>Could not draw basic shapes>Could not draw a line>Literally could not even just draw a single pixel>Could only copy-and-paste pre-made 8x8 pixel tiles>Somehow produced amazing games that are still memorable today
I’m going to draw a line measuring your penis. Why is it only one inch long?
>preventing shitty development practices from the get gobased
>>12442039Anon, you're using the centimeters side.
Even the most basic hardware-accelerated graphics beats the shit out of software rendering for anything that isn't a slow-paced strategy game.
>>12442039Oh yeah? Well I'm going to draw a line measuring your dumbness, but the processor crashed after a stack overflow
What's inside the plastic casing of an IC?
>>12442039FPBP
>>12442230mustard gas
>>12442230Most of the time it is is just empty space, the actual silicon chip is small and then its just brass tracks leading to each pin. Old electronics could have been much smaller but it took advancements in surfacemount/robotic part placement to make it viable. The old DIP packaged ICs were big simply because circuit boards were assembled by hand and needed larger pins and sockets for less skilled factory workers to assemble. Pic isnt the NES but a lot are like this.
>>12442262>silicon chipWhat do they do?I'm pretty damn tech illiterate, but I've been using a logic probe to diagnose some ICs lately and it looks damn interesting.>The old DIP packaged ICs were big simply because circuit boards were assembled by handWow.
>>12442272>What do they do?As in, how do they work? There's a talk about the 6502 that I recommend about this subject.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWqBmmPQP40
>>12442030Atari 7800's MARIA was better. It could render sprites of any horizontal size and as little as 1 pixel tall. It can draw lines with sprite data. It makes fast antialiased sprite scaling in Ballblazer possible.The only downside is the line buffer DMA halts the CPU everytime it draws because Atari were even cheaper bastards than Nintendo and prioritized Atari 2600 backwards compatibility. If it was designed just like the NES, which is the GPU getting a dedicated ROM and RAM buses completely separate from the CPU, it would have been so much faster.But still, even as is, it was a very capable system, and an upgrade over Atari 8-bit.
>>12442529Yeah, the amount of sprites made other quality ports like Robotron 2084, which is impressive for a console that was supposed to be released in 1984. 128 color master palette was also great, though Atari was consistently ahead of everyone else in that regard. The only thing that really sucks in terms of graphics is the lower res, the console seems to be stuck at 160 horizontal, with the exception of a few games and homebrews with major color restrictions.
>>12442030>Somehow
>>12442652>The only thing that really sucks in terms of graphics is the lower res, the console seems to be stuck at 160 horizontal, with the exception of a few games and homebrews with major color restrictions.That's really due to the ROM and RAM bus being shared by the CPU and GPU, slowing them both down. As I said, if Atari spent a tiny bit more money on the hardware and didn't care about 2600 backwards compatibility, the MARIA chip could've drawn lines faster and the CPU could've generated display lists much more rapidly. It also should've used the POKEY chip for sounds and i/o. TIA was extremely outdated. Yeah the 7800 was really cheap, even cheaper than NES, but they made too many compromises and dumb decisions like backwards compatibility for a nearly decade old console.
>>12442731>backwards compatibility for a nearly decade old consoleTo be fair, the 7800 was designed in like '83, and should have shipped in '84. It didn't come out for years because Warner botched the sale (and tried to hold onto the 7800 and sell it separately) and it took a lawsuit and several years to sort out who owned the 7800.
>>12442262>ai slop
>>12442742Even in 84, the BC was pointless. Atari 2600 consoles and adaptors were dirt cheap thanks to the gaming crash.
>>12442804It was still the #1 console at the time, and people had a lot of games still in their closet. Being able to toss the old machine and replace it with a new one, but keep the old games is a selling point.
>>12442529I wasn't trying to boast about the chip, the opposite, I was mentioning how it could not even draw anything on the screen and could only essentially copy-and-paste pre-made tiles, with the only changes it can make to them to flip them or swap their palette, yet with that limited hardware it was still possible to make so many memorable games from basically copy-pasting tiles on the screen.
>>12442520Thanks. I'm filtered at 4:20 since I have zero idea what it all means. Looks damn interesting though.
>>12442905He kind of glosses over it, but the basics of 6502 assembly code are fairly straightforward. It wouldn't take too long to learn them to gain context for the rest of the video, which focuses on the electromechanics of the chip and how they define its behavior. Basically, how does an elaborate daisy chain of electrical logic gates comprise a CPU that can be programmed with a programming language? He then goes over how researchers have used high power microscopes to analyze these logic gates and reverse engineer a full schematic of the chip. This schematic was used to investigate the intricacies of "illegal instructions," which are instructions not intended by the designers of the chip, and how the schematic was used to write a "CPU simulator," which is basically an emulator that recreates the CPU at an electron level.
>>12442262Best post on board maybe. I learned sumpin'
>>12442529>because Atari were even cheaper bastards than Nintendo and prioritized Atari 2600 backwards compatibility.They had to, they got burned hard with the 5200 because everyone expected it to play 2600 games and they returned the system when it couldn't.
>>12442158user is underage
>>12442030Atari 2600 was way worse
>>12444643Atari 2600 could draw lines.
>>12444223Man, the early days of video games console were wild. People wanted the 5200 to play 2600 games, yet, ~10 years later, nobody gave a fuck that the SNES couldn't play NES games.
>>12444686There's that famous TV interview of the lady saying something like "they make it so the new one and the old one don't play the same games so you have to spend more money" but Nintendo powered through
>>12445305You mean this?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTzyz2TgGlsI wouldn't say it's the same thing, that's less people who are actually informed about the system wanting backwards compatibility and more clueless parents who think every game console is the same and Nintendo is just intentionally putting a limit to prevent SNES games from working on a NES or vice-versa to "con" them out of more money.
>>12442158Real men raced the beam.
>>12442817That's what adaptors were for. 5200 and even intellivision got one.
>>12442039So what if it is? Can't help the way you're born
>>12447263I hear that was a good retro book
