CPCWiki forum

In case you've been living under a rock, over the last 6 years, a privileged group of 10K Spectrum fans (0,2% of the 5M Spectrums sold) has been creating and playing ugly multi-colored games in a weird, cheating machine called ZXnext.

Just kidding! I love the ZX Spectrum. I just don't know how to feel about the Next. Games look ugly to me, it's like they don't know what to do with all those colors.  ;D

I feel like it's kind of cheating, I can't consider it a Spectrum. But I understand people may like to create a backwards compatible machine able to play Wolfenstein 3D in one of the 3.5, 7, 14 and 28mhz selectable modes with the 256 colors. According to Mobygames, there are 40 games released for it.

What do you think about it? Would you buy a potential CPCnext?

We already have the Plus which is far from being exploited enough. Do we really need a Next?

Yeah, I think one of the problems with the ZX Next, in my opinion at least, is that they added so much to it that it's hard to see who it's really aimed at. It's full of Amiga like features but people who are interested in ZX games don't really want Amiga games.

I think I'd be more interested in FPGA technology being used to recreate a Plus machine that could be plugged into modern displays, with some expansion possibilities as the ZX Next has.

 I like doing stuff with the CPC not despite its limitations but because of them. If a CPCnext removes the limitations, the fascination is gone and - except for a pseudo brand loyalty - there is no reason to stick to the CPCnext. There is already a system that is better and/or has better software support than even a CPCnext can provide. 

A modern CPC model superior to the 6128 Plus would be nice.  
With VGA and HDMI ports and a graphics mode that would go beyond the limitations of earlier CPC models; e.g. 640×480 in 256 colors. 
The new CPC will have included all that external hardware that is there for regular CPCs (WiFi,Ethernet,MP3,Mouse,Speech...) and also the ability to use CP/M without limitation of HardDisk or SD space. 
And of course compatible with earlier models as far as possible.  :D

I'd like one, but much more limited than the Spectrum Next. "Just"  give me a machine where I can select among all models, add modern connectivity and some of the community add ons built in. 

I would prefer a new version of Gate Array for old CPC, which gives it capabilities of PLUS models, or with Z80 replacement by R800 like in MSX TyrboR, which executes code in fewer clocks even without frequency overclocking. Thats seems like a lot of joy. :)

As for NEXT, I am afraid the keybord will be similar for more popular 464, which I have never liked of this model or its colorful keyboard with a strange place for arrows keys. I will not buy computer for sentimental reason if it will be ugly.

I got my ZX Spectrum Next some weeks ago and TBH I really like this machine! Somehow it has everything you can dream about, (nearly) fully compatibility to the original machines as well as very usefull and powerful expansions and add-ons.
Unlike the CPC the Spectrum already got some power-ups in the past, so the Spectrum scene is somehow already used to it (Sam Coupe already end of the 80ies, Pentagon and many others in the 90ies, ZXUno in the 2010er, ZX Vegas, finally TBBlue and Next). Yes, there is the CPC+, but it mainly only added sprites.

IMHO compared to the Spectrum or the MSX scene the CPC scene appears to be more conservative ("WTF, it uses more than 64K? No, that's not a CPC anymore!").

I would like to have a CPC Next with at least...
- all CPC Plus features
- 1MB Ram or more
- enough Rom
- Z80 with 4/8/16/32MHz
- Mass storage (I would prefer Usifac/Albireo or SF2 compatibility)
- Mouse, RTC, Wifi
Beside the faster Z80 all this is already there today, so such a CPC Next should have it for sure.

Would be cool to have some new graphic and music capabilities as well. Even all this is already available (PlayCity, V9990/Graphics9000, OPL4/MoonSound, Willy), but here I think it's more difficult to select what really makes most sense, and will it turn it into a different machine.

Anyway I will enjoy my Spectrum Next now, I never thought that a Z80 could handle 80KB Vram without problems :D

@ZorrO, IMHO they made a good job with the Spectrum Next keyboard, e.g. the Cursor keys are placed at the best position. Of course a CPC Next should not have the strange placement of the 464.

I have a FPGA solution already that can do the CPC reasonably well (at a good price), and I don't really use it that much TBH.

So if the "next" part of it implies some sort of evolution, I don't think I'll like it because, what for? We have PCs already, isn't it?

That said, I see the Next and things like that in the same market as the fantasy consoles. They are neat and fun, but is not a speccy/CPC/whatever. It is a new thing!

Well, there were quite a few 'CPCng' projects, but not one them them was fully fledged and is still available.

Yes, a CPCnext would awesome! Of course, why not!

However, for a real FutureOS power machine I would have the following setup in mind:
(actually that's quite similar to what was posted before...)

- (Very) well compatibility to CPC6128 and if possible 6128plus (or at least parts of it)

- 4 MB of RAM
- RAM banking fully compatible to CPC6128; and maybe an enhanced mode to allow to select independant 16 KB blocks for 0, 4000, 8000 and C000

- A minimum of 512 KB Flash-ROM (better 1 MB or more for future expansions, games etc)

- Compatibility to the M4 expansion, or at least its SD card mass storage part

- Turbo mode (as quick as it's doable)

- Mouse compatible to SF2

- RTC (compatible to one of the existing solutions)


In general I would love to see that existing expansions are supported in the new CPCnext design.

In case somebody will develop a CPCnext I would gladly like to support funding the project.

Quote from: reidrac on 13:59, 02 January 24That said, I see the Next and things like that in the same market as the fantasy consoles. They are neat and fun, but is not a speccy/CPC/whatever. It is a new thing!

I strongly dislike those fantasy consoles. Everyone and his dog could create one, I don't get the buzz for them. 

Instead of a Next I'd rather have a modern replica board for CPC Plus similar to Evolution 64,C64 Reloaded, or Ultimate 64 with modern connection ports added of course.

I knew Joseph White before he made the PICO-8 when we were both NZers living in Tokyo, and everything about it is the most Joseph thing. It perfectly encapsulates all the game design ideals and philosophies he has had since forever. His own personal development tools were similar. If you've ever tried PICO-8, it you'll know it's great fun. If you ever knew Joseph you'd know it's so totally Joseph. Everything about it is designed to encourage you to finish and share your ideas quickly. The limitations are intended to keep things light and stop you from digging yourself too deep a hole.

Overclocking the z80 would benefit some games for sure, but my (limited) understanding is that this task is made hopeless by the way the CPU integrates with the Gate Array on the CPC. And besides that, the CPC already has its Next with the Plus machines which still need WAY more games.

But yeah, a new 6128 Plus board with a bit more memory and modern ports would be nice.

Currently, the closest thing to an Amstrad Next would be a CPC equipped with a lot of RAM, a sound card [ playcity, OPL4, or OPL3LPT, and the V9990 accelerator, running under SymBOS with the Quiqs environment system you can make good and wonderful games.

On the other hand we have the CPC X64 project from @TotO  which is a super CPC with many built-in expansions, I don't know how the project will be currently.

https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/amstrad-cpc-hardware/cpc-x64/

Feels like this is the general consensus, but I'll add my voice anyway - I'm not interested in a Next like the Spectrum Next. But I'd love an FPGA-based, upgraded Plus machine. My dream spec would be something like

• 6128 Plus base spec with cartridge port (but no disk/tape)
• 1MB Plus-compatible RAM (2 or 4 if it wouldn't raise costs considerably, but 1 is enough)
• 1MB configurable ROM, including low ROM
• Gotek disk emulation
• Tape emulation via TZXDuino-alike
• M4 mass storage, wifi and cartridge emulation
• PlayCity support with pre-mixed output
• True USB HID mouse support, switchable between SF3 and AMX mouse protocols
• USB gamepad support
• Custom Plus-layout keyboard with Cherry MX switches
• Buffered HDMI output with scan emulation for those tricky games/demos
• Centronics printer, expansion and disk ports with built-in A/B disk switch
• Optional: Configurable via web interface
• Optional: Debuggable via web interface
• Optional: Snapshot support via web interface

I'm not a superfan of fantasy consoles, but I kind of prefer them to "next" machines because they don't pretend to be 8 bit computers released in the 16 bit era with totally unrealistic specs that were either impossible in 1990 or would have caused an extremely high price.

I mean, let's look at the ZX Spectrum Next specs and see how many of them would have been possible in the 4th gen era:

• Processor: Z80 on FPGA SLX16, Normal and Turbo modes 7MHz, 14Mhz & 28MHz
• Memory: 2MB RAM
• Video: Hardware sprites, 256 colours mode, Timex 8×1 mode etc.
• Video Output: RGB, VGA, HDMI
• Storage: SD Card slot, with DivMMC-compatible protocol
• Audio: 3x AY-3-8912 audio chips with stereo output
• Joystick: 2x DB9 compatible with Cursor, Kempston and Interface 2 protocols (selectable)
• PS/2 port: Mouse with Kempston mode emulation and an external keyboard
• Special: Multiface functionality for memory access, savegames, cheats etc.
• Tape support: Mic and Ear ports for tape loading and saving
• Expansion: Original external bus expansion port and accelerator expansion port
• Network: ESP8266 WiFi module
• Extras: Real Time Clock

Without looking too much, the SD card and 2MB of RAM would be impossible and the CPU mode switching and multiple audio chips would have probably been too expensive.

It kind of feels like cheating, I would take these machines more seriously if they were designed realistically for the 16 bit experience they offer, simulating an actual machine released at the time.

By the way, it looks like the C64 is about to receive an almost-next-successor with the Commander X16, which would NOT be compatible with the C64 but it would use 6502 processors (C64's 6510 is an advanced version of it) just like the ZX Next uses Z80 based ones.

I love the CPC and the CPC games, so why have a thing that is not a CPC? To play better quality games I have a PC and a PS5.

The idea of a CPCnext is just awesome! It's the logical next step in evolution. And it can have all the little and great improvements we wish for (and didn't get back the day, because of different reasons).

Maybe someone is scared by such a computer - being compatible and strongly extended. Well, that's ok, but let the other users please keep their dreams.  :)

In an world with limited resources such a CPCnext could be a real game changer.

However, especially it's a dream of some of us since a very long time

Let this dream come true!

Why not just take the AgonLight2 for this ?

https://www.olimex.com/Products/Retro-Computers/AgonLight2/open-source-hardware

It´s fast, it´s cheap and since it's using an ez80 a good programmer could adapt the CPC OS so it may even be backwards compatible (well, sort off), I began to design a nice case for it some time ago and adding a keyboard should be doable as well (in the same case of course) ...

I would like to see more CPC games updated for the Plus, but right now I would be happy just to be able to get a flash cart for it.

Quote from: SkulleateR on 01:58, 04 January 24Why not just take the AgonLight2 for this ?

It can't do classic memory banking. It won't be able to emulate the ROM or RAM switching of the CPC.
You can only switch between whole 64K ram banks when running in Z80 mode.
For more flexible RAM handling you have to work in the 24bit eZ80 mode, and here everything is a little bit different compared to the normal Z80.

I am one of those that does not really see the point in the Spectrum Next, the C64 Super CPU, etc. The beauty of the old machines, for me, is that they have certain limitations that every user has to accept.

That said, and in line with several comments above, I would not mind a "modern" Amstrad with the following:

-          512KB of RAM or even more (why not, memory extensions were available back in the days)
-          Plus capabilities, including cartridge port.
-          Turbo mode, with a Z80 that can run at 4 or 8 Mhz (many old games would benefit from the improved frame rate)
-          Native SD Card/USB reader (plus the usual floppy drive). With three/four of these you could have in practice "hard drives" and two floppy drives.
-          Upgradeable ROMs
-          Basic ethernet connectivity for the upgrades
-          Modern video output (digital and analogic)
-          External keyboard and mouse support

All the above is already a lot, but I think I would still consider it an Amstrad. Actually, and awesome one :D .

There are always these three types of demands:

1.) only the original CPC and not more; 128K might already be evil; but, please, old games should be selected and started in a very comfortable and fast way

2.) original CPC with all kind of "legal" expansions, which were already kind of available in the 80ies and still have modern versions (mainly RAM/ROM, mass storage, mouse, network interface and some more)

3.) enhanced CPC with faster CPU and really new features, especially graphic and sound, which didn't exist before, and of course all you have with [2]

For [1] you can use an old CPC + Gotek, M4Board, Usifac II; No need for developing a new machine.
For [2] you can use an old CPC + SF2, SF3, RSF3, Albireo, Ulifac, M4Board, Multiplay, Gemini etc.; when developing a new machines with such features it should have a HDMI output, too, for sure.
For [3] you could already use [2] + V9990, OPLx, MP3MSX etc.; Or you design something new like the Spectrum Next

If I got it correctly people in this thread like these types...

1: eto, abalore
1-2: dodogildo, cwpab
2: Gryzor, Anthony Flack, Cwiiis, ||C|-|E||
2-3: ZorrO, Prodatron
3: Neurox66, Gunhed, XeNoMoRPH

Please correct me, if I am wrong :D

My personal experience is, that having a new small and complete machine which already includes the most important expansions and an optionally faster CPU and is still expandable, makes much fun. Somehow the OCM is still my favourite MSX computer and now the Next will be my favourite Spectrum computer. Having a new compact CPC machine with the features of [2] or [3] would be cool and would follow the way, which the MSX and Spectrum guys already went.

I tend to the 3. but more like an Ultimate 64 principle. A fully CPC compatible design with modern connection (HDMI, network , USB e.g.) and an original expansion port to connect all the board you like today.

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 01:43, 03 January 24Everything about it is designed to encourage you to finish and share your ideas quickly.

Your comment made me curious so I took a not-so-deep dive into fantasy consoles and must admit that it makes perfect sense to have them as rapid prototyping/creation tools for games. I even feel intrigued to give one of them a go for exactly that. So far, I only encountered them as a demo platform and it always felt somewhat fake to me, a bit like cheating even. Thanks for the slight (unintentional) nudge towards some kind of reconciliation with them.

Quote from: HAL6128 on 15:49, 04 January 24I tend to the 3. but more like an Ultimate 64 principle. A fully CPC compatible design with modern connection (HDMI, network , USB e.g.) and an original expansion port to connect all the board you like today.

+1

Quote from: Prodatron on 14:53, 04 January 24There are always these three types of demands:
1.) only the original CPC and not more; 128K might already be evil; but, please, old games should be selected and started in a very comfortable and fast way
2.) original CPC with all kind of "legal" expansions, which were already kind of available in the 80ies and still have modern versions (mainly RAM/ROM, mass storage, mouse, network interface and some more)
3.) enhanced CPC with faster CPU and really new features, especially graphic and sound, which didn't exist before, and of course all you have with [2]
For [1] you can use an old CPC + Gotek, M4Board, Usifac II; No need for developing a new machine.
For [2] you can use an old CPC + SF2, SF3, RSF3, Albireo, Ulifac, M4Board, Multiplay, Gemini etc.; when developing a new machines with such features it should have a HDMI output, too, for sure.
For [3] you could already use [2] + V9990, OPLx, MP3MSX etc.; Or you design something new like the Spectrum Next
If I got it correctly people in this thread like these types...
1: eto, abalore
1-2: dodogildo, cwpab
2: Gryzor, Anthony Flack, Cwiiis, ||C|-|E||
2-3: ZorrO, Prodatron
3: Neurox66, Gunhed, XeNoMoRPH
Please correct me, if I am wrong :D
My personal experience is, that having a new small and complete machine which already includes the most important expansions and an optionally faster CPU and is still expandable, makes much fun. Somehow the OCM is still my favourite MSX computer and now the Next will be my favourite Spectrum computer. Having a new compact CPC machine with the features of [2] or [3] would be cool and would follow the way, which the MSX and Spectrum guys already went.

Hey, it's the topic starter here. I'm glad this turned out to be a fun thread. I have a great ability to bring up topics that engage users and leave them actively discussing (not only in this forum). I wish I could dedicate to that professionaly somehow (fortunately my job is semi-fun too).

However, I'm not a hardware or sofware expert and I can only do some basic (VB) programming, so I'm afraid I'm not the guy some are looking for to start a CPCnext project (I received a PM about this). But I'm glad you liked my idea.

I have been classified as "1-2". It took me a while to understand that it was not clear if I was "1" or "2". I spent almost a minute looking for option "1-2".

So to clarify, I would be closer to option 2. But I think it would be interesting to explain my views further. I would basically just find accetable 2 options:

OPTION 1 (IMPOSSIBLE, PERHAPS ONLY AS VIRTUAL MACHINE): We would basically try to "pretend Amstrad released a successor to the CPC in the 16 bit era" and create a realistic machine based on that. But this is impossible for multiple reasons: 1) Amstrad didn't release their own non-PC and potentially CPC-compatible 16 bit computer back in the day for solid financial reasons, 2) I don't think you can make a CPC-compatible 16 bit machine with 90s components without including an actual CPC inside, which would make the machine even less realistic due to its price and size and 3) you can't even find today some of the components that were available 30 years ago, so you would need to manufacture them or emulate them somehow.

OPTION 2 (POSSIBLE, BUT NOT POPULAR AMONG YOU GUYS): So discarding option 1, that would only be possible via a "fantasy CPC2" but not in physical format and in any case it would always be unrealistic due to its price, the only remaining option would be to change the approach. What do I mean? What I mean is... Let's be honest, these machines are basically very powerful in some things and very limited in others. That's the reason why I instinctively reject them, just like I reject the fantasy console PIKO8 but I wouldn't mind a realistically designed, similar fantasy console that pretended to be desigend and manufactured in the 80s. It's like the ZXnext and potential CPCnext were trying to confuse our minds by using an old, unnecessary design and look so that we can forget about the computer neither being truly "old" nor "new"... a strange bastard. But what if, instead, we went all practical and released a MODERN computer that's actually USEFUL and offers NEW, ORIGINAL FEATURES that you can't find on Windows or Linux? And what if this computer had an FPGA inside to make it perfectly compatible with the CPC, but also offering a built-in Churrera and other easy visual programming environments? And what if the "modern mode" allowed to create 2D and 3D games in a very simple way (something that Unity probably already does?) to allign with Alan Michael Sugar initial CPC vision (he wanted a computer where people could easily program)? This computer woulnd't look so cute as the typical retro-inspired machine, but it could have AMSTRAD logos and most importantly, it could have a reason to exist besides nostalgia.

Of course, if what we want is artificial limitations to program games, then I suggest a fantasy console with 2 modes: one that's basically Vectrex-like with no colors and other that allows for multiple colors, but it's only on text mode. But that would be material for another topic. Yes, I also checked fantasy consoles... I saw a list of about 40 and started checking them, but 99% of them were cancelled and have 0 games for them. There are only 2 or 3 alive including PIKO8. I recommend watching this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHZi1JMjr4

Here's another interesting video about fantasy consoles and more precisely PICO-8, a conference by the creator himself where he explains how he designed the whole thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87jfTIWosBw

To be honest I never saw the allure behind fantasy consoles, either. But at some point I bought Pico8 as part of a bundle and decided to take a look, and for a while I was hooked with all the awesome little games that came out for such a limited system...

I know that Joseph would have made his fantasy console even if nobody was interested... in fact he DID make it before anybody was interested. It was a natural evolution of the tools he was using to make his own games. The fact that other people jumped on the idea has muddied the water a bit, but the proof that PICO-8 was a good idea was that it achieved exactly what it set out to do... it is fun to use, has an identifiable style, there's lots of cool things written for it and they are easy to share. I particularly like Birds With Guns.

I know Joseph would have laboured for ages over the PICO-8 colour palette, and I do think it's about the best 16 colour palette I've seen anywhere. It's much more flexible than the CPC's 27 colour palette... and probably not a bad starting point if you were choosing a palette for a Plus game. 

Quote from: dodogildo on 19:51, 02 January 24Instead of a Next I'd rather have a modern replica board for CPC Plus similar to Evolution 64,C64 Reloaded, or Ultimate 64 with modern connection ports added of course.

Zaxon already makes a range of such for CPC.  

I think the mega65 is currently and potentially the best existing cpc next. It has the actual hardware everyone wants, or at least capable to implement it within its fpga.  It already has a spectrum core, oddly no cpc core yet.  If a core was ported perhaps from minimum but extended to support more CPC hardware, how awesome would that be?

4mb ram, 1mb rom, amdrum, mouse, play city, multiplay, m4 etc...

I like the Mega65 project but somehow it's too expensive (here you pay 800€), that's behind a psychological barrier I have for such actual copies/emulators of original old machines.

800 Euro an no CPC core?  :-\

For those who say an Amstrad CPC Next wouldn't be an Amstrad CPC - why do you say that?

Is a 2024 PC a PC?
is an Amiga 4000 an Amiga?
is an Amstrad 6128 Plus an Amstrad?

Is it because the company name?  Something else?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it as good as a duck?
Now... if that duck had the suit from the Aliens in the Greatest American Hero, is it still a duck?

Quote from: zhulien on 13:25, 24 January 24For those who say an Amstrad CPC Next wouldn't be an Amstrad CPC - why do you say that?

Is a 2024 PC a PC?
is an Amiga 4000 an Amiga?
is an Amstrad 6128 Plus an Amstrad?

Is it because the company name?  Something else?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it as good as a duck?
Now... if that duck had the suit from the Aliens in the Greatest American Hero, is it still a duck?

It's that it just wouldn't really be the same thing. You can slap the brand name on, but it doesn't really make it one.

Just as I could take a modern PC running Windows 11, slap the Commodore Amiga brand on it and sell it. Would it really be "an Amiga"? In the literal sense, yes, but since it doesn't really share the heritage of limitations it wouldn't really feel like one to the fans.

But, for the most part, whether it's a "real CPC" or not is kind of irrelevant. If you put enough memory, CPU power and other hardware extensions (ala the Spectrum Next) it just becomes boring to program for. Go too far beyond what stock 8-bit machines can do and all the challenge disappears and you might just as well be writing PC software.

It is funny what you say, for example, Macs have gone from x68000 and family, to PowerPc, to Intelx86, and now to Apple M processors.., and switching from Mac OS to X , very different OS. Is it a Mac yet?

I have seen projects like MSX VR... and, in the end, I prefer having a CPC while it last or emulator when not possible.. 

Well PC and Mac were always fairly boring machines. They don't really fall into the "home computer" bracket, machines which were much more about squeezing every ounce of performance out of low cost hardware.

When you try doing things with a 1985PC or 1985MAC, the experience is something totally different from a 2024 machine. The 2024PC and the 1985PC (or Mac) just share the "name". 

The question for me is: what would I do with a CPCnext? What would it solve? Would there be a reason for me to use the CPCnext and not the PC?

Quote from: eto on 00:14, 25 January 24Would there be a reason for me to use the CPCnext and not the PC?

But why compare it with a PC? Pimped clones of other retro machines have nothing to do with a PC either.
A fully expanded CPC with all the new hardware we have now and an optional overclocked Z80 inside a neat case, I think that is what is meant with a CPCnext.

I suppose that sooner or later CPC-Next will be created and I am very curious how it will sell. Let's remember that Spectrums and clones were sold 20 million worldwide, and CPCs only 3-4 million. So they don't have as many fans.

Quote from: Prodatron on 01:03, 25 January 24

Quote from: eto on 00:14, 25 January 24Would there be a reason for me to use the CPCnext and not the PC?

But why compare it with a PC? Pimped clones of other retro machines have nothing to do with a PC either.
A fully expanded CPC with all the new hardware we have now and an optional overclocked Z80 inside a neat case, I think that is what is meant with a CPCnext.

Because if you pimp it up as much as the Spectrum Next, that becomes the obvious comparison. When you start getting up to Amiga level graphics and beyond, or have huge amounts of RAM the question arises "Why not just code for the PC instead?" It just isn't like coding for an 8-bit machine any more.

I saw an interesting interview with the creator of the Pico 8 fake console and he spent a lot of time having to deliberately cripple what was possible, because adding too many capabilities made it boring. Being constrained by the "hardware" kept the possibility of being able to produce something as a lone developer that still feels impressive.

First we need the have an CPCultimate or PlusUltimate. Then we will see what we can do with it.

And about the PC discussion: Lots of tasks I perform with my expanded CPC / Plus setup and not with a PC - for good reasons.

Quote from: Prodatron on 01:03, 25 January 24But why compare it with a PC? Pimped clones of other retro machines have nothing to do with a PC either.
A fully expanded CPC with all the new hardware we have now and an optional overclocked Z80 inside a neat case, I think that is what is meant with a CPCnext.

I am fully aware of that. What I meant is: I personally (very important, can be different for someone else) have no use-case for a 100x faster CPC. Well... not true... I would appreciate a nice and fast UI which is more or less a comfortable launcher application for all the great stuff. But I would not pay 800€ for that and I don't see a need (for myself) for anything serious on the CPCnext as there probably always my PC or Laptop will still win in terms of features or usability over anything that will happen on the CPCnext. 

Having said that: If someone else sees that differently, it's fine. Just don't expect everyone in the community will want one. 

Regarding a Super-CPC: I somehow have the gut feeling this could be achieved with something similar to the PiStorm on the Amiga or Atari. Remove the CPU and connect a Raspberry based device to the expansion bus which simulates the Z80 + additional RAM and other hardware. GateArray inside of the CPC just continues to work, however the CPC-Storm would emulate it in parallel, so a connection to the HDMI of the Raspi shows a perfect CPC screen. While in compatible mode it behaves exactly like a CPC with 512K but enhance modes could leverage the full power of the PiStorm - more RAM, faster CPU or even a SuperGateArray mode with completely new possibilities, while using the rest of the CPC for I/O. Such a device would cost less than 50€ + Raspi, it would still "feel like a CPC" even if it's true power only can be leveraged with kind of emulation. 

But a lot of work required and a few people with the right skills, dedication and time would be required. Which is unlikely to happen...

Quote from: andycadley on 13:39, 24 January 24

Quote from: zhulien on 13:25, 24 January 24For those who say an Amstrad CPC Next wouldn't be an Amstrad CPC - why do you say that?

Is a 2024 PC a PC?
is an Amiga 4000 an Amiga?
is an Amstrad 6128 Plus an Amstrad?

Is it because the company name?  Something else?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it as good as a duck?
Now... if that duck had the suit from the Aliens in the Greatest American Hero, is it still a duck?

It's that it just wouldn't really be the same thing. You can slap the brand name on, but it doesn't really make it one.

Just as I could take a modern PC running Windows 11, slap the Commodore Amiga brand on it and sell it. Would it really be "an Amiga"? In the literal sense, yes, but since it doesn't really share the heritage of limitations it wouldn't really feel like one to the fans.

But, for the most part, whether it's a "real CPC" or not is kind of irrelevant. If you put enough memory, CPU power and other hardware extensions (ala the Spectrum Next) it just becomes boring to program for. Go too far beyond what stock 8-bit machines can do and all the challenge disappears and you might just as well be writing PC software.

Quote from: andycadley on 13:39, 24 January 24Just as I could take a modern PC running Windows 11, slap the Commodore Amiga brand on it and sell it. Would it really be "an Amiga"? In the literal sense, yes, but since it doesn't really share the heritage of limitations it wouldn't really feel like one to the fans.

Quote from: andycadley on 13:39, 24 January 24Just as I could take a modern PC running Windows 11, slap the Commodore Amiga brand on it and sell it. Would it really be "an Amiga"? In the literal sense, yes, but since it doesn't really share the heritage of limitations it wouldn't really feel like one to the fans.

Quote from: andycadley on 13:39, 24 January 24Just as I could take a modern PC running Windows 11, slap the Commodore Amiga brand on it and sell it. Would it really be "an Amiga"? In the literal sense, yes, but since it doesn't really share the heritage of limitations it wouldn't really feel like one to the fans.

I am an Amiga fan, and...  I still use Amiga 500 and Mac Mini with MorphOS - and I would say other than the brand... the Mac Mini with MorphOS is an Amiga

Quote from: andycadley on 23:30, 24 January 24Well PC and Mac were always fairly boring machines. They don't really fall into the "home computer" bracket, machines which were much more about squeezing every ounce of performance out of low cost hardware.

To me you hit the nail on the head.  To me They are business machines and boring.  Amiga, Amstrad CPC, Spectrum, C64 and all the other cool home computers are home computers.  A Super CPC to me is still a home computer - with a CPC flavour.

i REALLY want a cool home computer - and my favourite one is a CPC...  A modern more advanced CPC would be awesome.  I don't want more PCs.  I have them for my job - they are like a tool.  My CPC is for fun.  Like an XBox or a Playstation, they are fun also - but my CPC isn't only about games, but includes cool games too.  If XBox or Playstation had BASIC and a keyboard (like a Saturn and PS2), then maybe they would start to be more fun in the non-games arena.

So if someone gave you an Amiga 500 and told you it was a "Super CPC" - would that be a satisfying solution?

If it is, why not just program for the Amiga? If not, what is it that makes the difference? Where is the point that just beefing the spec of the hardware stops it being a CPC? I'm not sure you'll ever get consensus on that point, but I do think it's interesting that some people don't seem to see a limit.

It's my opinion, though not everyone agrees, that the Spectrum Next goes too far. But I don't see the problem with machines like the CPC+ or SAM Coupé, to me they're faithful enough to the original design and not so far advanced that they're still "1 person project" machines. YMMV of course.

Launching UI...

We have a few of them already...

How would your ideal UI look a like?

Talking about... Ultimate. The Ultimate64 has the goal to emulate the C64 with modern technology, nothing more. You can expand it, of course, with all the expansion you want as it is on original one.
Very attractive idea.

After several weeks, it looks like someone (1 of 38) finally voted for the "I would prefer a PCWnext" option.

Congratulations! You're the most original voter of this poll. I'm 99% sure it was a joke, but just in case... What would you add to the PCWnext? 3D text? Ray tracing in black and white? An OS intro with this song (https://youtu.be/7OgH3B49_E4?si=0VBevqoSkU6NnetQ)?

The CPC+ isn't some retro fantasy computer, it's a genuine Amstrad from the end of the actual 8 bit era, and it feels every bit like a true CPC. As an under-utilised piece of real vintage hardware that already exists in fairly large numbers, it sidesteps any argument about the pointlessness of creating it. And the enhancements are both powerful and limited, and still largely unexplored which makes it a fun target for hobbyist coders.

Also the CPC just looks so good with the expanded palette.

Indeed. I'd rather see more Plus software than stuff for some 28Mhz, 4MB super machine. I can see reasons for a.modern recreation of it though: the ability to just plug directly into a modern display would be handy and if it were possible to have some sort of Wii like replacement for the light gun too it could be awesome. 

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 07:10, 28 January 24The CPC+ isn't some retro fantasy computer, it's a genuine Amstrad from the end of the actual 8 bit era, and it feels every bit like a true CPC. As an under-utilised piece of real vintage hardware that already exists in fairly large numbers, it sidesteps any argument about the pointlessness of creating it. And the enhancements are both powerful and limited, and still largely unexplored which makes it a fun target for hobbyist coders.

Also the CPC just looks so good with the expanded palette.

To me, the plus versions are kind of MSX2 or msx2+ .., improving the video capabilities, dma.., but keeping cpu speed.. Problem is it came very late.., maybe in 1988 would have been great..

In my opinion, biggest disadvantage of CPC+ wasn't that it appeared late, but its high price, because with B/W it cost as much as 520ST and with color as much as A500 or PC1640.

CPC+ = too little too late

One great question with a potential (and unlikely) CPCnext would be the monitor. This was a key feature in the original CPC, so releasing a CPCnext without one wouldn't feel authentic.

By the way, I have some quick questions about the Plus and PCW ranges:

PCW: If Basic was not included or even adapted for this, is it correct to assume that the only option was to program games in assembly or was there an option to make "CP/M games"?

Plus: Was there a new "mode" with the enhanced resolution and colors available from Basic, just like mode 0, 1 and 2?

Quote from: cwpab on 18:45, 28 January 24PCW: If Basic was not included or even adapted for this, is it correct to assume that the only option was to program games in assembly or was there an option to make "CP/M games"?

On the PCW you had Mallard Basic for CP/M:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallard_BASIC
which was the standard Basic for this machine (from Locomotive Software, which did the CPCs Locomotive Basic as well). I have no idea, if it was restricted to the CP/M environment or could do something more.

Quote from: cwpab on 18:45, 28 January 24Plus: Was there a new "mode" with the enhanced resolution and colors available from Basic, just like mode 0, 1 and 2?

No, it is still using Basic 1.1, and this has no idea about any Plus features at all.
A similair thing already happend to the 6128, where the Basic had no idea about the additional 64K. But here they provided "bankman" as an RSX Basic extension for accessing the second 64K.

For the Plus Amstrad didn't want "normal" people to access the additional features of the ASIC, no idea why the fuck they did this. Maybe they wanted to get paid for this, I don't remember anymore.
So Logon System (Longshot?) hacked the ASIC and found the sequence of bytes you have to send to the CRTC to unlock the ASIC. And so Longshot released a Basic extension for the Plus features called "B-ASIC":
https://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/B-ASIC

Quote from: cwpab on 18:45, 28 January 24Plus: Was there a new "mode" with the enhanced resolution and colors available from Basic, just like mode 0, 1 and 2?

As Prodatron said, BASIC itself wasn't changed. But it's also worth pointing out the Plus colours can be used in all three of the original modes, they just change the number of available colours from 27 to 4096. The Plus itself doesn't have any additional resolutions, although the 16*16 sprites have Mode 2 sized pixels in up to 15 colours if you don't use any of the magnification options.

Quote from: andycadley on 21:04, 28 January 24

Quote from: cwpab on 18:45, 28 January 24Plus: Was there a new "mode" with the enhanced resolution and colors available from Basic, just like mode 0, 1 and 2?

As Prodatron said, BASIC itself wasn't changed. But it's also worth pointing out the Plus colours can be used in all three of the original modes, they just change the number of available colours from 27 to 4096. The Plus itself doesn't have any additional resolutions, although the 16*16 sprites have Mode 2 sized pixels in up to 15 colours if you don't use any of the magnification options.

Interesting that sprites can be mode 2 with 16 colours(including transparent one), I've never seen this in use, did anything commercially use it? 
I've only seen this with the amiga with AGA chipset where the sprites are completely detached in resolution from the main display.

The sprites can also be placed with mode 2 precision in any mode, at any scale,.

Wikipedia lists the GX available resolutions as 160x200x16, 320x200x4 and 640x200x2, but it's really not; just like the original CPC it has the entire PAL space to work with and there's no particular reason that games should limit the visible display to the screen dimensions of Amstrad BASIC. 

Quote from: lmimmfn on 02:26, 29 January 24

Quote from: andycadley on 21:04, 28 January 24

Quote from: cwpab on 18:45, 28 January 24Plus: Was there a new "mode" with the enhanced resolution and colors available from Basic, just like mode 0, 1 and 2?

As Prodatron said, BASIC itself wasn't changed. But it's also worth pointing out the Plus colours can be used in all three of the original modes, they just change the number of available colours from 27 to 4096. The Plus itself doesn't have any additional resolutions, although the 16*16 sprites have Mode 2 sized pixels in up to 15 colours if you don't use any of the magnification options.

Interesting that sprites can be mode 2 with 16 colours(including transparent one), I've never seen this in use, did anything commercially use it?
I've only seen this with the amiga with AGA chipset where the sprites are completely detached in resolution from the main display.

Burnin' Rubber uses sprites in Mode 1 resolution with a dithered transparent pattern for the shadow under the car. Which works quite well.

I had played around with Mode 2 sprites, using a similar dithered pattern. The colour blending worked really well on a CM14 and you can make a nice "spotlight" effect over a Mode 0 screen. I think I had in mind some sort of sniper game but never really advanced it. Doesn't help the with Mode 2 resolution, you need to use a lot of sprites to cover a small area on the screen.

Thanks all! Very interesting technical stuff.

Hopefully my last questions about the PCW and Plus ranges:

PCW: 
Q: Considering the PCW had 2x or 4x the RAM of the 6128, and the 2x RAM with the 4MB expansion pack made allowed for improved resolutions or even framerates in some N64 games, would it be possible to program a new PCW game from scratch that used the extra RAM and was not possible on the CPC (or is this RAM not ideal for games?

Plus: 
Q: What does Anthony Flack mean with "the entire PAL space" instead of a fixed resolution?

Quote from: cwpab on 12:07, 29 January 24Q: What does Anthony Flack mean with "the entire PAL space" instead of a fixed resolution?

By reconfiguration CRTC, CPC can display the image in the full specification of the PAL system. This means 52u sec dotpixels in one line and 576 image lines interlaced at 50/25 Hz. i.e. 55kB of image, which gives a resolution of 832x576i@25Hz
And without interlaced 832x288p50Hz

The physical timings that define the size and shape of pixels are fixed. But the CRTC is flexible in which bits of the actual display are border and which are screen so you can create a lot of different dimension and shape screens.

In contrast machines like the Spectrum and C64 has fixed timings for their borders, so the dimensions of the screen area are also fixed.

I accidentally found online a September 1990 magazine from Spain (MegaOcio, one of the smaller ones):
https://retrocdn.net/images/4/49/MegaOcio_ES_18.pdf

The Plus range (+GX4000) was released that month in the country. Reviews don't say anything new, but three things surprise me about the pricing model:
1) I can't believe they still offered a green monitor for this range considering the reason to buy them was the improved graphics (and more colors).
2) Original CPC models cost around 2x when they were released compared to the Plus range and without considering inflation.
3) The most expensive moderl with disk drive and color monitor cost 90K ptas compared to the 100K ptas that cost the Amiga (it's all in the same magazine issue).

Considering the lower cost, I guess Amstrad didn't lose too much with the Plus debacle as parts were probably much cheaper 6 years later. I hope they didn't manufacture 1 million, though.

Quote from: cwpab on 12:07, 29 January 24PCW:
Q: Considering the PCW had 2x or 4x the RAM of the 6128, and the 2x RAM with the 4MB expansion pack made allowed for improved resolutions or even framerates in some N64 games, would it be possible to program a new PCW game from scratch that used the extra RAM and was not possible on the CPC (or is this RAM not ideal for games?

There are two differences between the CPC and the PCW regarding RAM:

1.)
- CPC can place the video framebuffer in the first 64K only
- PCW can place it in the first 128K

2.)
- CPCs memory banking is a little bit limited; you can swap in any 16K from a secondary bank at #4000; or the upper 16K of a secondary 64K bank at #C000; or a whole 64K bank at once; this is still much better compared to most other early 80ies systems like the C64 (no useful RAM banking at all, LOL!), the Atari8, ZX Spectrum (only 16K at once), Memotech MTX, C128, Spectrum +3 (limited and restricted to 128K) and more
- PCW can map any 16K bank at any position at #0000, #4000, #8000, #C000; like more advanced Z80 systems in the 80ies like the MTX, Enterprise 64/128, NC100/200, PCW16 and more

That's it. The PCWs resolution is fixed to 720x256, I don't know if there are any hardware tricks to enhance this, but I never heard about something like this.
The CPCs ram can be expanded to 576KB ram by 80ies standards and to 4160KB ram by later standards while the PCW can be expanded to 2048KB ram (and 2048KB rom), no idea if it's possible to increase it with some "hacks" like we have for >576K on the CPC.

IMHO this has nothing to do with the ability to make PCW games with higher framerate. Usually graphic is slower on the PCW due to its roller ram, which is nice for textoutput but tortuous for bitmaps.

Thanks Prodatron... So in more simple terms, do you see any advantages for a game developer that somehow decided to make a PCW game due to the extra RAM compared to the CPC? (Let's pretend game players will not expand the RAM as I believe most users don't, I personally have never done that).

Quote from: cwpab on 21:29, 29 January 24do you see any advantages for a game developer that somehow decided to make a PCW game due to the extra RAM compared to the CPC? (Let's pretend game players will not expand the RAM as I believe most users don't, I personally have never done that).

Ah yes, sorry, I didn't thought about this point, seems that I am too focused to expanded 8bit machines :D
Of course more standard RAM enables you to create more advanced games for everyone with this standard config, as you can store more sprites, tiles, maps, animations etc inside the same level.
Sorry I forgot his name, but someone brought a good example here, regarding something like Prince of Persia, where you could have tons of KB or even MB to store all the nice animations.
So yes, e.g. a PCW8256 (256K ram) Prince of Persia would be much better than a CPC464 (64K ram) version.
That is, what I really love about the PCW, even the smallest version has the amount of RAM which is really fun, when you want to do bigger things (like in my case).

Quote from: cwpab on 21:29, 29 January 24Let's pretend game players will not expand the RAM as I believe most users don't, I personally have never done that)

I'm pretty sure if you would get great games with a RAM expansion you would invest into one. 

Thousands of RAM expansions have been sold in the past. Not sure how many DDI5 and ULIFAC were sold in the last 2 years but they made sure that expanded RAM AND mass storage are available - yet we do still not see releases that benefit from additional RAM. 

I think the most crucial aspect that we don't see those games is, that it's a lot of time and effort to produce all the artifacts that will then be put into RAM.

Making a game for the CPC is already a challenge and time consuming - but if you want to fill not only 64 or 128K, you need to invest A LOT more time into gameplay, graphics, sound, etc ... that usually requires a pretty high team effort for a significant time. Legend of Zelda on the NES is just 128K of ROM - but it took a professional team months to develop it. 

Phew, you may be right, but it is a challenge as well, if you are forced to create a game for only 64K. I already read some stories (like Rastan?), where the programmers had a big issue to implement it in only 64K.
Usually it was more easy to program on a system with less limits.

There are things you can do with 128k that are just not feasible with 64k. Double-buffering the screen is very handy but expensive if it costs half your RAM.

You can do a lot with 128k and a disk drive, and if you detect 256k you could use that as a RAM disk. Or, make a cartridge game and go nuts with 512k ROM for things like compiled sprites.

A PCW could do a whole lot with all that RAM that you could never do on a 464. There's lots of ways you can improve speed by wasting memory.

I'm quite interested in what you can do with the GX/Plus sprites when scaled up. They do get chunky, but they're also quite big, and there's sixteen of them, and they move with high precision even when chunky. It was perfect for Pang. Also you don't need to double-buffer the screen if you're using hardware sprites so you could go full overscan. Well, Sonic GX has shown what this looks like. I think this is one of the best ways to use the Plus hardware for games, and shows that the GX resolution is not just 160x200.

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 04:06, 30 January 24You can do a lot with 128k and a disk drive, and if you detect 256k you could use that as a RAM disk. Or, make a cartridge game and go nuts with 512k ROM for things like compiled sprites.

It is funny you say this.., these were almost the same comments by @Rhino in last cepeceros program talking about The Abduction of Oscar Z and Orion Prime.. (and Vespertino).. and he said the CPC6128 was the most balanced CPC, because 128kb fits better with the overall CPC architecture. 

And he also spoke about using extra memory for compiled sprites and other stuff..

Yeah 128K is a massive boost in terms of making usable software on the CPC. The screen memory (and other graphics data) is just such a memory hog. Given a bit more storage and room for things like a double buffer can be the world of difference.

I've been investigating about the PCW "palette". The official specs are just green over black, and Mallard Basic games are like that. But with text characters. This only seems to apply to the "hi-res" text mode.

But I've seen quite a few games that appear to have different "green shades". So I can only assume this was possible when programming assembly games, but since it was not offered as a selling "spec", nowadays websites pretty much omit the option to have these shades.

Can someone shed some light into this and clarify how many green shades there are (if any)?

Quote from: cwpab on 14:39, 30 January 24I've been investigating about the PCW "palette". The official specs are just green over black, and Mallard Basic games are like that. But with text characters. This only seems to apply to the "hi-res" text mode.

But I've seen quite a few games that appear to have different "green shades". So I can only assume this was possible when programming assembly games, but since it was not offered as a selling "spec", nowadays websites pretty much omit the option to have these shades.

Can someone shed some light into this and clarify how many green shades there are (if any)?

I was under the impression it was a fixed monochrome green/black display. But, like the CPC Mode 2 it tends to bleed colour between pixels a bit, so if you use various dithering patterns it does a reasonable job of representing other "shades" of green.

Thanks again! If that is correct, the additional RAM offered by the PCW (and sorry again as this has nothing to do with a potential CPCnext) would allow for even more complex games, as games don't have to store the color information on the RAM (and perhaps more gains are obtained from the use of simple sound, but I can't tell).

EDIT: I just tried an emulator and I can confirm the dithering makes the trick due to the high res. In Matchday 2, the "darker green" field is achieved by a series of "clear green" lines. This was not visible on Youtube at all! Oh and by the way, is it me or is the game faster on PCW Vs. CPC?

Coming back the the talk about 'What makes a CPC a CPC?'

After thinking quite some time, I got to this conclusion: The brain of the CPC is Z80/ROM/RAM. But the CPC's heart is... of course the Gate Array!

Why? Well, the CPC consists of standard parts and one thing that's specific for the CPC itself! Yes, the Gate Array. The GA is the one that makes a CPC a CPC!

So using f.e. another Graphic card would rip out the heart of the computer and make it a non-CPC. Just in my opinion, you may disagree. That's fine.

BUT, what's bad about a computer, which is not a CPC any longer? As long as 97% of the software runs on it. It would be the natural evolution, it would be great! So I hope that one day we do have a CPCnext. Or what I would prefer a FuturePlus  ;) :)

I agree. Therefore, for me, CPC with a graphics card from MSX2 is not a better CPC, it's a defective MSX.

Controversial: One of the things that makes the CPC a CPC is the first "C" for Color. And Green monitor versions don't have that... Maybe they should have been called "GPC"?

Ironic: While we debate and analyze current and future versions of the Amstrad CPC, the man behind the machine himself, Mr. Alan Michael Sugar (a. k. a. "the AMS before the TRAD), could care less about his creation. In an interview I read recently, he said he tried to get the AMSTRAD brand back from Sky because one of his sons wanted to use it in "some business", but in the end he didn't do it because it was way too expensive (perhaps for the better?).

Cinematographic: Perhaps a movie could be made based on the previous situation. A richman attends a geek convention to celebrate the launch of a vintage computer he never used or cared much about. The geeks kindly ask for funding to preserve and create new games and peripherials. He refuses but he gets stuck with one or more geeks for a day during a storm or some other random disaster. He then discovers the magic of the games created for his machine.

While CPC people endlessly debate whether a CPCnext makes sense, the Spectrum guys don't give a shit and just produce one "ZXnext" after another  ;D

- Pentagon
- Scorpion
- ZX Evolution
- ZX Uno
- TBBlue
- Spectrum Next
- eLeMenT ZX

(maybe I even forgot some more)
All based on the original but with (huge) enhancements.

Quote from: GUNHED on 17:23, 30 January 24Coming back the the talk about 'What makes a CPC a CPC?'

After thinking quite some time, I got to this conclusion: The brain of the CPC is Z80/ROM/RAM. But the CPC's heart is... of course the Gate Array!

I think it's more the combination of the Gatearray and the 6845 that makes a CPC a CPC. The way the 6845 is integrated into the system and the associated ability and freedom to design the screen dimensions (overscan, simulation of the ZX spectrum resolution, etc.). 

What could a CPCnext look like? I think, a CPC-Next would probably be like an eZ80-based Atari STe in a certain way with DMA sound and pixel-fine HW scrolling, 32k screen RAM but additional freely dimensionable resolutions through the 6845 and sprites. Only without GEM/TOS as OS but maybe Symbos as OS and UI . In addition to the ST(e) resolutions, also a resolution of 160x200 with 256 colors. 

IMHO the CPCNext should at least have the hardware capabilities of the plus range.

CWPAB - I think green is also a color. And CPC stands for Cute Perfect Computer. ;)

This proposal of ST-like modes sounds more Amstrad-like than MSX resolutions.
As a youngster, watching demos, I dreamed that I could use Overscan as easily as the MODE command. In practice, the screen bends and the cursor moves diagonally when pressed down. It would be nice if it were easier. :)

And for me, the windows are too modern, I would prefer it to greet me with something like Norton Commander and be able to show texts, fonts, pictures and play music in the background. Easily add fonts and keyboard maps for other languages. As always at CPC. I wish there was a configuration file to greet me after startup. If someone wants windows, they have windows, if they prefer Ready, they have Ready. etc. :)

Amstrad style is to have commands for all possibilities. Not like C64.

The MSX card does not allow you to run MSX software, and if it could...
You know MSX2 is a nice computer, but tigers like us don't like it the most. Honey is not for tigers. ;)

Quote from: cwpab on 15:01, 30 January 24If that is correct, the additional RAM offered by the PCW (and sorry again as this has nothing to do with a potential CPCnext) would allow for even more complex games, as games don't have to store the color information on the RAM

The memory allocation is the same either way - it is like CPC mode 2; you trade colours for higher resolution.

I absolutely agree that a CPC really wants 128k to get the best out of it. It's like a whole different machine in terms of performance. A hardware double buffer is a great feature to have, and there are other things you can do for extra speed if you have the memory. Many 64k games could have performed much better if they weren't forced to use space-saving techniques. Of course you can still achieve this with a 64k machine, but you'd have to limit yourself to a small game.

In my current project the memory use breaks down (approximately) like so:

Three banks of screen buffers, a front buffer, a back buffer and a restore buffer - 48k. Unexpanded 464 users can go and cry already.
Three banks of compiled sprites and other sprite data - another 48k - we've already used up 96k without any game code, and sprites are maybe twice as fast because of it.
Two banks of game code, music, level data and everything else - 25k-ish
One bank of title screen and front-end menu data that loads in over top of the restore buffer - a bit less than 16k, half of that is the title graphic itself.
Backgrounds that load individually as needed, 4-5k each.

So maybe around 166k for everything, and approximately 130k of that is either screen buffers or graphics data.

Over-simplifying a bit, but if you imagine that a 16 bit machine needs twice as much memory to deal with the equivalent amount of graphics and so on, an CPC with 64k is like an ST or Amiga with only 128k, and 256k is comparable to a stock Amiga 500. In reality, without audio samples to deal with or whatever else, 128k feels about right for the CPC, 64k is uncomfortably tight and 256k is luxury. 

I think it was Trip Hawkins who said that for him, the machine was not important, only a tool to achieve the goal of creating the best game. I guess this doesn't apply for us here in CPCwiki, right?  ;)

I believe very strongly that you can create a great game to run on ANYTHING if it's designed to suit it. You can make a great game that runs on a deck of cards, a pencil and pad, a pair of dice, or nothing at all. You can absolutely make a great game for a 4Mhz computer with 64k of RAM. You could make the best game of 2024 on the CPC if you had the right idea.

The consideration is how your idea is going to be restricted by the hardware. There are games on the CPC that would be improved by running on a faster computer; there are games where it would make no real difference.

Quote from: ZorrO on 21:30, 30 January 24This proposal of ST-like modes sounds more Amstrad-like than MSX resolutions.
As a youngster, watching demos, I dreamed that I could use Overscan as easily as the MODE command. In practice, the screen bends and the cursor moves diagonally when pressed down. It would be nice if it were easier. :)

Sprites Alive! as well as adding RSX's for sprites, included some commands for changing the screen dimensions so that BASIC could be used with alternative screen sizes. It wasn't quite free choice from what I remember, but it was pretty cool at the time (and a great example of how BASIC could be extended)

Quote from: ZorrO on 21:30, 30 January 24CWPAB - I think green is also a color. And CPC stands for Cute Perfect Computer. ;)

This proposal of ST-like modes sounds more Amstrad-like than MSX resolutions.
As a youngster, watching demos, I dreamed that I could use Overscan as easily as the MODE command. In practice, the screen bends and the cursor moves diagonally when pressed down. It would be nice if it were easier. :)

And for me, the windows are too modern, I would prefer it to greet me with something like Norton Commander and be able to show texts, fonts, pictures and play music in the background. Easily add fonts and keyboard maps for other languages. As always at CPC. I wish there was a configuration file to greet me after startup. If someone wants windows, they have windows, if they prefer Ready, they have Ready. etc. :)

Amstrad style is to have commands for all possibilities. Not like C64.

The MSX card does not allow you to run MSX software, and if it could...
You know MSX2 is a nice computer, but tigers like us don't like it the most. Honey is not for tigers. ;)

Well told! And in addition windows bring chaos, better so be able to switch between screens  :)

I don't think windowed GUI is a part of Amstrad experience. Drop-down menus thats OK, programs such as Art Studio, Discology, etc. were very popular, at least for those who had FDD and 128K, but multitasking is a freak of Amiga users, not Amstrad users. Start button in CPC? - Have a mercy. Deep in our hearts we are not PC people, even if we have them now. :)

Hey guys. Apparently some Commodore (and we can safely assume some Sinclair too) fans believe retro computer companies should be divided in "the good ones, who operated with love" (Commodore, Sinclair and Atari) and "the bad ones, who relied on marketing to sell overpriced shitty products to dominate the market, products with no personality" (Apple, Microsoft, not sure if Amstrad).

What do you think? Aren't all companies just looking for money? Are Clive Sinclair and Jack Tramiel really that "full of love" compared to Amstrad, Apple and even IBM or Microsoft CEOs at the time?

The irony of Commodore and Speccy fans crying out about other companies crying about divisiveness. Amiga and Speccy forums are probably some of the most toxic and divisive I've ever had the misfortune to trawl across.

I didn't see Commodore and Sinclair coming up with the idea of bundling a monitor in with their system so that you wouldn't have to use the television. In fact, portable televisions weren't that cost effective back in the 80s, so you were lumbered with a black and white portable if you were even lucky enough to have a TV for one of their computers. 

The consumer electronics industry is a business...
... and once again... repeat after me... people go into business... to make money!

A quick read of the Commodore Wikipedia page shows that Jack Tramiel had to be convinced by one of the employees to design computers. Also, those days (late 70s) they moved their HQ to... Bahamas. Probably because of the love?  ;D

The story of Commodore has been described so many times in so many places that it can compete with The Bible and The Jungle Book, it's strange that they haven't made a movie about it yet. ;)

At that time, Tramiel was a manufacturer of calculators based on chips produced by Texas Instruments, but he wanted to have his own chip factory so that no one would impose prices on parts. And then MOS was going bankrupt, so he bought it. One of the company's employees constructed a simple KIM computer, but his boss was not interested in this project. After owner changed, he showed project to Tramiel, who did not understand what it was supposed to be for. But Tramiel's son said - dad, computers have a better future than calculators. Then they added a few things to KIM to make it more useful, and that's how was created PET.

Wikipedia is not a good source of information about old computers. Old Magazines are much better.

Quote from: ZorrO on 15:18, 31 January 24And for me, the windows are too modern [...] CPC with a graphics card from MSX2 is not a better CPC, it's a defective MSX. [...] I don't think windowed GUI is a part of Amstrad experience. Drop-down menus thats OK [...] but multitasking is a freak of Amiga users, not Amstrad users. Start button in CPC? - Have a mercy.

Thanks a lot for the compliments  :laugh:

Different people have different likes. Why not?  :) In the binary world there is space for everyone. Nice!  :) And it's great to have different opinions, else the world would be very boring.  :)

There are many heroes of the CPC story, like Roland Perry, who took on so many responsibilities and did so unreasonably well. Or the tremendous effort by Locomotive Software. Same with Apple - what more needs to be said about the Woz? He designed a whole computer by himself, hardware and software. I guess every company has an interesting back story with a cast of eccentric characters.

I haven't started using a GUI on the CPC yet but having all the drive space on an M4 makes it more tempting. To me seeing a GUI OS on the CPC is not so out of place; it speaks for the expandability of the platform. As for windows, Amstrad BASIC supports windows... ok, not overlapping windows. Heck, Amstrad BASIC even does multitasking.

I do get a kick out of typing CAT and seeing 30 million kb free.

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 21:48, 30 January 24Over-simplifying a bit, but if you imagine that a 16 bit machine needs twice as much memory to deal with the equivalent amount of graphics and so on, an CPC with 64k is like an ST or Amiga with only 128k, and 256k is comparable to a stock Amiga 500. In reality, without audio samples to deal with or whatever else, 128k feels about right for the CPC, 64k is uncomfortably tight and 256k is luxury.

Hm. Isn't the Amiga even more hungry than the ST when it comes to screen memory consumption? I am under the impression that it spends 64k for graphics, whereas the ST stands at 32k. Can't seem to remember where I have read that info, but by quick referencing I see that the Amiga has 4x the on-screen colours per resolution compared to the ST...

The A1000 had 256k onboard ram, so if, say, 1/4 of that is reserved for graphics, then that would make it an exact 16bit equivalent to a 464. Has anyone made any games or demos for that one and only true Amiga, lately?

Quote from: rexbeng on 10:31, 02 February 24

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 21:48, 30 January 24Over-simplifying a bit, but if you imagine that a 16 bit machine needs twice as much memory to deal with the equivalent amount of graphics and so on, an CPC with 64k is like an ST or Amiga with only 128k, and 256k is comparable to a stock Amiga 500. In reality, without audio samples to deal with or whatever else, 128k feels about right for the CPC, 64k is uncomfortably tight and 256k is luxury.

Hm. Isn't the Amiga even more hungry than the ST when it comes to screen memory consumption? I am under the impression that it spends 64k for graphics, whereas the ST stands at 32k. Can't seem to remember where I have read that info, but by quick referencing I see that the Amiga has 4x the on-screen colours per resolution compared to the ST...

The A1000 had 256k onboard ram, so if, say, 1/4 of that is reserved for graphics, then that would make it an exact 16bit equivalent to a 464. Has anyone made any games or demos for that one and only true Amiga, lately?

The Amiga can have 32 colours on screen as opposed to the ST's 16, so it's more like 40K if my maths is right. You could up that to 48K if you're using EHB (nobody does) or a Dual Playfield setup with 7 foreground and 8 background colours.

But anything for an 256K OCS Amiga is a bit rare, it's very tight for memory - a similar situation to the 464 for sure.

As an owner of a Next I have learned:

 - Still don't like the Spectrum
 - It really has a poor keyboard layout (having copied the later Spectrum keyboard layout) 
 - The new features make it a new system that just happens to use a faster Z80 and have backwards compatibility with the Spectrum.

One positive is the speeding up of old games like the Freescape ones. Another is that everything is integrated and packaged into a single product.
The Spectrum Next sprites are in some ways 'super enhanced Plus sprites' - there are more, they aren't hardwired to a sprite number, and you can have more colours, but they are stored on-chip in dedicated sprite memory rather than main memory like the C64.

So I cannot see how a CPC Next would be anything but the same in the end. A new system has happens to run CPC games natively.

There is a CPC core for the next, so arguably you just need a new case and keyboard for the existing board, and some shenanigans for the hardware aspects designed for the spectrum (keyboard interface, SD card, expansion, etc) to make it work.

I just accidentally found this interesting CPC Wiki topic from 4 years ago by googling ["cpc core" "spectrum next"]:

Amstrad CPC "Mini" (https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/general-discussion/amstrad-cpc-'mini'/)

In particular, the message I found was this one (https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/general-discussion/amstrad-cpc-'mini'/msg193239/#msg193239) from the user ToTO:

QuoteA CPC "Next" like a Spectrum Next will be probably able to run 80% of the existing programs properly.
While the GA/ASIC, FDC and all the CRTC will be not properly reproduced into a FPGA.

I also learned that:

- The Spectrum Next can use the Sinclair brand because Sky allowed them in exchange for donations to "the biggest charity in the UK"
- 2 year ago, a guy created something called the MSXvr, some kind of MSX next. It looks cool, but some say it feels cheap and it lacks proper video output for old TVs:

(https://www.msx.org/wiki/images/3/31/MSXVR-red.jpg)

One minor note, VR has RBG output, apart from HDMI, and it is an emulator running on a PI, not FPGA.

(https://msxvr.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/PCB_1000px.jpg)

Quote from: rexbeng on 10:31, 02 February 24

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 21:48, 30 January 24Over-simplifying a bit, but if you imagine that a 16 bit machine needs twice as much memory to deal with the equivalent amount of graphics and so on, an CPC with 64k is like an ST or Amiga with only 128k, and 256k is comparable to a stock Amiga 500. In reality, without audio samples to deal with or whatever else, 128k feels about right for the CPC, 64k is uncomfortably tight and 256k is luxury.

Hm. Isn't the Amiga even more hungry than the ST when it comes to screen memory consumption? I am under the impression that it spends 64k for graphics, whereas the ST stands at 32k. Can't seem to remember where I have read that info, but by quick referencing I see that the Amiga has 4x the on-screen colours per resolution compared to the ST...

The A1000 had 256k onboard ram, so if, say, 1/4 of that is reserved for graphics, then that would make it an exact 16bit equivalent to a 464. Has anyone made any games or demos for that one and only true Amiga, lately?

A1000 was pretty rare, A500 was more popular, but the 512KB memory expansions to take it to 1MB were incredibly popular because the games made use of it, and then they required it.

A dual-playfield Amiga game like Lionheart could use 80KB (320x256) but overscan was also common, so more like 100KB. But the chipset could do so much of the other work, and you still have 400+ KB for the rest of the game, and that rapidly because 1MB, and with 1MB and 880KB floppies games because graphically varied and everyone wanted an Amiga.

The Amiga was the first generation of what we call a modern PC architecture, with dedicated hardware for different functions.

The Atari ST was more of a CPC in design, perhaps even a bit more limited in some ways like screen size.

For the CPC 128KB was great, but the 64KB expansions were never cheap enough, and the games were not plentiful enough, to make getting this super-desirable, unlike the Amiga trapdoor expansions. Plus range should have been 128KB minimum.

Quote from: Sykobee (Briggsy) on 17:52, 02 February 24Plus range should have been 128KB minimum.

Well, the Plus range was really geared around cartridge games, where having 64K of RAM was actually quite luxurious. By the time they came out, 128K hadn't become the defacto expectation for tape/disk games (unlike on the Spectrum for example) so it's not surprising they didn't up the baseline.

Fact that Amiga system disks had a program to enable overscan and there was no such program on ST system disks, does not mean that Atari couldn't display overscan. ST demos show this as often as those on Amigas and Amstrads. :)

As I remember, if someone had a bare 464 at the beginning and then wanted FDD. Of course, he could buy an external 3-inch drive. But if he compared the prices, it was more reasonable to sell 464 and buy 6128 (not new of course) with the same monitor to save about 30% of price for the external drive. At the same time, not only did he save money, but he also gained better Basic and more memory. Because DDIs were really expensive. You just need to be able to read and count to find out this.

Quote from: ZorrO on 19:23, 02 February 24that Atari couldn't display overscan. ST demos show this as often

On the Atari ST this was not easy to achieve. You had to program some very exact timings and then quickly switch between 50 and 60Hz. This caused the shifter to continue output from Video RAM. It took demo coders a few years until all borders could be opened and full overscan was achieved.

Later there was some hardware extension that could do this and give full overscan even in GEM. Unfortunately this did not work on the STe so I never have seen this.

The ease with which the CPC could deal with full overscan, and 80 column (or more) text is one of the things that separates it from the other 8 bits (well apart from the BBC, naturally). 

So, maybe you need two or four times more graphics memory for an equivalent 16 bit machine, and for audio it's going to be WAY more once you start using samples. Funny thing is the actual game code still ought to not be much more than a CPC game... you can pack a whole lot of ASM into 16k.

SUCH a shame they fumbled the GX launch as I would have loved to see more games using the cartridge format with all that ROM space and Vespertino-sized sprite banks. I was trying to think of the kinds of games you could make that took advantage of the GX's comparatively large amount of RAM for a console, but wasn't compromised by its lack of save ability. I thought maybe some kind of roguelike? Something with a large procedural map and lots of items to keep track of, but with a short game loop and lacking the long-term permanence of a campaign strategy or RPG. It's a thought.

I've also been thinking about the ol' Bomb Jack with regards to cartridge format. Right from the beginning I knew I wanted to make it disk-based because keeping your high scores is important; it's a score-based game. I've got an older build running on my real 6128 where you need to get at least half a mil just to get on the score table now, and I've been reluctant to update it since I don't want to mess with my high scores! I might just have to patch them in... maybe I should include a high score file merging utility...

But the game would be well-suited to a Plus upgrade. I could probably do away with two of the screen buffers if everything was done with sprites, and all the compiled sprite data would be replaced with Plus sprite data, and it might even fit in 64k of RAM then. Maybe. But I still think I'd go for a disk version first just for the high score saving. Maybe you could do a cartridge game that saves files to disk, or M4 drive or whatever, but that's fiddly and still no good for the GX.

It's funny how Amstrad already supplied us with the CPC Next with the Plus machines, as well as the CPC Mini with the GX. Two years too late, or thirty years too early?

I think in 1990, at a similar price to GX4000, was available Sega Master System, which provided dozens of colors at once on  screen in small pixels, and dozens of great games. GX with its wide pixels and a few boring games had no chance against SMS. Not with such price. A budget machine at a premium price.

Old Bomb Jack needs a patch.
When you take the bonus, the bombs show 2x200, 3x200, 4x200 points but only one 200 is added to the result.

Amstrad Next should get Z80H 8MHz like Amiga 1200 14MHz and Atari MegaST 16MHz.

I think the Plus probably has a slight edge over the SMS in graphics, but it has almost no games. And quite literally NO games in many shops since the launch was so badly botched and the cartridges weren't ready in time, and when they did arrive they were frequently mislabeled with the wrong game.

The SMS pixels are not so small; 256x192 compared to full overscan Mode 0 resolution of 192x288 on the GX. Each pixel on the SMS is three PAL pixels wide compared to CPC mode 0 pixels which are 4 PAL pixels wide. Mode 1 pixels are smaller than SMS pixels. And the 64 colour palette is an improvement on the original CPC, but not by much.  You definitely notice the extra colours on the Plus.

Quote from: McArti0 on 00:59, 03 February 24Old Bomb Jack needs a patch.
When you take the bonus, the bombs show 2x200, 3x200, 4x200 points but only one 200 is added to the result.

Amstrad Next should get Z80H 8MHz like Amiga 1200 14MHz and Atari MegaST 16MHz.

I never knew that. Most of the scoring mechanisms in old CPC Bomb Jack are quite mangled though, or missing entirely. In the arcade game they are finely balanced. That was really the thing that I wanted to correct with the new port.

One thing that was really noticeable on the Amiga was with all the extra memory, a drive speed that was perfectly adequate for a 128k machine becomes quite painfully slow when playing 1Mb games filled with lots of pointless splash screens (insert side 3 now).

Anthony Flack (https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/profile/?u=5331) - You right, SMS have terrible games:  ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yooeOnRi_x0

I never said anything about SMS games. I said the pixels size is larger than you might think and the colour palette not much better than the original CPC, and the GX probably has the edge when it comes to graphics.

I can tell you that I have a copy of every one of the games mentioned in that video. 

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 23:27, 02 February 24The ease with which the CPC could deal with full overscan, and 80 column (or more) text is one of the things that separates it from the other 8 bits (well apart from the BBC, naturally).

So, maybe you need two or four times more graphics memory for an equivalent 16 bit machine, and for audio it's going to be WAY more once you start using samples. Funny thing is the actual game code still ought to not be much more than a CPC game... you can pack a whole lot of ASM into 16k.

SUCH a shame they fumbled the GX launch as I would have loved to see more games using the cartridge format with all that ROM space and Vespertino-sized sprite banks. I was trying to think of the kinds of games you could make that took advantage of the GX's comparatively large amount of RAM for a console, but wasn't compromised by its lack of save ability. I thought maybe some kind of roguelike? Something with a large procedural map and lots of items to keep track of, but with a short game loop and lacking the long-term permanence of a campaign strategy or RPG. It's a thought.

I've also been thinking about the ol' Bomb Jack with regards to cartridge format. Right from the beginning I knew I wanted to make it disk-based because keeping your high scores is important; it's a score-based game. I've got an older build running on my real 6128 where you need to get at least half a mil just to get on the score table now, and I've been reluctant to update it since I don't want to mess with my high scores! I might just have to patch them in... maybe I should include a high score file merging utility...

But the game would be well-suited to a Plus upgrade. I could probably do away with two of the screen buffers if everything was done with sprites, and all the compiled sprite data would be replaced with Plus sprite data, and it might even fit in 64k of RAM then. Maybe. But I still think I'd go for a disk version first just for the high score saving. Maybe you could do a cartridge game that saves files to disk, or M4 drive or whatever, but that's fiddly and still no good for the GX.

It's funny how Amstrad already supplied us with the CPC Next with the Plus machines, as well as the CPC Mini with the GX. Two years too late, or thirty years too early?

I reckon an arcade perfect Bomb Jack would be possible on the Plus. The backgrounds could be in mode 1 with a bunch of raster splits - you can change a colour every 32 pixels (with an 8 pixel accuracy) horizontally in mode 1. It would burn through CPU time but with the sprites there should be enough CPU left for 50hz.... probably.

What do you think? "Easy" - right?!

Quote from: angry on 19:02, 03 February 24What do you think? "Easy" - right?!

I am SO looking forward to your port :-) 

I suspect that transferring data to and from sprite memory in the ASIC may eat up too much time to be able to also do 208 lines of continuous raster splits on top. For everything else, you'd just about make it.

The other problem with trying to do the background that way though is you have all these annoying bombs and platforms with a gradient on them, all over the image. They are going to hog three of the four colours on most lines. OK if they were on a separate layer... but they're not...

Quote from: angry on 19:02, 03 February 24I reckon an arcade perfect Bomb Jack would be possible on the Plus. The backgrounds could be in mode 1 with a bunch of raster splits - you can change a colour every 32 pixels (with an 8 pixel accuracy) horizontally in mode 1. It would burn through CPU time but with the sprites there should be enough CPU left for 50hz.... probably.

What do you think? "Easy" - right?!

Not quite. Split rasters on the Plus are complicated by the fact each palette register takes two bytes. Thus changing one colour is not an atomic operation and the transition will be visible on screen. Maybe you can get around that if you're careful on colour selection to some degree.

The bombs could maybe be multiplexed sprites, but then you're racing the beam trying to do colour splitting and sprite multiplexing. No easy feat, for sure.

CPC-Next ??  (http://androidarts.com/Amiga/cpc.jpg)

Source: http://androidarts.com/Amiga/SBC.htm

Multiplexing the bombs would be a hell of a thing. There can be six or more on a single line. Maybe if that's all you had to draw, but there is also the player, up to seven chasers, two birds, a power ball and a bonus coin that can all be on screen at the same time. And all potentially on the same line as those six bombs. Plus there's effects, and the scores left behind by collected bombs.

I mean, don't think I haven't thought about it. I've thought about splitting colours in the background, and I've thought about multiplexing the bombs... I want to believe!

I think multiplexing the bombs is just too much and they will have to be printed to the background, or else expect some major sprite flickering to occur. I also would want to use two sprites to add extra colours to the top HUD. I think some limited colour splitting could be applied in mode 1, but there would only be one floating colour and you'd be limited to a few simple line splits. it's an open question whether that would look better or worse than a mode 0 background with accurate colour. The background is not so bad, but it is a bummer to see the bombs rendered chunky, because then you can see they are rendered to the background. There's enough sprites left over that the little 200 points indicators left behind when you collect a bomb could be sprites. All the other sprites should look nearly arcade perfect.

The Master System, since that's our benchmark, has enough sprites to cover all the moving objects, same as the GX. But they'd flicker more often with only four per line. It would also not have enough tile memory to display the backgrounds, and it would blow up the tile memory even worse if you hoped to print the bombs on top without square borders. Worse is that it doesn't have anywhere near the vertical screen resolution and might have to use a vertical scroll like they did for Ms Pac Man. I love the SMS but it is quite stubby, especially in PAL mode.

Also the AY sound chip in the CPC is the same as the arcade board (which admittedly does have three of them. Heck they sounded pretty great in Gyruss when they stacked five of them together). So ok, maybe your hypothetical CPC Next could have double sound chips. But even just one AY gets pretty close to the arcade sound and is better than the SN chip in the SMS which has no bottom notes.

BTW: About CPC and RAM-Banking you did forget to mention some feature...

8 KB of expansion RAM can be banked in at every multiple of &2000, this enhances banking quite useful! No other computer has that nice little gem. That's what I call Nova-Blast!  ;D :P :laugh:

Here my English text of the Nova expansion:

Nova - English
==============

Nova nvRAM and Real-Time-Clock expansion
========================================
Shinra HP : https://pulkomandy.github.io/shinra.github.io/nova.html
Wiki-Forum: https://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/amstrad-cpc-hardware/nova-nvram-rtc-for-amstrad-cpc-latest-news-from-pulkotronics/
SchemaNova: http://pulkomandy.tk/drop/nova_cpc_nvram.pdf
PulkoMandy: https://pulkomandy.tk/drop/

Technicals
==========
This interface includes 32KB of NVRAM and a real-time-clock
(because NVRAM chips have that).

nrRAM/RTC chip: M48T35Y-70MH1F.
The yellow chip itself tells: ST9906, M4T28, BR125H1
This is the M4T28 BR125H1 battery with 4 pins. Clickable.

Port
----
The interface uses port &FE82 for mapping the NVRAM in and out.
It is possible to map it at any multiple of &2000.

Decoding and Programming of the Nova
====================================
Base address of the nvRAM
-------------------------
The high 4 bits determine the base address of the nvRAM.
Bits 7, 6 and 5 select the RAM address. Bit 4 is set to 0.

 OUT &FE82,&0x   / to map at &0000-&1FFF
(OUT &FE82,&1x) /
 OUT &FE82,&2x   / to map at &2000-&3FFF
(OUT &FE82,&3x) /
 OUT &FE82,&4x   / to map at &4000-&5FFF
(OUT &FE82,&5x) /
 OUT &FE82,&6x   / to map at &6000-&7FFF
(OUT &FE82,&7x) /
 OUT &FE82,&8x   / to map at &8000-&9FFF - \ used for FutureOS
(OUT &FE82,&9x) /                           \OUT &FE82,&8B
 OUT &FE82,&Ax   / to map at &A000-&BFFF
(OUT &FE82,&Bx) /
 OUT &FE82,&Cx   / to map at &C000-&DFFF
(OUT &FE82,&Dx) /
 OUT &FE82,&Ex   / to map at &E000-&FFFF
(OUT &FE82,&Fx) /

The enabled NVRAM replaces 8KB of RAM/ROM with its own contents.

Select the 8 KB block of nvRAM
------------------------------
The low 4 bits select the 8KB page.
Bits 3(=1), 1 and 0 do the selection actually.

OUT &FE82,x8 ' map the first  8 KB page
OUT &FE82,x9 ' map the second 8 KB page
OUT &FE82,xA ' map the third  8 KB page
OUT &FE82,xB ' map the fourth 8 KB page (contains RTC)

Switch nvRAM off
----------------
Any other value for the 4 low bits unmaps the NVRAM
and restores the normal RAM or ROM behavior.
Examples: OUT &FE82,&FE or LD A,&FE:OUT (&82),A


Real-Time-Clock
===============
In the fourth page, the last 8 bytes are not normal RAM.
They can be used to read / write the time from the realtime clock.
In the other pages 1-3 there is only RAM.

All values are in BCD format (4 bits for tenths, 4 bits for units)
The data of the RTC can always be read.

Access to the RTC works this way
--------------------------------
Using OUT &FE82,&6B, interface mapped at &6000-&7FFF:

To read the time
----------------
POKE &7FF8,&40  'stops RTC->nvRAM update / write '1' to Read bit 6 (x1xx xxxx)
        'However, looks like this command is usually not needed

year    = PEEK(&7FFF)
month   = PEEK(&7FFE)
day     = PEEK(&7FFD)
weekday = PEEK(&7FFC)
hour    = PEEK(&7FFB)
minute  = PEEK(&7FFA)
second  = PEEK(&7FF9)

POKE &7FF8,&00 \  nvRAM get updated from RTC again
                \ Write '0' to Read bit 6 (x0xx xxxx)

To set the time
---------------
POKE &7FF8,&80 'Stop RTC for writing data into it / '1' to Write bit 7 (1xxx xxxx)

POKE &7FFF,&21 ' year, for 2021
POKE &7FFE,&07 ' month, july
POKE &7FFD,&31 ' day, 31st
POKE &7FFC,&00 ' weekday, Sunday
POKE &7FFB,&15 ' hour
POKE &7FFA,&53 ' minute
POKE &7FF9,&12 ' second

POKE &7FF8,&00 'RTC picks up new data, start RTC / '0' to Write Bit 7 (0xxx xxxx)

Switch Nova RTC off - save power
--------------------------------
To stop Nova RTC function and save current a bit is set.
The STOP bit is the MSB of the seconds register.
Setting it to a '1' stops the oscillator.
The M48T35/Y is shipped with the STOP bit set to a '1.'
When reset to a '0,' the M48T35/Y oscillator starts within 1 second.

In our example this is: POKE &7FF9,%1xxx xxxx
This stops the Nova RTC and saves power.



Compare Nova RTC and FutureOS Time/Date variables
-------------------------------------------------
Second  = &9FF9 - Second  - UHR_SEK EQU &B95B
Minute  = &9FFA - Minute  - UHR_MIN EQU &B95C
Hour    = &9FFB - Hour    - UHR_STU EQU &B95D
Weekday = &9FFC - Weekday - UHR_WOT EQU &B95E
Day     = &9FFD - Day     - UHR_TAG EQU &B95F
Month   = &9FFE - Month   - UHR_MON EQU &B960
Year    = &9FFF - Year    - UHR_JAR EQU &B961

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 11:40, 05 February 24I mean, don't think I haven't thought about it. I've thought about splitting colours in the background, and I've thought about multiplexing the bombs... I want to believe!

I think multiplexing the bombs is just too much and they will have to be printed to the background, or else expect some major sprite flickering to occur. I also would want to use two sprites to add extra colours to the top HUD. I think some limited colour splitting could be applied in mode 1, but there would only be one floating colour and you'd be limited to a few simple line splits. it's an open question whether that would look better or worse than a mode 0 background with accurate colour. The background is not so bad, but it is a bummer to see the bombs rendered chunky, because then you can see they are rendered to the background. There's enough sprites left over that the little 200 points indicators left behind when you collect a bomb could be sprites. All the other sprites should look nearly arcade perfect.

The Master System, since that's our benchmark, has enough sprites to cover all the moving objects, same as the GX. But they'd flicker more often with only four per line. It would also not have enough tile memory to display the backgrounds, and it would blow up the tile memory even worse if you hoped to print the bombs on top without square borders. Worse is that it doesn't have anywhere near the vertical screen resolution and might have to use a vertical scroll like they did for Ms Pac Man. I love the SMS but it is quite stubby, especially in PAL mode.

Also the AY sound chip in the CPC is the same as the arcade board (which admittedly does have three of them. Heck they sounded pretty great in Gyruss when they stacked five of them together). So ok, maybe your hypothetical CPC Next could have double sound chips. But even just one AY gets pretty close to the arcade sound and is better than the SN chip in the SMS which has no bottom notes.

If you're looking to have 3xAY, the PlayCity would do the job - that gives you another 2xAY and you can externally mix them with the onboard AY (or internally in a pre-Plus machine, but mono only I think?). If it's easy to gracefully fall back, might be nice to add support for it? Alcon 2020 did this, though the split of music and sound effects was an obvious one, but I'm guessing your game already blends the two so maybe not such an easy thing to add...

Re a Plus-enhanced port, I wonder if using sprites for all the moving components is actually the most effective use of them, given you already have great-looking 50Hz gameplay working? Perhaps it'd make (some) sense to use sprites for the platforms - it'd be very easy to multiplex in that case as they're mostly identical and you'd have 256 pixels wide worth of sprites per scanline, so they could easily fill the playfield. That could potentially remove some colour restriction elsewhere and give nice-looking platforms. Sprites could also be used for the UI, I suppose, enabling a few more colours/resolution there, and perhaps for bonus indicators - anything that doesn't need to change too often. Of course, this wouldn't ease the RAM burden and you'd end up with a port that runs on even fewer computers... But it'd run on my computer ;D

I don't think I could multiplex platform sprites and render software sprites at the same time... I already spend most of the screen time drawing. Interesting idea though. Always fun trying to think of how you can stretch the hardware around something.

It would not be difficult to split music and sound effects if I had access to more channels but I do not have any idea how to go about it and I don't have a PlayCity to test on. I'm just using Arkos Tracker for the sound and perhaps it supports it natively; I haven't looked into that. The first snag I'm likely to hit is that the memory bank that holds the music data and Arkos player is full all the way up to &3FFF so I'd have to shuffle a bunch of things around if the Arkos player got any bigger. 

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 01:46, 14 February 24I don't think I could multiplex platform sprites and render software sprites at the same time... I already spend most of the screen time drawing. Interesting idea though. Always fun trying to think of how you can stretch the hardware around something.

It would not be difficult to split music and sound effects if I had access to more channels but I do not have any idea how to go about it and I don't have a PlayCity to test on. I'm just using Arkos Tracker for the sound and perhaps it supports it natively; I haven't looked into that. The first snag I'm likely to hit is that the memory bank that holds the music data and Arkos player is full all the way up to &3FFF so I'd have to shuffle a bunch of things around if the Arkos player got any bigger.

In case you consider giving it a go, programming info is here: https://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/PlayCity - It's supported in the CPCEC emulator (that also has a pretty decent debugger) and I suppose you could still purchase one from @TotO (?) if you wanted to test on real hardware. It probably wouldn't make a huge amount of sense to use all 9 channels, rather than using 6 of them - As I understand it, the Play2CPC (which is likely more common?) only provides another 3 channels, as opposed to another 6 like the PlayCity. The PlayCity is supported in Arkos Tracker 2, iirc.

Maybe hardware sprites replacing software sprites is the most obvious thing in that case, with bombs remaining software sprites, as you've suggested. There's more than enough time to update every hardware sprite frame over 3 or 4 frames and leave plenty of time for game logic. More colourful game sprites and a lower RAM requirement would be a nice little bonus for Plus/GX owners :)

I wonder if you could squeeze in EGX backgrounds with the time saved by not having to manage software sprites... That would certainly be ambitious and interesting... Failing that, perhaps a Paula's Potions style alternating background to get some more colours would be feasible...

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 01:46, 14 February 24It would not be difficult to split music and sound effects if I had access to more channels but I do not have any idea how to go about it and I don't have a PlayCity to test on. I'm just using Arkos Tracker for the sound and perhaps it supports it natively; I haven't looked into that. The first snag I'm likely to hit is that the memory bank that holds the music data and Arkos player is full all the way up to &3FFF so I'd have to shuffle a bunch of things around if the Arkos player got any bigger.

PlayCity is only supported by the MultiPSG-Version of the Arkos AKY-Player. AKY is a streamed-based music format similair to YM, which uses more memory than usual modules. If you already use the AKY-variant it should be easy to add PlayCity support.

I used AKG. No memory for AKY. A cartridge version would be a different story of course. I think the best thing for a Plus enhanced version would be a total rebuild. But obviously whole chunks of code could be copied straight across.

I am looking forward to playing with the Plus features and cartridge format when I actually have some time to do so. 

PlayCity is also supported by Roudoudou's emulator : ACE-DL

Foe those with a Mega65, it really is a perfect machine for a great CPC core.  Unfortunately a CPC core isn't here yet.  Proce may out people off, 666 euros to me is ok... but sadly for me they charge a LOT for postage to Australia making it really expensive.  I still bought one and cannot praise the hardware enough.  Spectrum Next can also be a CPC but the keyboard isn't as nice as the Mega65.  If someone can make a Mega65 core? TOBIFLEX perhaps?  That would make a Mega65 a must have CPC if the core supports all the hardware...

Specs here
https://shop.trenz-electronic.de/en/TE0765-06-T001CK-MEGA65-highly-advanced-C64-and-C65-compatible-8-bit-computer

Quote from: GUNHED on 14:15, 07 February 24BTW: About CPC and RAM-Banking you did forget to mention some feature...

8 KB of expansion RAM can be banked in at every multiple of &2000, this enhances banking quite useful! No other computer has that nice little gem. That's what I call Nova-Blast!  ;D :P :laugh:

I think multiface 2 does that

Quote from: andycadley on 10:54, 02 February 24

Quote from: rexbeng on 10:31, 02 February 24

Quote from: Anthony Flack on 21:48, 30 January 24Over-simplifying a bit, but if you imagine that a 16 bit machine needs twice as much memory to deal with the equivalent amount of graphics and so on, an CPC with 64k is like an ST or Amiga with only 128k, and 256k is comparable to a stock Amiga 500. In reality, without audio samples to deal with or whatever else, 128k feels about right for the CPC, 64k is uncomfortably tight and 256k is luxury.

Hm. Isn't the Amiga even more hungry than the ST when it comes to screen memory consumption? I am under the impression that it spends 64k for graphics, whereas the ST stands at 32k. Can't seem to remember where I have read that info, but by quick referencing I see that the Amiga has 4x the on-screen colours per resolution compared to the ST...

The A1000 had 256k onboard ram, so if, say, 1/4 of that is reserved for graphics, then that would make it an exact 16bit equivalent to a 464. Has anyone made any games or demos for that one and only true Amiga, lately?

The Amiga can have 32 colours on screen as opposed to the ST's 16, so it's more like 40K if my maths is right. You could up that to 48K if you're using EHB (nobody does) or a Dual Playfield setup with 7 foreground and 8 background colours.

But anything for an 256K OCS Amiga is a bit rare, it's very tight for memory - a similar situation to the 464 for sure.

That must be an unexpanded Amiga.  These days Amiga 500s can have AGA and almost a gb of RAM