Author Topic: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate  (Read 13795 times)

handygrafx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #150 on: September 15, 2007, 05:01:23 PM »
...the parallax is there in the 2nd level and where ever the arcade had it. with that said,  it's not that the PCE/TG16 couldn't handle that parallax, since of course we all know the machine can be forced to do it. 


Not to defend lazy programmers or anything, but the types of parallax in stage 2 and 5 of R-Type are different, and the type of parallax on stage 5 has been pointed out again and again to be a simple hsync scroll, without some people here "getting it" that it's not the same as true parallax.  It'd be tough to "force" the PCE to do true parallax with two different layers of graphics such as the ones on stage 2, but I guess the easiest way to do it would be VRAM animation, which (since the blue BG seems to tile at 32 or 64 pixels) would eat up a lot of VRAM.  Or just ROM, if the programmers were good enough to manage VRAM animation from ROM (rather than a VRAM-to-VRAM copy.)

there are exceptions to this rule though. the Amiga. it didn't have any hardware scrolling background layers, yet in games like Shadow of the Beast and Lionheart programmers achived many (more than 3-4) layers.


ref:
http://hol.abime.net/1891/screenshot
http://hol.abime.net/894/screenshot

The Amiga (ECS chipset) can indeed have two completely independent background layers.  The games Menace and Agony (and I'm sure countless others) use it to create the appearance of several backgrounds, layered on top of each other.  I just looked again at the screenshots of Shadow of the Beast, and that's the mode that I believe the game is running in most of the time.  Probably Lionheart too.

The main limitation to the dual-BG mode of the Amiga is that each background can have only 3 bitplanes (8 colours per BG), while the regular single BG mode of the Amiga can have 6 bitplanes (32 colours +halfbrite if needed).


ah, thanks for correcting me on the details of parallax scrolling.   obviously I don't have much knowledge on the subject.    Also about the capabilities of the Amiga chipset.


awack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #151 on: September 15, 2007, 05:07:21 PM »
We shouldn't think that the standard 16 bit genesis can do the exact same graphics that are in knuckles and chatotix though since the only 3 screenshots Ive seen of it range from 80 to 90 colors which is higher than any ingame genesis screenshot that i have seen, having said that, there are regular genesis games that look just as good to me :D
« Last Edit: September 15, 2007, 05:22:20 PM by awack »

handygrafx

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 320
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #152 on: September 15, 2007, 05:18:25 PM »
if only the Genesis had the color capabilities of Sega's System 16 arcade hardware.  Close to 2000 colors (or at least 1500) on screen out of 32,768.   not as much as NEO-GEO but more than PC-Engine, and more colors on-screen than SNES.   

I just love the colors & shading of System 16 games


Yeah, I know the PC-Engine was able to reproduce the colors/shading of System 16 games better than Sega's own console.


 Actually, I wanted the Genesis to have all the capabilities of the System 16B, including scaling. 

While not as powerful as Sega's various high-end, multi-68000 boards with Super-Scaler technology, the System 16B as a midrange powered board from the mid 1980s was really nice. It concievably could have been used as the basis for Genesis.   I could be wrong but I think a commen misconception is that the Genesis was based on System 16.  I don't think it was, other than having *some* of the same basic capabilities (16-bit 68000 CPU, two background layers).  I suppose a Genesis based directly off of System 16  would've cost too much -- On the other hand, maybe not, given the 2-3 year timeframe Sega would have had to shrink a midrange board from mid-80s into a console for '88/'89.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2007, 05:24:53 PM by handygrafx »

Keranu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9054
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #153 on: September 15, 2007, 05:46:15 PM »
Now here's a fun poll:

What do you think would've benefitted more? The Turbo Grafx 16 having an extra background layer or the Genesis having palette capabilities as the TG16  :mrgreen: ? We sorta already have a TG16 with an extra background layer thanks to the Super Grafx, but I'd like to hear comments regarding this :) .
Quote from: Bonknuts
Adding PCE console specific layer on top of that, makes for an interesting challenge (no, not a reference to Ys II).

Turbo D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #154 on: September 15, 2007, 05:52:45 PM »
I'd say that sega and nec should get together and release a next gen console  :wink:

Michael Helgeson

  • Guest
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #155 on: September 15, 2007, 05:55:45 PM »
I'd say that sega and nec should get together and release a next gen console  :wink:

They did,it was called the Dreamcast.

Joe Redifer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8178
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #156 on: September 15, 2007, 06:11:19 PM »
Quote from: Keranu

Quote





Impressive! That's really interesting that the Genesis does the backgrounds, is there a reason for that?



Yes.  That's just how the 32X worked.  It genlocked its video over or under (or both) onto the Genesis video.  The video output from the Genesis actually goes into the 32X, and then the video out jack on the 32X went to the TV.  Since the video was transmitted via RGB from the Genesis, composite video with a 32X playing a regular Genesis game looks much better than composite video from the Genesis itself.  No more vertical rainbow stripes.  Less fuzziness.  Much better.  In short, just having a 32X attached and hooked up properly fixes all of the Genesis' composite video shortcomings.

Anyway, for Knuckles' Chaotix, the 32X just drew the sprites and the polygonal parts of the bonus stages.  The Genesis used its own colors for all of the backgrounds.  Unfortunately the 32X cannot give the Genesis extra colors to use for its layers.  In Kolibri the 32X does the sprites as well as a background layer and the Genesis does the furthest background layers with sprite tricks to simulate 3 BGs in addition to the 32X BG for a total of 4 BGs in the first stage.  In Space Harrier, the 32X does EVERYTHING except the background... but even the background has super smooth color gradients that are done by the 32X.  That's a great example of 32X putting stuff in front of and behind Genesis graphics simultaneously.

Turbo D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #157 on: September 15, 2007, 06:20:39 PM »
I'd say that sega and nec should get together and release a next gen console  :wink:

They did,it was called the Dreamcast.

I didn't know that nec had anything to do with the dreamcast  :-k

Joe Redifer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8178
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #158 on: September 15, 2007, 06:21:48 PM »
Yeah.  They did the grafx.  Seriously.

Turbo D

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #159 on: September 15, 2007, 06:22:49 PM »
 :o wow, I have a new respect for my dreamcast.

Keranu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9054
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #160 on: September 15, 2007, 06:27:53 PM »
Yes.  That's just how the 32X worked.  It genlocked its video over or under (or both) onto the Genesis video.  The video output from the Genesis actually goes into the 32X, and then the video out jack on the 32X went to the TV.  Since the video was transmitted via RGB from the Genesis, composite video with a 32X playing a regular Genesis game looks much better than composite video from the Genesis itself.  No more vertical rainbow stripes.  Less fuzziness.  Much better.  In short, just having a 32X attached and hooked up properly fixes all of the Genesis' composite video shortcomings.

Anyway, for Knuckles' Chaotix, the 32X just drew the sprites and the polygonal parts of the bonus stages.  The Genesis used its own colors for all of the backgrounds.  Unfortunately the 32X cannot give the Genesis extra colors to use for its layers.  In Kolibri the 32X does the sprites as well as a background layer and the Genesis does the furthest background layers with sprite tricks to simulate 3 BGs in addition to the 32X BG for a total of 4 BGs in the first stage.  In Space Harrier, the 32X does EVERYTHING except the background... but even the background has super smooth color gradients that are done by the 32X.  That's a great example of 32X putting stuff in front of and behind Genesis graphics simultaneously.
Wow I never knew that, that's pretty amazing. I really need to get a 32X! I'm still curious though, does the 32X have any of it's own background layers? I don't get how Kolibri worked if the 32x didn't have it's own background layer(s), unless they faked them with sprites or something.

By the way, I removed all the sprites from the Knuckles Chaotic screenshot that I could find and the color count was like 40 something, which is more than Genesis backgrounds can handle. Maybe the Genesis was producing sprites in that shot as well or something? I'm not doubting what you said or anything, but any info regarding that would be appreciated! Anyway, I really need to get a 32x! :D
Quote from: Bonknuts
Adding PCE console specific layer on top of that, makes for an interesting challenge (no, not a reference to Ys II).

awack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #161 on: September 15, 2007, 07:20:13 PM »
Joe's right about the difference the 32x makes to genesis games, check out the link below.


http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/SSF2compare.htm

Joe Redifer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8178
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #162 on: September 15, 2007, 07:21:58 PM »
The 32X does one background in Kolibri, usually the one closest to your face (re: on top).  How did you "remove" the sprites from the Knuckles' Chaotix pic?  Just blanking them out with black?  Don't forget to remove the sparklies, rings and the score as well.  It is possible that they supplemented the BG with sprites.

Joe Redifer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8178
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #163 on: September 15, 2007, 07:23:50 PM »
Joe's right about the difference the 32x makes to genesis games, check out the link below.


http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/SSF2compare.htm


A little "note" about those screenshots.  You might think the 32X ones look way too saturated.  I have noticed that when recording 32X video to my computer, it is extremely saturated for some reason and I can't figure out why.  But this is not the case when playing on a TV or recording to a VCR.  I'll try and post a good side-by-side.

awack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #164 on: September 15, 2007, 07:37:01 PM »
Quote
But this is not the case when playing on a TV or recording to a VCR.  I'll try and post a good side-by-side.


Cool, i always wanted to get a 32x for the video improvement it would give to regular genesis games but always thought that the colors looked bad from the screenshots i have seen, like the color is set way to high on the tv, i might have to get one now.

Here is another comparison, look at the vertical bars.

http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/ShinobiIIIcompare.htm
« Last Edit: September 15, 2007, 07:38:53 PM by awack »