Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!orpheus
From: orpheus@reed.UUCP (Aaron Semplers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Risk
Keywords: color, graphics, sound, harsh
Message-ID: <15736@reed.UUCP>
Date: 27 Nov 90 11:29:22 GMT
References: <15722@reed.UUCP> <17578@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Reply-To: orpheus@reed.UUCP (Aaron Semplers)
Organization: Reed College, Portland OR
Lines: 67

|   Chris Russo writes: 
|   The Mac doesn't have a little thing called a graphics coprocessor.
|   The Amiga does.

    Granted. We are at a disadvantage until the machine we both adore 
gets a graphics coprocessor, and gobs of other gear and code. Of course,
there'll be that large user base out there with no such luck...
    When I said we had the technology, I was hedging a bit. Notice, 
I did not say hardware. I just meant that we can do scolling panoramas 
and moving characters, like maybe some molasses in January or some 
snails racing postmen or something.
    The momentum is definitely against us on this one. I suppose the 
number of really interesting simulations, like the SimGames and 
Balance of Power, does create something of a mystique for the Mac, 
but then they get ported to hell and back.

|      I just think that it's a shame that a graphics based has gone 
|   so long without a graphics coprocessor. Kind of like submarine
|   based missiles without a submarine. Powerful, but not all of it's
|   capabilities are being utilized.

    The Question of the Hour:
    How can we, as Macintosh developers, put out games that can 
compete with the impressive array of games for the Amiga?

    Like you, I found that the graphics routines were the slowest part. 
The code used shaded surfaces, drawn in an offscreen world, copied to 
the screen as quickly as possible. The math was blindingly fast.
I mean, it was really fast. I had trouble timing it, it was so fast.
    It was the graphics, both vector and raster, that took time. 
The time the drawing took was proportional to the number of final 
line segments, and somewhat to the area of the polygons to be filled.
No matter how many there were or how fast they were drawn, I could 
only crank out and copy so many frames per second. 
    I tried drawing the objects from a series of angles, storing them, 
and using the appropriate picture whenever necessary. Sadly, it ran 
into the frame rate problem.
    How can we compensate for the lack of speed? 

    We have graphics routines. They are glacial, but present. And we 
have sound. So what if we don't have MIDI, NTSC, and a coprocessor to 
brush our teeth for us when we forget? So what? 
    The Amiga games are basically just programs looking for approval.
They show what can be done with an Amiga. Our programs cannot attempt
to be what they are, any more than Amiga could develop a standard 
graphics format. {Jab, jab.}
    We ought to stay at it, I guess, finding other saving graces... 
Like totally localizable, device independent games...
 
|   I know, some of you are saying "If this guy loves the Amiga so much,
|   why doesn't he just sell his II, buy an amiga, and (u)nsubscribe
|   to this newsgroup?"   But, as I said before, I love this machine.  
|   I feel that its overall advantages are better than any machine 
|   out today.  

    I gotta admit, it really looks like the Amiga is the better machine. 
At least, until you ask around about the reliability of their hardware. 
{Jab, jab.} Really, if nothing else, it has made us think critically 
about the machine, and how we need to be using it. 
    You know, now that I think about it, maybe we should do a game with 
the snails and postmen and molasses and such. It's just so sarcastic,
it might work.

    orpheus@reed
"...visions of 'bright young men' 
    with their mathematical models and 
    automation taking over..."