again...
Quote from: ukmarkh on 02:01, 02 March 11
Can I download the full version of Sisters yet?
Good question! I guess I will not let some anger stop me from developpment, so I will probably add some features and then release a final. Or... The actual version has already more content than the last WIP. Maybe I just release what I have now, and thats it. I need some time to decide in which way I will continue that project. My real life job keeps me extremely busy at the moment. I have to present on an important congress and I'm going to publish my research quite soon. And time is extremely short - like usually.
Quote from: Ygdrazil on 09:14, 02 March 11
A CPC game that uses 4MB??? :-\
It runs with a minimum of 128 KB, but if more RAM is connected then it will be used.
Quote from: Gryzor on 07:28, 02 March 11
Interesting... what does it use 4MB for?
First you may have realized, that 'A Tribute to the Sisters' (ATTTS, hmm... A3TS) can be ended and you are back in the OS. In contrast to most serious games it doesn't kick out the OS, it works with it together. Why is this worth being mentioned?
In case 4 MB are connected, the first 512 KB expansion RAM (which play a certain role for OS an apps) are left unchanged by A3TS. This means that any kind of background pictures, screen savers, background programs, help-systems (whatever currently installed) is still there and working when ending A3TS.
A3TS uses the OS features to check how much free expansion RAM is there and uses as much as it can get (and need).
Now, if a CPC has 128 KB RAM, then every level will be loaded from disc (or harddisc).
In case there is more than 128 KB RAM, then all sets of Graphic-Elements, sets of Sprites, Sounds and the Matrix will be loaded at the beginning. So the game need not to load anything while running. Further there are other parts you haven't seen yet (and maybe will never).
Quote from: MacDeath on 16:12, 02 March 11
??? here we go again...
Yes, let's go back to the topic. ... games able to use more than 128 KB.
Are apps of interrest too? Discology! ;)
Concerning games, I don't think more than 128K are actually implemented appart from ... well... oddities like Black Land...
A bit of a shame as a game like Pirates or Heroquest or B.A.T, this kind of games... actually using more than one Disk's Face...
could actually use them to get "no additionnal loadings"...
=faster game experience...
Concerning action games, I see few points as 128K from a 6128 are already rarely used.
But hey, why not...
Concerning "serious" softwares I don't know... they may be the more probable "massive" RAM users...
I gave a look at prices in 1990...
+64k or Ram for a 464 was easily 500Francs... 75 €uros...
This was actually quite expensive for a child.
And couldn't really be used on a 6128... most of time... as it simply took place of the existing additionnal RAM...
If I recall well the PCW used to have 256K of RAM.
It was basically a CPC sticked in mode2 overscan/fullscreen mode... and no Sound AY.
I suppose more stuff are different (ROM, memory map, etc...)
But could those 256K RAM be used by the various CP/M programms ? or just by PCW exclusiv programms ?
If so, the CPC could also benefit from this I suppose.
Can a CPC emulate a PCW ?
Quote from: MacDeath on 03:45, 03 March 11
Concerning games, I don't think more than 128K are actually implemented appart from ... well... oddities like Black Land...
Really to use more than 128k you need to use lots of content OR you need to load all files into ram for no loading.
I find creating a game that uses 64k takes a lot of time.
But extra ram can be used for some nice extras (some screens or sampled sounds or more music).
But really it can be a lot of work to use loads of ram.
Quote from: MacDeath on 03:45, 03 March 11
If I recall well the PCW used to have 256K of RAM.
It was basically a CPC sticked in mode2 overscan/fullscreen mode... and no Sound AY.
I suppose more stuff are different (ROM, memory map, etc...)
yes
Quote from: MacDeath on 03:45, 03 March 11
But could those 256K RAM be used by the various CP/M programms ? or just by PCW exclusiv programms ?
I think both
Quote from: MacDeath on 03:45, 03 March 11
If so, the CPC could also benefit from this I suppose.
How?
CPC can already benefit from 512k dk'tronics ram... so?
Quote from: MacDeath on 03:45, 03 March 11
Can a CPC emulate a PCW ?
Yes in part, but not all of the pcw hardware features.
Quote from: arnoldemu on 10:33, 03 March 11
I find creating a game that uses 64k takes a lot of time.
;D You must use excellent compression my friend!
Honestly I've the problem that 128 KB is just a tought limitation. Ok, there may be 32 KB used for V-RAM and 32 KB may be used for tiles and sprites (I just don't like sprites with too few phases / animation steps). So only 64 KB remain. They get filled up by some more sprites and directory buffering (16 K), all sounds and songs and subroutines (16 K), the matrix or map of the game (16 K let's say) and finally there are only 16 KB left for the game code and the OS. So now it's all filled up and it's time to go into more than 128 KB :o
Axelay manages well the 64k... :P
Quote from: MacDeath on 21:14, 03 March 11
Axelay manages well the 64k... :P
Yes, he does, because:
- He uses screen RAM of 32*19 Mode 1 characters, this is 1/3 of the V-RAM that is used by A3TS
- The used Gfx are quite simple (and beautiful), so they don't need much RAM
- Between the levels data must be loaded, else 64 K wouldn't be enough
- Number of Songs / Sound is also limited. 64 K is just 64 K
Aaaand again you keep on trolling, and in a perfectly viable thread. Do you realise the concept of OFF-TOPIC? ? ? ?
PS Just so that nobody thinks I've got a problem with the link, here (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php?title=Talk:Extended_RAM_Software&diff=next&oldid=66842) it is. But, TFM, really, I don't know how else to want you against this kind of stuff.
these 128kb whatever threads are getting pretty useless, so please stop the crap already and let's just get along. We all love this computer and should get us together creating a great community and not to argue among ourselves.
Quote from: trocoloco on 16:17, 04 March 11
these 128kb whatever threads are getting pretty useless, so please stop the crap already and let's just get along. We all love this computer and should get us together creating a great community and not to argue among ourselves.
I think it is useful to know which games can use or even
require 128k ram, and since it has been suggested that a 512KB ram pack could be made, it would be useful to ask, "
what features could you put in a program that used 576KB ram", and "would programmers write programs that use it".
Quote from: steve on 16:41, 04 March 11
I think it is useful to know which games can use or even require 128k ram, and since it has been suggested that a 512KB ram pack could be made, it would be useful to ask, "what features could you put in a program that used 576KB ram", and "would programmers write programs that use it".
and that should be the purpose of this thread, but I don't like where the threads are heading to. One it's already locked and this one seems to be going the same path, but honestly I hope I'm wrong about it.
Quote from: steve on 16:41, 04 March 11
I think it is useful to know which games can use or even require 128k ram, and since it has been suggested that a 512KB ram pack could be made, it would be useful to ask, "what features could you put in a program that used 576KB ram", and "would programmers write programs that use it".
This are fair and good questions. So for what do we need RAM for?
- Overscan is nice and if there is scrolling, we need 32 KB Video-RAM
- Sprites need a lot of RAM, they can be compressed, but realtime-decompress routines are not as quick as a routine to display an uncompressed sprite.
- Sprites that move over background need to be masked, to make a proper vision. So you need a mask for every sprite. About compression ... the same arguments are true as with sprites themselves.
- Number of Animations: Player Sprite can go in 4 ( or 8 ) directions, it should have 3-4 frames (animation phases). The same is the fact for enemies.
- The gfx for the background must be stored in RAM. If a game is beautiful and has detailed background gfx, then they need again a lot of RAM in addition.
If you have a small-RAM CPC: You must load data (gfx, sprites, sounds, code...) for every level new. This sucks because, you have to wait between the levels. Especially when using tape :'(
Or you can use more RAM to load more levels. In this case it's an advanatage to have memory management. ;D
To fill up 128 KB is quite easy, but to make a game running in 128 KB only is hard ;) On the other hand, if you don't use overscan; limit gfx, sprites, sounds (= usually 64 KB commercial game) the it's all fine with few KBs only.
Quote from: TFM/FS on 18:09, 03 March 11
;D You must use excellent compression my friend!
I'll say this another way.
It takes me a few months or so of work to make my games. This is if I work on it almost each day.
Bug fixing takes a lot of time and playing the game to find these bugs.
I like to mostly write a game so that it is compatible for 64k machines and if there is extra ram I try and use it for extras. But of course to add extras takes more time, not just for adding the extras, but for testing and fixing bugs.
It is almost like making 2 games.
But, the current game I am working on has a version for cpc and a version for plus.
So I took some extra time to make this possible. For this I will need to do almost 2 times the testing.
I am also thinking of some extras for 128k users, so perhaps this is almost 4 times the testing ;)
So for me, mostly it comes down to time.
Each time I write a new game I try to do more, so next time I will support more than 128k ram and load levels into it.
Thank's for sharing your insights about game developpment. What you say makes really sense ;D .
Indeed debugging is a pain in the ass back, and it uses up the most of the time. Especially with growing complexity of a game. I hate this kind of bugs, that you only see once a while ::) . If a bug can be reproduced, then it's almost fixed ;)
I wish you luck and I'm really looking forward to your next production!
Quote- Overscan is nice and if there is scrolling, we need 32 KB Video-RAM
yes but having shittons of RAM doesn't give you more CPU capability...
Quote- Sprites need a lot of RAM, they can be compressed, but realtime-decompress routines are not as quick as a routine to display an uncompressed sprite.
this onbe is quite true... Ram skip the uncompress phase so give more CPU time.
Quote- Sprites that move over background need to be masked, to make a proper vision. So you need a mask for every sprite. About compression ... the same arguments are true as with sprites themselves.
- Number of Animations: Player Sprite can go in 4 ( or 8 ) directions, it should have 3-4 frames (animation phases). The same is the fact for enemies.
- The gfx for the background must be stored in RAM. If a game is beautiful and has detailed background gfx, then they need again a lot of RAM in addition.
But having that much Data to manage/go looking for may also eat a few CPU...
Well if those are well sorted by lvl perhaps not.
Main advantage is that you may use more diversity... from lvl to lvl...
but not display far more different stuff at the same time...
If getting 5 sprites on screen is difficult in 64 or 128k, it is still in 512k Ram...
CPU time is not everything, it's just one facter. As needed as others.
About sprites: 5? If you only have two of them at the same time, then you still can have another one (enemy f.e.) every couple of screens / seconds. So diversity is granted and more RAM will allow you to bring more diversity.
Why do you think that Amiga games and AtariST games are so nice? Is it about cpu power? No, a good coder can archieve that effects nearly all with the CPC too (look gamebase). So what is it? Well, it's just the RAM and 0.7 MB disc format - IMHO 2bee nice ;)
Quite true indeed...
Atari and Miga are set at 512K... and often went to 1024K Ram...
To be "competitive" or just "proportionaly comparable" a 8bit like the good old CPC should be 256K Ram... Half...
As just the basic graphic Datas are like... Half the weight compaired to an Atari ST...
(320x200 = 32K in ST... 16K in CPC...)
No wonder 8 bit games were often poorer in gameplay or even basic complexity... and content...
To a Z80 machine 128K RAM is the bare minimum to start to exploit it well...
And it is better to have a fast disc too...
Yes 64K can be manageable...but hey... ::)
With Tape ? ;D
It was told that a game like populous couldn't be done with an 8 bit...
Perhaps with a 512K Amstrad PLUS this may be done actually.
But Sugar was so cheap on RAM.
I understand that you, as a collector, wants to have a tape-version of the game in your collection. But honestly, are you really using it? Aren't we all using discs? Does it really matter that each level requires loading?
I remember clearly that many Amiga games required lots of loading in the middle of the games. I remember because I always laughed at my kidbrother when he played his miggy games that required loading all the time, and this loading took way too long for my liking.
I'm just thinking here.... The CPC loads tape-games faster than a C64 loads disc games. And loading disc-games on the CPC is extremely fast in my opinion. Honestly, is it really that bad for you to wait 5 seconds for the next level to load?
I'm all for experimenting with apps and games that uses more memory, but looking at this thread, it seems to come down to "Well, it's annoying having only 64k when using tape"... :-X
Quote from: mr_lou on 07:30, 05 March 11I remember clearly that many Amiga games required lots of loading in the middle of the games. I remember because I always laughed at my kidbrother when he played his miggy games that required loading all the time, and this loading took way too long for my liking.
Me too ! this is maybe because i never got an Amiga , i remember a 1 vs 1 fighting game where you were more loading than playing :laugh:
Quote from: mr_lou on 07:30, 05 March 11
I understand that you, as a collector, wants to have a tape-version of the game in your collection. But honestly, are you really using it? Aren't we all using discs? Does it really matter that each level requires loading?
If we're talking about new games, i suspect that a major driving force for many coders (i'm talking generally rather than about specific platforms for a moment and basing this on folks i've interviewed over the years) is to get their games
played by as many people as possible. To that end, the most logical target would be a stock 464 simply because there isn't a machine out there that won't run your code and there'll always be a few users who don't have anything bigger.
It's like the SuperCPU for the C64; having a 20MHz 65816 and 16Mb of RAM strapped to a breadbin seems like a
fantastic playground for a coder, but producing a game that truly
utilises that capacity is difficult and, even if you do come out with something, the number of people able to play what you've written is depressingly small.
Quote from: mr_lou on 07:30, 05 March 11
I'm all for experimenting with apps and games that uses more memory, but looking at this thread, it seems to come down to "Well, it's annoying having only 64k when using tape"... :-X
Well, it could be worse... Atari 8-bit loading from tape, 48K takes about
30 minutes.
You know, despite a large number of X68000 games being multi-load, and even requiring a number of disk swaps (some RPGs span as much as 13 disks), that never really turned me off of the system. Perhaps numerous top-quality arcade ports make it worth the wait. Although most multi-disk games do have an option to install to HD (if you have one).
X68000 + MT-32 = heaven. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU9NzWDjdXs
Quote from: TMR on 11:27, 05 March 11
If we're talking about new games, i suspect that a major driving force for many coders (i'm talking generally rather than about specific platforms for a moment and basing this on folks i've interviewed over the years) is to get their games played by as many people as possible. To that end, the most logical target would be a stock 464 simply because there isn't a machine out there that won't run your code and there'll always be a few users who don't have anything bigger.
In the general case, I'd agree. It's so cheap to pick up a 6128 these days though that the extra effort to cram a game into 64K or on tape is of dubious value. Add to that the fact that pretty much everyone in the CPC scene uses an emulator at least some of the time means that a 6128 is probably an acceptable baseline.
Would the Z80 be fast enough to animate a 320x200x16 colour screen, double buffered?
With 576KB ram Amiga quality graphics might be possible as long as the Z80 has enough time to also run the game logic and sound.
QuoteTo that end, the most logical target would be a stock 464 simply because there isn't a machine out there that won't run your code and there'll always be a few users who don't have anything bigger.
I don't think the CPC6128 is so uncommon. In fact the scene has migrated to the 128k and most CPC users own one 6128. That's not the case for example for the C64 scene where C128 games/demos are very rare and everyone has sticked with the 64k. But coding a game exclusively for the 6128 won't take you away most of the CPC user base today.
Quote from: TMR on 11:27, 05 March 11To that end, the most logical target would be a stock 464 simply because there isn't a machine out there that won't run your code and there'll always be a few users who don't have anything bigger.
I remember i had this discution on another forum, maybe with you, that may be the situation in UK but in France, 6128 was very popular , maybe the CPC standard here.
Quote from: andycadley on 22:55, 05 March 11
In the general case, I'd agree. It's so cheap to pick up a 6128 these days though that the extra effort to cram a game into 64K or on tape is of dubious value. Add to that the fact that pretty much everyone in the CPC scene uses an emulator at least some of the time means that a 6128 is probably an acceptable baseline.
Pretty much everyone in the CPC scene yeah, but that isn't
everyone and there'll be folks on the "outskirts" like me (unless i've been "adopted" by the CPC scene =-) who only have a 464 - i would like to get another Amstrad at some point, but at the moment i believe the love of my life would actually
kill me if i were to try!
It's a bit like the Atari 8-bits, there are very few CTIA-based units out there since only the original 400 and 800 came fitted with them and the biggest seller, the 800XL, was always a GTIA-based unit, but even now the games coders seem to avoid using GTIA-specific graphics modes; some of that will be down to the low resolution of the modes but it's more because the best uses are software-driven and either PAL or NTSC specific so, whilst the code can be written to work on either, the graphics may not.
Quote from: Optimus on 23:56, 05 March 11
That's not the case for example for the C64 scene where C128 games/demos are very rare and everyone has sticked with the 64k.
Speaking very generally, the CPC6128 is pretty much the same beast as a CPC464 but with more RAM and a disk drive; the C128 in it's native mode is very different to the C64 so the memory models aren't compatible (BASIC RAM starts 5K further up and doesn't stop where the ROM shadows start), the way the extra RAM is handled is totally different to how a RAM expanded C64 works (an MMU instead of a DMA) and there's some extra I/O registers in previously unused space - the latter sometimes trips up otherwise working C64 code on a C128.
It is also to notice that getting a +64K for a CPC464 is no more as expensive as it was in the past...
Well perhaps...
I remember a game like Monkey Island on 16bits was easily like 5 disks...
But 16bits could be better thx to the massive extra memory (+512K...1040 total..) and a second external disk drive.
I don't know if you could load from both Disks drives at the same time though...
But you could get some music and animation played while loading...
On modern CPC world it is a bit different.
-Tapes : well... you simply don't do big games with shittons of stuffs... nor multiloads...
It is perhaps even easier to use a modern audio device and faster MP3 signal per exemple...
-3" Disks : problem is the side switch. and the quite limited storage because it was an uncommon format. Weren't DD or HD version existing on some PCW ? are those CPC compatible ?
Also do you have some method to put one such drive on a Modern PC ? I have a few spare ones I wish to put one on my PC but... I've heard it is quite difficult actually.
-3"1/2 disks : the clearly best solution.
The massive 720K give you all you need. and those diskdrives are easily availlable and cheap...
And you can still get one on your PC too.
-also the Floppy emulator... quite expensive though and less fun than a good old Floppy....
Ok, I see, loading time was/(is?) critical on Amiga and ST, but we don't have this problems on a CPC, which can load a 178 KB (one data disc) in 9 seconds. Just to mention it ;-)
That's what I'm talking about!!!!
Some Amiga/ST games, though, had the nice feature of loading the next block of game data while playing - St Dragon pops to mind.
Quote from: TFM/FS on 23:55, 11 March 11
Ok, I see, loading time was/(is?) critical on Amiga and ST, but we don't have this problems on a CPC, which can load a 178 KB (one data disc) in 9 seconds. Just to mention it ;-)
How quickly can amsdos load 64k/128k from SD card to ram?
If using BonnyDOS, practically instantly :)
Thanks for the quick reply, that speed is reason enough for me to get the hxc device as soon as I can afford it.
Well, I mean loading from a SD card put into a IDE adapter conected to Symbiface II, I have no HxC device, but I think its speed is similar to a real disk drive unit.
Quote from: steve on 20:14, 12 March 11
Thanks for the quick reply, that speed is reason enough for me to get the hxc device as soon as I can afford it.
Since the HxC is a floppy emulator, it will behave as a floppy disc. Means it's speed is similar to a disc drive, maybe a bit more quick (step rate time can be decreased).
Quote from: TMR on 11:50, 06 March 11
- i would like to get another Amstrad at some point, but at the moment i believe the love of my life would actually kill me if i were to try!
If you replace a 464 by a 6128 you just save same square inches of space :-) You love will love that ;-)
To anyone who uses the hxc device, is it significantly faster than using a real floppy disk?
Quote from: steve on 23:47, 13 March 11
To anyone who uses the hxc device, is it significantly faster than using a real floppy disk?
Steve, as TFM said, it's a floppy emulator. It still behaves like a disk drive...
Quote from: Gryzor on 17:22, 14 March 11
Steve, as TFM said, it's a floppy emulator. It still behaves like a disk drive...
Yes, I read that, are you saying that the interface is deliberately designed to take as long to load software as a mechanical floppy disk?
It seems stupid not to reduce load/save times if it is possible.
I have a floppy drive and plenty of disks, so without a speed gain there is really no reason why I should buy the hxc device.
It's not as simple, I'm afraid - I'm not very technically capable (Bryce will swoop down and berate me any second now) but I think timings are integral to the whole process...
Oh, also, believe me - having a stack of disks does not compare with having a tiny board, with a tiny SD card containing the entire library of the CPC (or ST, or Amiga)...
Quote from: steve on 02:45, 15 March 11
Yes, I read that, are you saying that the interface is deliberately designed to take as long to load software as a mechanical floppy disk?
It seems stupid not to reduce load/save times if it is possible.
I have a floppy drive and plenty of disks, so without a speed gain there is really no reason why I should buy the hxc device.
Some protections and software rely on the speed of the drive.
Perhaps this is also true on amiga, so perhaps they decided to emulate the exact speed to be the most compatible.
Quote from: arnoldemu on 10:37, 15 March 11
Some protections and software rely on the speed of the drive.
Perhaps this is also true on amiga, so perhaps they decided to emulate the exact speed to be the most compatible.
Right! Agree 100%
@Gryzor, relax, you're correct this time :D
Increasing the speed of the HxC would of course be technically possible, but it would cause major headaches. Jeff has designed it to be really compatible, not faster (Thanks Jeff). Because it's being used in everything from old oscilloscopes, keyboards (the musical ones), 8-bit machines etc, it has to react exactly like a real floppy, any change to this standard could make a whole series of devices incompatible or unreliable. The advantage of the HxC is the fact that you DON'T have to have a stack of old unreliable floppies any more. I have used / tested my HxC on several different systems, including a Tektronics TDS7104 and a LeCroy LC574AL, if the HxC wasn't 100% this wouldn't be possible.
Bryce.