URC Demo (PCE CD racing game)

[Arkhan]

I still want to see the car shooting stuff!

[Senshi]

I still want to see the car shooting stuff!

Seconded. Think "Spy Hunter". 

[Arkhan]

Yeah man, that would be great. 

all TokyoDrift style though!

[nat]

I didn't download the demo, but is the framerate really as bad as it appears in the YouTube video?

[touko]

No youtube can only play videos at 25/30 fps max, URC turn at 60 fps ..

Is that it seems to be not smooth ..

[Bonknuts]

6502 assembly language is retarded.

Everything feels backasswards.  I like z80. 

this will sound really dumb but he should make this a vertical shmup.   its got PC Carmageddon written all over it.

 You just need to cut your teeth on the 65x first, like anything else really. The PCE doesn't have a 6502. I would be pissed if it did. The original model is missing some important addressing modes and instructions. Having to use or clear X register *every* time you access indirect ZP addressing mode is a pain in the ass (and makes X useless or less optimal in specific loops). Not to mention other missing addressing modes. 65c02 and later upgrades like the 6280 are much welcomed over the original 6502. The z80 ISA is OK. The 65x series has much more advantages in the ISA once you get pretty familiar with both. The z80 was my first console processor that I learned to code for (x86 was the first ASM language I learned). It was a pretty easy processor ISA to learn and use. But after learning 68k asm, z80 now feels like a neutered 68k

 You just need to look at the 65x differently than just an Accumulator based processor  ZP used as fastram actually take the place of "data" registers on other processors. And ZP used as indirect access directly takes the place of "vector registers" on other processors ( (BC) or (A0) or [CX] or (R15), etc). Except you got a shit load more than any of those processors. Instead of constantly load/storing them, you have enough to actually dedicate them to important functions (like on a RISC processor with 30+ regs). And of course if you don't like writing out as many of the fast but simple instructions of the 65x ISA, you can always use macros:

Code: [Select]

;*******************************************************************************
;///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*
;//MAIN                                                                       //*
;///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////*
;.
main:                             

      jsr init_vdc
      jsr init_wsg
      jsr init_dma

      VCE_REG MID_RES|H_FILTER
      VDC_REG DCR , AUTO_SATB_ON         
      VDC_REG CR , $0000
      IRQ_CNTR IRQ2_ON|VIRQ_ON|TIRQ_ON
      VDC_REG SATB , $7F00
      VDC_REG MWR , SCR64_32
      TIMER_REG TMR_CMD, #$00
      TIMER_REG TMR_PORT, #$01
         

      VDC_REG CR , BG_ON|SPR_ON|VINT_ON|HINT_OFF

     
    ;load font
      MAP_BANK_WIDE Font , MPR3
      VDC_REG MAWR, $1000
      VDC_REG VRWR
      DMA Font, $6000, vdata_port, (FontEnd-Font)
   
    ;load palette
      BG_COLOR #$0
      DMA_local FontPal,vce_data, #$10
     
      jsr ClearScreen
     
      PRINT_STR_i "- unlocking GN1",3,2
      jsr UnlockGN1
      PRINT_STR_i "- clearing GN1 ram",3,3
      jsr ClearGN1ram

      MAP_BANK_WIDE instr_info, MPR3
      LEA instr_info, $6000, A0
      MOVEB SampleTBLLEN, D1
      ldx #$01
      ADDIW #$16, <A0
.loop2
      cly
      lda [A0],y




[nodtveidt]

Very cool little demo, would be nice to see made into a full game. Love the artwork, that was the best part. I'm confused as to why there weren't more frames though... being coded in assembly, you'd think that this wouldn't even be an issue, but it seems as if *everything* is stuffed into SCD RAM at once, which is probably part of the problem. Might have been better as a hucard game, imo... would have given Orion more space to work with if he wasn't really going to take advantage of the CDROM hardware aside from redbook.

[Arkhan]

You just need to cut your teeth on the 65x first, like anything else really. The PCE doesn't have a 6502. I would be pissed if it did. The original model is missing some important addressing modes and instructions. Having to use or clear X register *every* time you access indirect ZP addressing mode is a pain in the ass (and makes X useless or less optimal in specific loops). Not to mention other missing addressing modes. 65c02 and later upgrades like the 6280 are much welcomed over the original 6502. The z80 ISA is OK. The 65x series has much more advantages in the ISA once you get pretty familiar with both. The z80 was my first console processor that I learned to code for (x86 was the first ASM language I learned). It was a pretty easy processor ISA to learn and use. But after learning 68k asm, z80 now feels like a neutered 68k

I don't need to cut my teeth on anything.  I don't like 6502 based assembly very much.  I've read two entire books and flailed around on 6502.org back in my C64 days.  I did a bunch of asm on the C64 with TASM. 

It all seems pretty mental.  Many people share this opinion.  They're called MSX and Spectrum users.  Spectrum users are their own special breed of mental (That computer is hideous).

You just need to look at the 65x differently than just an Accumulator based processor  ZP used as fastram actually take the place of "data" registers on other processors. And ZP used as indirect access directly takes the place of "vector registers" on other processors ( (BC) or (A0) or [CX] or (R15), etc). Except you got a shit load more than any of those processors. Instead of constantly load/storing them, you have enough to actually dedicate them to important functions (like on a RISC processor with 30+ regs). And of course if you don't like writing out as many of the fast but simple instructions of the 65x ISA, you can always use macros:

Again with the "you just need to...".  I don't just need to do anything...

I prefer the z80.  Everything flows better to me.  The registers are friendlier.  I also like that the MSX has the z80, the v9938, AND an awesome BIOS with lots of things I can do trivially.

No amount of comparisons to other cpus/tricks you can/opinions about 6502-based crap is going to really sway me.  I only deal with the 6502-based CPUs for the PCE.  If it had something else I wouldn't touch the 6502.  Anything 6502 based annoys me. 

[nodtveidt]

TomBonknuts is right though... the 6280 isn't a 6502, and coding the PCE as if it was a 6502 is limiting and lame. It'd be like coding for the SNES as if you were coding the NES. I'm not sure I agree with the "neutered 68k" comment when referring to the Z80 though... I rather like the Z80 and it doesn't really feel like a 68k.

[Arkhan]

Right but its *still* 6502 based assembly lol.  It's got irritating quirks that I don't like.  I find the z80 more accessible

of ALL the 6502ing I've ever poked at (atari 2600, NES, C64 and PCE), I do find the PCE to be the best of the bunch. I still get annoyed, but it's the least irritating.  Too bad they never released a home computer with the 6280 in it.  That would've been pretty frigging interesting.

I have this one book that focuses on the differences between the 6502, 6510, 6280 and 65816 (and maybe some others).

It's a really nice book to give you concrete comparisons of all the 6502 variants. 

[spenoza]

I have this one book that focuses on the differences between the 6502, 6510, 6280 and 65816 (and maybe some others).

It's a really nice book to give you concrete comparisons of all the 6502 variants. 

You have a 6502 family book that actually includes the 6280 in the mix? Nice! What book is it?

[Arkhan]

I have this one book that focuses on the differences between the 6502, 6510, 6280 and 65816 (and maybe some others).

It's a really nice book to give you concrete comparisons of all the 6502 variants. 

You have a 6502 family book that actually includes the 6280 in the mix? Nice! What book is it?

well its not the 6280 but it covers the 65C02, which is what the 6280 is derived from.

[Bonknuts]

I don't need to..

 I wasn't specifically and only referencing you. I meant it in a general sense. Maybe I should have written "One just needs to...". It's to anybody that brings up inexperienced or just baseless complaints about the 65x series in general. The 65x ISA is simple, but fast. It's pretty efficient and nicely optimizable. Any problems with the ISA in general (because maybe it's too simple by design) can easily be taken care of with macros. Making pseudo instructions with macros is cake, unless "one's" assembler of choice sucks. If it's not mission critical code, then 'one' should write a f*cking macro if it's too much to deal with - else STHU. Well, something along those lines

 Anyway, my point is that anyone that's proficient and experienced in 65x assembly wouldn't be complaining about how 'retarded' it is. A book is nothing more than a reference manual. Have as many as you like, it's not going to help you become more proficient. The only thing retarded is the inexperienced programmer complaining about it (there are quite a few out there). Just saying it plain and true. Labeling PCE coding as '6502 assembly' doesn't help your case either. Not that it should bother you any; you like the z80 much better

I tell you what is retarded, though. The PIC Micro old mid range ISA. Now that's retarded. And you won't really understand why until you try and write something for it. Just browsing over the ISA isn't evidence enough. It seriously deserves that title. If you want to talk about what constitutes 'minimal' for the definition of a processor ISA, then there's your case (12 series, 16 series, 18 series all share the same ISA). You don't know retarded until you code for that thing. Else, you're just throwing around the term

 

Spectrum users are their own special breed of mental (That computer is hideous).

 That, they are. And the batshit insane fans defend that system to the death, too. You should have seen the "speccy is soo much better than the msx thread/debate". But I actually like the charm of the Speccy. Some impressive games for such a limited little system.

 I also like that the MSX has the z80, the v9938, AND an awesome BIOS with lots of things I can do trivially.

 But video and bios don't really have anything to do with the processor itself. When you include them, then you're just referring to the system as whole and not the processor.

No amount of comparisons to other cpus/tricks you can/opinions about 6502-based crap is going to really sway me.

 That's obvious.

TomBonknutsTomaitheus is right though... the 6280 isn't a 6502, and coding the PCE as if it was a 6502 is limiting and lame. It'd be like coding for the SNES as if you were coding the NES. I'm not sure I agree with the "neutered 68k" comment when referring to the Z80 though... I rather like the Z80 and it doesn't really feel like a 68k.

 Don't get me wrong. I like the z80 (I recently picked up an SMS and am in the process of making a dev cart for it). I hold nostalgia for it (z80), since it was my first console processor that I did assembly for (not the SMS). Performance comes from register to register operations or just holding/keeping values in registers as much as possible, as opposed to having a fast/quick direct memory addressing modes (or even HAVING them at all). But this is because the bus access is slow. While the 68k isn't restricted to this (it has a very wide range of addressing modes), bus access is slow on this processor as well and optimal code comes from keeping as much operations in registers as possible. Of course, the z80 lacks the number of data and address registers of the 68k (completely disregarding the bus size, register widths, and ALU). And the z80 lacks some necessary addressing modes for some instructions, that would otherwise help it or lessen it from juggling around registers (load/store or stack use). In comparison to the 68x and 65x, the 68k feels like a direct evolution of the z80. So naturally, it feels the opposite when using the z80 (for me, after having used the 68k for a while).

[Arkhan]

I wasn't specifically and only referencing you. I meant it in a general sense. Maybe I should have written "One just needs to...". It's to anybody that brings up inexperienced or just baseless complaints about the 65x series in general. The 65x ISA is simple, but fast. It's pretty efficient and nicely optimizable. Any problems with the ISA in general (because maybe it's too simple by design) can easily be taken care of with macros. Making pseudo instructions with macros is cake, unless "one's" assembler of choice sucks. If it's not mission critical code, then 'one' should write a f*cking macro if it's too much to deal with - else STHU. Well, something along those
lines

Quoting me, and then using the term "you" implies you are referencing me dude  .    These aren't inexperienced or baseless complaints.  You like it.  I don't.  You're taking my method of expressing dislike for something as inexperience when that's really not the case.  It'd be like someone saying "I don't like that pistol.  It's retarded.  I prefer this pistol instead".  When really, both pistols are perfectly fine.

There's some kind of age-gap-vernacular thing you seem to be having trouble connecting and are instead dissecting it incorrectly and making assumptions..  That's all.

also, lets not get into macros.  Remember what happened last time?

Anyway, my point is that anyone that's proficient and experienced in 65x assembly wouldn't be complaining about how 'retarded' it is.

You'd be surprised how many highly experienced 6502 programmers will talk about how retarded it is.  Maybe they don't in your little circle, but trust me, they are out there.  I've spoken with them at the CCAG, I've spoken to them online, and I've even worked with them.

It's not a matter of proficiency or experience, its preference.  If you'd like to tell them they're inexperienced, go ahead.  It'd be mighty stupid to tell someone they're inexperienced if they were programming BEFORE the 6502, and started using the 6502 when it was considered a state of the art godsend.

I think visual studio 2010 is f*cking lame too.  I don't really like it.  That doesn't mean I don't know what I am doing with it.  Elitism much, Tom?  Seems to be your recurring theme.

I'm very experienced using trackers (Sadotracker, EMS7, CyberTracker, Impulse Tracker, MilkyTracker, Moonblaster.. to name a few), and still think those are retarded also.  It didn't stop me from converting some of my tracker files to MML for use in Insanity.

Everything, and I mean everything has quirks.  If you can't accept that other people don't share your same preferences, then that's your problem.  I'm cool with anyone being balls deep in their love of 6502.  Good for them.  Everyone's got their favorite. 

It's no different than the C64 vs. Spectrum war.  Neither one is perfect, and neither ones truly a giant piece of shit, but everyone has their likes and dislikes with each.  I think the VIC-II looks like shit and has an ugly palette, and others think it's completely gorgeous.  I think they are retarded, and they think I'm retarded.

Preference.

A book is nothing more than a reference manual. Have as many as you like, it's not going to help you become more proficient.

If that's your thinking, you must not read a lot of books then.  Are you anti-reading?  There are plenty of books that aren't just "reference" manuals.  Reading a book alone isn't going to immediately make you a pro at anything.  However, it sure can give you some insight, some things you may not have realized, some things you wouldn't have thought of, and some things you'll be glad you read about ahead of time.  Most of all, you get someone else's point of view on something and can think on what they're saying and take something away from it.  Welcome to learning. 

The only thing retarded is the inexperienced programmer complaining about it (there are quite a few out there). Just saying it plain and true. Labeling PCE coding as '6502 assembly' doesn't help your case either. Not that it should bother you any; you like the z80 much better

Anything derived from a 6502 is, at its core, 6502 assembly.  If it wasn't, a 6502 reference wouldn't do anything for you.  That's why I say 6502 assembly in reference to any platform using one.  It's easier than being extremely specific.  See how that works?

You also might want to cool it with the whole "inexperienced programmer" bit.  It sure sounds like you've directed at me at least twice in your post.  I know you see yourself as an extremely experienced veteran, and probably above a lot of other coders in the "scene", and that's fine.

I'm happy where I've been (Insanity and its related projects), where I'm at (Retrocade and XNA), and where I am going (), with coding all of this crap.  Plus, I've enlisted help, so any inexperience on my part will easily be corrected in due time.  To imply that I'm not very experienced or proficient at this point is a bit stupid man. 

Either way, I'll happily admit I am no expert and am always eager to learn some new bit of information.  That kind of attitude sets people like me years ahead of anyone being elitist.  I love asking questions and digging around for crap. 

You don't know retarded until you code for that thing. Else, you're just throwing around the term

*yawn*  Ok.

But video and bios don't really have anything to do with the processor itself. When you include them, then you're just referring to the system as whole and not the processor.

No shit.  That's exactly why I said "I also like that the MSX has the z80, the v9938 AND the BIOS".  I thought specifically saying "The MSX" followed by stating the cpu, vdp, and bios meant that I was talking about the ENTIRE system. Thank you for your obvious statement!  Where would I be without you, Tom!   lol

That, they are. And the batshit insane fans defend that system to the death, too. You should have seen the "speccy is soo much better than the msx thread/debate". But I actually like the charm of the Speccy. Some impressive games for such a limited little system.

I was involved in the debate.  I was also in the C64 vs Spectrum, and C64 vs Atari ones, and probably the C64 vs NES one.

The spectrum is ok, but all of the isometric games are lame, and so are all the spectrum ports that ended up on the MSX where the team couldn't even be bothered to make it look less like ass.  The hardware itself is f*cking sexy though.  Too bad its visuals don't match its esthetics.

[Bonknuts]

Quoting me, and then using the term "you" implies you are referencing me dude  Very Happy.    These aren't inexperienced or baseless complaints.  You like it.  I don't.  You're taking my method of expressing dislike for something as inexperience when that's really not the case.  It'd be like someone saying "I don't like that pistol.  It's retarded.  I prefer this pistol instead".  When really, both pistols are perfectly fine.

There's some kind of age-gap-vernacular thing you seem to be having trouble connecting and are instead dissecting it incorrectly and making assumptions..  That's all.

 So you're taking the term 'retarded' and applying it in the context of just 'not liking or preferring something'. And that it has no real description of functionality or attributes of the target object? Maybe it is an age-gap-vernacular thing. See, my nieces and nephews use the term stupid (and probably retarded) to describe things they don't like (or understand). But they're kids and that's a kid thing to do. As an adult, you don't say stuff like that unless you mean it in a demeaning or insulting tone. Hell, even my older son of 15 years doesn't talk like that. Retard or retarded has a specific negative connotation. How else would you seriously expect someone to react to such a word? 

also, lets not get into macros.  Remember what happened last time?

How can you misunderstand the context of a macro relative to an assembler??? I mean, what is there really to discuss? But hey go ahead, I'm up for it. The only thing I remember about last time is that you got butt-hurt that I called MML's lack of direct command support for ARPs as 'gay' (your word, actually. And I said it jokingly in chat). As if I pissed on your bible or something.
 

You'd be surprised how many highly experienced 6502 programmers will talk about how retarded it is.

You know, I would very much be surprised if they described it as 'retarded'. Tedious? Sure. Accumulator based being different than the norm? Sure. Even specific attributes being poor design or such. Sure. But then again, people older than me would actually use the term 'retarded' (in the literal demeaning sense) to describe why anyone who would even program in assembly by choice to begin with in this day and age. Let alone for an old-ass relic of a system from 20+ years ago. I'd call those people narrow minded and ignorant. But seriously, if the 65x series that bad that you (not you specifically) have to whine like a little bitch... then it's a best bet that assembly language programming isn't for you. Assembly language by its very nature is tedious and alien and probably convoluted at times. It's a process of forming more complex logic from simplistic operations. Can't stand the heat, then GTFO.

 For the record, I don't "love" the 65x or the 6280. I'm just very proficient in coding for them. And I recognize its potential for optimization. It's second nature, therefore I feel comfortable with the ISA or whatever limitations or convolutions maybe involved with coding for it. That only comes from experience (you'll never learn that from a book. And yes, I have a books. And yes, I read books. Really, WTF?). IMO, if you're not at that level then you have no real or valid criticism to offer for the processor. And if you are at that level, let's hear the specifics. Else, it's just people talking out their ass.

 Also, there's a reason why people wouldn't use the term 6502 to describe the 6280 or other far off variants. If you've coded for both, you wouldn't link them together like that. People don't user the name 68000 for the '030 or 040 even though they are the same basic 'core'. Well, people that don't code might but that's besides the point. Or rather, an affirmation that inexperience people use such terms more loosely. The 6280 is like 4 levels out. 6502->65c02->R65c02s->HuC6280. The R is the Rockwell version that WDC latter adopted into the 65c02 core. Those added instructions weren't originally there. You don't say you're writing 8086 assembler when you're specifically targeting a 386 or 486. You say x86. Just like 680x0. Or 65x. When referring to the core, instead of the original model. See how that works?

 And since this was all based on your alternate usage and context of the word retarded, I guess there's nothing really to discuss. I was hoping maybe you'd give some specific examples of what you liked about the z80 over the 65x. But I have a strong feeling that you have a bias towards the z80 and the MSX specifically because it's not a C64. It's different in every way, including the processor and community. You have such disdain for the C64 community/scene. At least, when we used to chat.