Games using more than 128 KB

[mahlemiut]

You know, despite a large number of X68000 games being multi-load, and even requiring a number of disk swaps (some RPGs span as much as 13 disks), that never really turned me off of the system.  Perhaps numerous top-quality arcade ports make it worth the wait.  Although most multi-disk games do have an option to install to HD (if you have one).

X68000 + MT-32 = heaven.

[andycadley]

  If we're talking about new games, i suspect that a major driving force   for many coders (i'm talking generally rather than about specific   platforms for a moment and basing this on folks i've interviewed over   the years) is to get their games played by as many people as   possible. To that end, the most logical target would be a stock 464   simply because there isn't a machine out there that won't run your code   and there'll always be a few users who don't have anything bigger.

In the general case, I'd agree. It's so cheap to pick up a 6128 these days though that the extra effort to cram a game into 64K or on tape is of dubious value. Add to that the fact that pretty much everyone in the CPC scene uses an emulator at least some of the time means that a 6128 is probably an acceptable baseline.

[steve]

Would the Z80 be fast enough to animate a 320x200x16 colour screen, double buffered?
With 576KB ram Amiga quality graphics might be possible as long as the Z80 has enough time to also run the game logic and sound.

[Optimus]

To that end, the most logical target would be a stock 464   simply because there isn't a machine out there that won't run your code   and there'll always be a few users who don't have anything bigger.

I don't think the CPC6128 is so uncommon. In fact the scene has migrated to the 128k and most CPC users own one 6128. That's not the case for example for the C64 scene where C128 games/demos are very rare and everyone has sticked with the 64k. But coding a game exclusively for the 6128 won't take you away most of the CPC user base today.

[fano]

To that end, the most logical target would be a stock 464   simply because there isn't a machine out there that won't run your code   and there'll always be a few users who don't have anything bigger.

I remember i had this discution on another forum, maybe with you, that may be the situation in UK but in France, 6128 was very popular , maybe the CPC standard here.

[TMR]

In   the general case, I'd agree. It's so cheap to pick up a 6128 these days   though that the extra effort to cram a game into 64K or on tape is of   dubious value. Add to that the fact that pretty much everyone in the CPC   scene uses an emulator at least some of the time means that a 6128 is   probably an acceptable baseline.

Pretty much everyone in the CPC scene yeah, but that isn't   everyone and there'll be folks on the "outskirts" like me (unless i've been "adopted" by the CPC scene =-) who only have   a 464 - i would like to get another Amstrad at some point, but at the moment i believe the love of my life would actually kill me if i were to try!

It's a bit like the Atari 8-bits, there are very few CTIA-based units out there since only the original 400 and 800 came fitted with them and the biggest seller, the 800XL, was always a GTIA-based unit, but even now the games coders seem to avoid using GTIA-specific graphics modes; some of that will be down to the low resolution of the modes but it's more because the best uses are software-driven and either PAL or NTSC specific so, whilst the code can be written to work on either, the graphics may not.

That's not the case for example for the C64 scene where C128 games/demos are very rare and everyone has sticked with the 64k.

Speaking very generally, the CPC6128 is pretty much the same beast as a CPC464 but with more RAM and a disk drive; the C128 in it's native mode is very different to the C64 so the memory models aren't compatible (BASIC RAM starts 5K further up and doesn't stop where the ROM shadows start), the way the extra RAM is handled is totally different to how a RAM expanded C64 works (an MMU instead of a DMA) and there's some extra I/O registers in previously unused space - the latter sometimes trips up otherwise working C64 code on a C128.

[MacDeath]

It is also to notice that getting a +64K for a CPC464 is no more as expensive as it was in the past...

Well perhaps...




I remember a game like Monkey Island on 16bits was easily like 5 disks...

But 16bits could be better thx to the massive extra memory (+512K...1040 total..) and a second external disk drive.

I don't know if you could load from both Disks drives at the same time though...
But you could get some music and animation played while loading...

On modern CPC world it is a bit different.

-Tapes : well... you simply don't do big games with shittons of stuffs... nor multiloads...
It is perhaps even easier to use a modern audio device and faster MP3 signal per exemple...

-3" Disks : problem is the side switch. and the quite limited storage because it was an uncommon format. Weren't DD or HD version existing on some PCW ? are those CPC compatible ?
Also do you have some method to put one such drive on a Modern PC ? I have a few spare ones I wish to put one on my PC but... I've heard it is quite difficult actually.

-3"1/2 disks : the clearly best solution.
The massive 720K give you all you need. and those diskdrives are easily availlable and cheap...
And you can still get one on your PC too.

-also the Floppy emulator... quite expensive though and less fun than a good old Floppy....

[TFM]

Ok, I see, loading time was/(is?) critical on Amiga and ST, but we don't have this problems on a CPC, which can load a 178 KB (one data disc) in 9 seconds. Just to mention it ;-)

[Gryzor]

That's what I'm talking about!!!!

Some Amiga/ST games, though, had the nice feature of loading the next block of game data while playing - St Dragon pops to mind.

[steve]

Ok, I see, loading time was/(is?) critical on Amiga and ST, but we don't have this problems on a CPC, which can load a 178 KB (one data disc) in 9 seconds. Just to mention it ;-)

How quickly can amsdos load 64k/128k from SD card to ram?

[MiguelSky]

If using BonnyDOS, practically instantly

[steve]

Thanks for the quick reply, that speed is reason enough for me to get the hxc device as soon as I can afford it.

[MiguelSky]

Well, I mean loading from a SD card put into a IDE adapter conected to Symbiface II, I have no HxC device, but I think its speed is similar to a real disk drive unit.

[TFM]

Thanks for the quick reply, that speed is reason enough for me to get the hxc device as soon as I can afford it.

Since the HxC is a floppy emulator, it will behave as a floppy disc. Means it's speed is similar to a disc drive, maybe a bit more quick (step rate time can be decreased).

[TFM]

- i would like to get another Amstrad at some point, but at the moment i believe the love of my life would actually kill me if i were to try!

If you replace a 464 by a 6128 you just save same square inches of space :-) You love will love that ;-)

[steve]

To anyone who uses the hxc device, is it significantly faster than using a real floppy disk?

[Gryzor]

To anyone who uses the hxc device, is it significantly faster than using a real floppy disk?

Steve, as TFM said, it's a floppy emulator. It still behaves like a disk drive...

[steve]

Steve, as TFM said, it's a floppy emulator. It still behaves like a disk drive...

Yes, I read that, are you saying that the interface is deliberately designed to take as long to load software as a mechanical floppy disk?
It seems stupid not to reduce load/save times if it is possible.
I have a floppy drive and plenty of disks, so without a speed gain there is really no reason why I should buy the hxc device.

[Gryzor]

It's not as simple, I'm afraid - I'm not very technically capable (Bryce will swoop down and berate me any second now) but I think timings are integral to the whole process...

Oh, also, believe me - having a stack of disks does not compare with having a tiny board, with a tiny SD card containing the entire library of the CPC (or ST, or Amiga)...

[arnoldemu]

Yes, I read that, are you saying that the interface is deliberately designed to take as long to load software as a mechanical floppy disk?
It seems stupid not to reduce load/save times if it is possible.
I have a floppy drive and plenty of disks, so without a speed gain there is really no reason why I should buy the hxc device.

Some protections and software rely on the speed of the drive.
Perhaps this is also true on amiga, so perhaps they decided to emulate the exact speed to be the most compatible.

[TFM]

Some protections and software rely on the speed of the drive.
Perhaps this is also true on amiga, so perhaps they decided to emulate the exact speed to be the most compatible.

Right! Agree 100%

[Bryce]

@Gryzor, relax, you're correct this time

Increasing the speed of the HxC would of course be technically possible, but it would cause major headaches. Jeff has designed it to be really compatible, not faster (Thanks Jeff). Because it's being used in everything from old oscilloscopes, keyboards (the musical ones), 8-bit machines etc, it has to react exactly like a real floppy, any change to this standard could make a whole series of devices incompatible or unreliable. The advantage of the HxC is the fact that you DON'T have to have a stack of old unreliable floppies any more. I have used / tested  my HxC on several different systems, including a Tektronics TDS7104 and a LeCroy LC574AL, if the HxC wasn't 100% this wouldn't be possible.

Bryce.