Speccy vs CPC - battle of the Ages

[MacDeath]

Ok, what about this ?




So, CPC has an additionnal "layer" of basic colours : the Pastel colours...
and an additional layer of mixed colours... such as orange or mauve...

There this picture show where trhe "cross colours" are supossed to be placed. (also ditherings effects for additionnal full range)




Anyway, with something like exactly +12 extra colours on palette... this is almost twice the available colours .

[arnoldemu]

interesting, I was thinking more just showing the colours in order for both for an initial: this is the palette of speccy, this is of cpc.

Then I think your comparison pic shows how cpc can match that and then shows it has more shades.

So please can you also do one just to show the colours (the comparison has black and white duplicated which may confuse initially).

[MacDeath]

Sorry I fail to understand what do you want...
Also having the blach/grey/white part duplicated is not that a problem if you comment about it.

To me it was a way to have a proper separation between the basic palette (RGB + purple+yellow+cyan) and the extra CPC colours (orange and so on...)

But to be fair, concerning Speccy... Grey is actually dark white, not bright black as black remains black in any config...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monochrome_and_RGB_palettes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_8-bit_computer_hardware_palettes
perhaps more something like that ?

Funny detail :
Thomson MO5/TO7 : while speccy had the "dark" and "medium" versions of the basic colours, Thomson has the basic version (bright) and pastel versions...
Yet it is also a bit customised in order to have an orange (the 16th colour).

So CPC palette is something like the addition of both palettes (Speccy and Thomson)...

Anyway here are a pair or other tries...

As I said, why Speccy has only 15 colours instead of 16 is to be commented... (cheap rip off CGA palette...)

[arnoldemu]

Sorry I fail to understand what do you want...
Also having the blach/grey/white part duplicated is not that a problem if you comment about it.

To me it was a way to have a proper separation between the basic palette (RGB + purple+yellow+cyan) and the extra CPC colours (orange and so on...)

But to be fair, concerning Speccy... Grey is actually dark white, not bright black as black remains black in any config...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monochrome_and_RGB_palettes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_8-bit_computer_hardware_palettes
perhaps more something like that ?

Ok what I wanted was 

This first to show the palettes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AmstradCPC_palette.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ZXSpectrum_palette.png

to show colours with no repetition (or that was the idea anyway - I notice there are 2 blacks in the speccy one  )

Then have yours to show cpc and speccy together and how cpc can handle speccy and then extends it.

[MacDeath]

Then, i guess my new batch is good... Is it ?


Also there is some argu we often get from speccyfans concerning Speccy graphics...
"More detailed graphics on Speccy while CPC is gross and blocky..."


I came to a conclusion...
First, the "blocky" Mode0 pixels on CPC are not that blocky if directly compaired to Speccy displayed on the exact same monitor...

CPC pixels are calibrated for a "320x200" instead of 256x192...
(and in 320x200 you don't have that a huge border anyway...)

Would be cool to have pictures of "real size"comparisons on "same Monitor"...

a bit like this :

sucres en morceau/supersly site...

Would be nice to compare both...



Also... CPC can do real "overscan"...
This leads to a clumberfull 32K of VRAM, but...

I never know the real size of this full screen resolution, i heard this may vary from monitor to monitor, so... I assume something like :

==CPC Mode0 full screen : 192x272 = 52224 pixels displayed (may vary)...

==Speccy resolution : 256x192 = 49152 pixels

More detailled ? CPC even in mode0 can actually display more pixels...
This means of course that you can't really port straightly pixel to pixel, but have to get some zoom in/out and redrawn properly...

But Batman demo recently reminded us the power of the true fullscreen on CPC... in any video mode...
Even Mode2 actually looks like a 3 colour mode thx to the ditherings.

By the same virtue, the Mode1 has actually smaller pixels than speccy (on same monitor) and the lack of attrreibutes enable a real dithering action, hence the mode1 on a real cathodic  monitor can be perceived as having far more colours than the "on the paper" 4 colours... provided you use a larger pictures and don't restrain yourself into speccy graphics/specs.

But when coding a game, you simply can't really use that big screens that often..


The only aspect of Mode0 is that the pixels are not as square as on speccy...
But as it can be part of a larger picture, you can't say it is that blocky...

Anyway there is no such thing as really square pixels with those old cathodic computers...


So yeah, with speccy specs games on CPC, the largely reduced window makes the Mode0 blocky...
But in pure "art" fullscreens, it is not.


Does it look blocky ?

[arnoldemu]

Then, i guess my new batch is good... Is it ?

yes it's good. I already made the changes and it's in there now.
I need more help with the wiki formatting though.

Also there is some argu we often get from speccyfans concerning Speccy graphics...
"More detailed graphics on Speccy while CPC is gross and blocky..."


I came to a conclusion...
First, the "blocky" Mode0 pixels on CPC are not that blocky if directly compaired to Speccy displayed on the exact same monitor...

CPC pixels are calibrated for a "320x200" instead of 256x192...
(and in 320x200 you don't have that a huge border anyway...)

Would be cool to have pictures of "real size"comparisons on "same Monitor"...

a bit like this :

sucres en morceau/supersly site...

Would be nice to compare both...



Also... CPC can do real "overscan"...
This leads to a clumberfull 32K of VRAM, but...

I never know the real size of this full screen resolution, i heard this may vary from monitor to monitor, so... I assume something like :

==CPC Mode0 full screen : 192x272 = 52224 pixels displayed (may vary)...

==Speccy resolution : 256x192 = 49152 pixels

More detailled ? CPC even in mode0 can actually display more pixels...
This means of course that you can't really port straightly pixel to pixel, but have to get some zoom in/out and redrawn properly...

But Batman demo recently reminded us the power of the true fullscreen on CPC... in any video mode...
Even Mode2 actually looks like a 3 colour mode thx to the ditherings.

By the same virtue, the Mode1 has actually smaller pixels than speccy (on same monitor) and the lack of attrreibutes enable a real dithering action, hence the mode1 on a real cathodic  monitor can be perceived as having far more colours than the "on the paper" 4 colours... provided you use a larger pictures and don't restrain yourself into speccy graphics/specs.

But when coding a game, you simply can't really use that big screens that often..


The only aspect of Mode0 is that the pixels are not as square as on speccy...
But as it can be part of a larger picture, you can't say it is that blocky...

Anyway there is no such thing as really square pixels with those old cathodic computers...


So yeah, with speccy specs games on CPC, the largely reduced window makes the Mode0 blocky...
But in pure "art" fullscreens, it is not.


Does it look blocky ?

Well I think the argument is more directed to mode 0 graphics?
And sure it has fatter pixels, but you show the result can be really nice.

I'm not sure about the pixel sizes (mode 1 vs speccy), to check we would need to know the pixel rate of both and hsync/vsync widths.

But I understand your point and will mention it in the article.
Well it's there already, but I will alter the words.

[MacDeath]

I have a Speccy+2 (with peritel) and a MP2 box so I should try when I have time to compare both on my big cathodic TV...

Got to compare the displayed zone (border size...) for both, and perhaps take some extrazoomed photos...

but not for now...no time to do that.


Also : nice part concerning the Tapeloadings...
i was unaware of this...
Many tapeloadings were judged unrelyable (wait 30minutes to see the abysmal fail and have to do it again...lol...)

So you tell it may have been because even the tapeloader could have been speccyported ?
Now this is a real crime !


grudge grudge grudge !

[arnoldemu]

So you tell it may have been because even the tapeloader could have been speccyported ?
Now this is a real crime !

grudge grudge grudge !

yes, cesar can tell more, but a lot of loaders were badly ported from speccy.
for example: The toposoft loader. This is a spectrum ROM based loader I had to patch to make it work correctly!

The red/yellow striped loader on mastertronic tape games, a spectrum rom loader that ignores checksums and things and it's really unreliable.

EDIT: I made some code to convert spectrum screens to cpc, and also some code to patch XPDB to read +3 discs. I'll publish this when I have time, it easily shows how graphics can be converted at runtime AND it shows the problems. I hope it doesn't result in a load of speccy ports 

[Gryzor]

Now I understood your comment in the other thread; indeed, this should now be split in two, one article dealing with the ports and another with the machine capability comparison... I'll see if I can do it tomorrow...

[MacDeath]

I've seen that some sort of speccy emulator did exist on CPC...
But...
Are there any CPC emulator on Speccy ?


http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/ZXM

Do you have informations on this emulator ? does it use Hardware ? ROM ?
Are there other ? does it work well ?

Need a closer inspection...
Would be so nice to see some Actual Speccy games running faster with this emulator than the speccyport...

On another matter, my picture use CPC emulated colours for both Speccy and CPC, I suppose Speccy don't have exactly the same, does someone have the values for the speccy palette ?
(RGB 0-255 please) so I can edit my pic to get it closer...

[sigh]

The Speccy Port page information is looking pretty good. Would be good to have a side by side screen comparison on the games mentioned:

Robocop:
Chase HQ
Wec le mans
Midnight Resistance

Rtype Spec , Rtype CPC original and then Rtype Remake.

[MacDeath]

Rtype Spec , Rtype CPC original and then Rtype Remake.

Perhaps you should have a looke at R-Type page...

[AMSDOS]

I've seen that some sort of speccy emulator did exist on CPC...
But...
Are there any CPC emulator on Speccy ?


http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/ZXM

Do you have informations on this emulator ? does it use Hardware ? ROM ?
Are there other ? does it work well ?

Need a closer inspection...
Would be so nice to see some Actual Speccy games running faster with this emulator than the speccyport...

On another matter, my picture use CPC emulated colours for both Speccy and CPC, I suppose Speccy don't have exactly the same, does someone have the values for the speccy palette ?
(RGB 0-255 please) so I can edit my pic to get it closer...

I recall AA reviewing the ZXM emulator and from memory it wasn't the kind of emulator you could play your commercial games on, though from memory I think only allowed you to play around with BASIC programs as they would have been written on the Spectrum.

[Gryzor]

Actually the csa8 FAQ mentions a commercial emulator... but I didn't see any details on it.

[andycadley]

Actually the csa8 FAQ mentions a commercial emulator... but I didn't see any details on it.

Probably the same one that got reviewed in AA. I suspect the rarity of it may be down to very few CPC owners being prepared to pay actual money to downgrade their machine to a 16K spectrum. 

[Gryzor]

Yeah... filed under the title "Useless software ideas"

Still, it's be great if we could track down the dev and ask them a few questions...

[EDIT] Erm... the wiki is an excellent source of information!

[arnoldemu]

On another matter, my picture use CPC emulated colours for both Speccy and CPC, I suppose Speccy don't have exactly the same, does someone have the values for the speccy palette ?
(RGB 0-255 please) so I can edit my pic to get it closer...

It seems no emulator agrees.
It seems that bright is 255, and not-bright is 192.
So levels are 0, 192 and 255.
This may be closer. Don't forget that the cpc's is probably not accurate either.

[Shredder11]

I don't like the 464, it's an ugly CPC.
The CPC6128 is the love of my life.

I had a CPC464 back in 1987 until around 1994.  These days I have a CPC6128 but I still like the colourful look of the 464, whereas the 6128 is very conservative and business like.

[Shredder11]

Mister Beep's stuff is pretty clever, though as a traditionalist I still don't think anything is quite as impressive as Tim Follin's music in Chronos.

I remember in 1987 (?) being utterly stunned and blown away by the Spectrum Chronos music...still am in fact!  Shame the game was a little ordinary, although the graphics were nicely done despite being monochrome.

[Gryzor]

I remember in 1987 (?) being utterly stunned and blown away by the Spectrum Chronos music...still am in fact!  Shame the game was a little ordinary, although the graphics were nicely done despite being monochrome.

Well, I hit Play on YT and... my PC starts to f@rt. Weird.

[arnoldemu]

@Macdeath: Nice edits to the Speccy port page!

I like the way it's been split into sections for comparison and the extra info you added.

I think we should do the following now:

1. a Speccy port category for games

2. in the Speccy port page we link to the game information (I added a link to black tiger to show what I mean)

3. I think we need to keep the spectrum/amstrad comparison in it's own page for each game.
This keeps the game information page clean, and the speccy port page clean.

The following links are needed I think:

Speccy port->Game info page
Game info page->Speccy port
Game under Speccy port category
Speccy port->game comparison
game info page->game comparison

4. I think the game information page should just show:
a) publisher, year of release, name, information about game, links to download, links to other computer versions (c64, spectrum).
b) all comparison should be done on another page where you are free to put screenshots and write about "what if"

I think the information is then more controlled and more easy to read.

[Gryzor]

I agree with moving comparisons (maybe except for a couple of examples) to separate pages, but I think that braking game info pages in two would be too much... I think it'd be better to have the vs speccy section in the game's page itself...

[MacDeath]

Thx...
The mass of comparison details was quite big so I though to put them in sub categories/paragraphs would ease, but as it was a bit messy I did this roughly...
Yet now the idea is here, up to someone else with better technical knowledge to finish it.


The comparison pages (games ?) could get some "8 bit wars" category then... (alos all comparison topics and benchmarks ?)


Anyway, just get it as you feel ...

The fact is that the topic is quite interesting IMO... 
And can also lead to something quite more technical, be it to edit existing games, understand betterly how the industry worked, but also understand how to port stuff (cross dev) betterly...


I think we may know our CPC better thx to such topics.


When I came to the internet CPC community a pair of years ago I was told that to patch-edit existing game was nearly impossible... or too complicated...
Anyway Fano did it twice with awesome result (one is still unreleased).


So we can do better.

Speccy ports often used the same few techniques and tricks... So a proper general method can be set.



Also spanish are still doing speccy ports...
So this topic is still alive and well... (yet modern speccy ports are betterly ported anyway... )


I had a dream...I had a dream....
Of the day the infamous list of the 30 speccy porks of death would get properly patched and show the real fact that Speccy is humable and amstrad Strong !



Concerning the Black Tiger...
It was also a way to get the map of the game so player can finish it...

[scooby1970]

My main computer was an Amstrad CPC464 with all the add-on's at the time I owned a 48k Spectrum. For me, the 464 had much more plus points than the Speccy. For a starter, the main killer of Spectrum games was the awful colour-clash, it simply made the games unplayable for me. The 464 games always seemed more playable and better to look at.

As far a scrolling between the systems, yes, the 464 did have some games that scrolled badly, but back in the day the amount of games that relied on scrolling for game-play seemed insignficant. The colour choice on games was also nearly always better on the 464, especially games which used Mode 0! Games such as Ikari Warriors and Barbarian which I played to death were best played on the 464 because of the better colour and indeed great scrolling on Ikari Warriors.

I think as an overall computer, the CPC was (an is) a far superior machine to the Spectrum, and a far more versatile machine than the C64. Of course, the same with any system, there were better games on other systems, but when the CPC got it right, the games were the best of the 8-bit era.

I eventually upgraded to a CPC6128+, which of course was the best 8-bit computer released. However, it was released to late to make a difference sadly.

Mark

[AMSDOS]

Yeah... filed under the title "Useless software ideas"

Still, it's be great if we could track down the dev and ask them a few questions...

[EDIT] Erm... the wiki is an excellent source of information!

You can also download it from here (or here for those who love FTP!  ) and it will be on NVG too, so is in no danger of being lost! 

From memory I think it could only let you type in some BASIC Spectrum programs (I'm unsure if it would even let you save or load them - a Manual would certainly help). Some of those BASIC programs published in them Usborne books from 1983 or so though might have helped someone figure out how the program would run in Locomotive BASIC (as opposed to buying a Spectrum instead), though long term appeal would have been limited.