Author Topic: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate  (Read 13756 times)

Black Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11242
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #75 on: September 13, 2007, 02:15:31 PM »
The Genesis had 3 years on the PcEngine and was twice its size and the games don't look any better. The genesis would be an utter waste of chips with out that extra background layer;  its all that it has to compete. Anyways, Genesis failed to the PcEngine in Japan for obvious reasons. It will fail in this thread as well  :wink:

Well, this is a PC Engine forum.

Try starting this thread over on Sega-16. :wink:
http://www.superpcenginegrafx.net/forum

Active and drama free PC Engine forum

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #76 on: September 13, 2007, 02:28:27 PM »
so let's merge that parallax talk in short sentences! as told by chris and joe:

As for the PCE:
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites (from the 2nd to n layers)

As for the MD:
two hardware layers. so from the 3rd to n layer >
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites

right?

Wait.. what?  By ">" do you mean "->"  as in "goes to/associated with"?

 The MD can do overlapping parallax layers without using sprites. ThunderForce 4 ocean side level is a perfect example of this. The SGX and SNES can do this too.

yes ">" = "->"

as i could take out from joes post, the MD only owns 2 HW layers, therefore i thought, any addition layers have to be done the exactly same way as on the PCE, h-sync or use of sprites.
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #77 on: September 13, 2007, 02:31:11 PM »
The Genesis had 3 years on the PcEngine and was twice its size and the games don't look any better. The genesis would be an utter waste of chips with out that extra background layer;  its all that it has to compete. Anyways, Genesis failed to the PcEngine in Japan for obvious reasons. It will fail in this thread as well  :wink:

what you mean with 3 years? that was the SFC..

the only one real exiting thing is, that the PCE was released more than a year earlier than the MD and almost 3 years before the SFC came out. considering this fact, the PC Engine was really a big step ahead and astonishing little piece of hardware back then! if you open a PCE there is 96% designed in advanced SMD technology, which makes it such compact and you think you openend something designed in the middle 90s. if you open a MD, you think you opened an alarm-clock from the mid 80s.
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^

Black Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11242
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #78 on: September 13, 2007, 02:31:49 PM »
so let's merge that parallax talk in short sentences! as told by chris and joe:

As for the PCE:
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites (from the 2nd to n layers)

As for the MD:
two hardware layers. so from the 3rd to n layer >
non-overlapping parallax > h-sync
overlapping parallax > sprites

right?

Wait.. what?  By ">" do you mean "->"  as in "goes to/associated with"?

 The MD can do overlapping parallax layers without using sprites. ThunderForce 4 ocean side level is a perfect example of this. The SGX and SNES can do this too.

yes ">" = "->"

as i could take out from joes post, the MD only owns 2 HW layers, therefore i thought, any addition layers have to be done the exactly same way as on the PCE, h-sync or use of sprites.

It can still throw up a foreground. I don't know if the foreground can scroll seperate pieces to keep a score/status and moving graphic elements though.
http://www.superpcenginegrafx.net/forum

Active and drama free PC Engine forum

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #79 on: September 13, 2007, 02:36:34 PM »
so then we talking about 1 foreground + 2 extra background layers (for parallax) = 3 hardware layers? 4th to n layer by h-sync or sprites?
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^

Black Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11242
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #80 on: September 13, 2007, 03:15:03 PM »
so then we talking about 1 foreground + 2 extra background layers (for parallax) = 3 hardware layers? 4th to n layer by h-sync or sprites?


Thats how I understand it.


I had been thinking of starting a thread to ask all the tech heads questions about how certain Turbo bgs effects were achieved once I got enough examples together. Since this thread has already touched on it, here's one I've wondered about for a while:

How is the red floor and ceiling bg achieved in Stage 3 of Magical Chase?
http://www.superpcenginegrafx.net/forum

Active and drama free PC Engine forum

nat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7085
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #81 on: September 13, 2007, 03:18:32 PM »
The Genesis had 3 years on the PcEngine and was twice its size and the games don't look any better. The genesis would be an utter waste of chips with out that extra background layer;  its all that it has to compete. Anyways, Genesis failed to the PcEngine in Japan for obvious reasons. It will fail in this thread as well  :wink:

Well, this is a PC Engine forum.

Try starting this thread over on Sega-16. :wink:

 :roll:

Tatsujin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12311
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #82 on: September 13, 2007, 03:23:25 PM »
yeah that's an amazing example of how to use manific parallax multi scrolling on the PCE.

Accroding to our new earned knowledge of how to create parallax on the PCE, i would say the wood parts are made of pure sprites, which would be quite amazing. the 1st moving cloud layer have to be done in n-sync, since they used the same blue on the top as in the rearmost back ground to hide the cuts of n-sync parallax.
www.pcedaisakusen.net
the home of your individual PC Engine collection!!
PCE Games coundown: 690/737 (47 to go or 93.6% clear)
PCE Shmups countdown: 111/111 (all clear!!)
Sega does what Nintendon't, but only NEC does better than both together!^^

ccovell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2245
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #83 on: September 13, 2007, 04:22:14 PM »
You hit the nail on the head. Parallax can be faked in many different ways (and some you guys have yet to see...)

Heh, we've seen it done that (...) way in Crisis Force on the Famicom.   :wink:

Joe Redifer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8178
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #84 on: September 13, 2007, 06:25:56 PM »
Turbo D, you really, REALLY hate the Genesis with a passion, dontcha?

Quote

I don't know if the [Mega Drive/Genesis'] foreground can scroll seperate pieces to keep a score/status and moving graphic elements though.


The Genesis can scroll each horizontal line independently on both BGs simultaneously.  Quite a few games do this, but I think the first was Gaiares.  Wings of Wor did this as well while simultaneously scrolling each 8-pixel wide column up and down independently on both backgrounds at the same time for a crazy wavey effect.

I'd also like to know how stage 3 of Magical Chase was done.  I also think the wood parts are probably sprites, but like I said before, just about any system seems to be able to scroll a single BG layer into itself vertically (though never actually overlapping).  Black Tiger, why are there black bars on the sides of that video?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2007, 06:28:55 PM by Joe Redifer »

WoodyXP

  • Guest
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #85 on: September 13, 2007, 10:00:41 PM »

It's a close call for me.  Some games look best on the Turbo... while other games look better on the MD.
Like mentioned before.. it all boils down to who developed the games.  We can talk until we're
blue in the face about hardware... but what good is the hardware without great programmers?

Black Tiger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11242
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #86 on: September 14, 2007, 01:26:04 AM »
Black Tiger, why are there black bars on the sides of that video?

Thats a good question. I just checked some other videos that I recorded and they have the same thing. Hopefully I can fix it by checking a box in my capturing software. :P


Quote
I also think the wood parts are probably sprites, but like I said before, just about any system seems to be able to scroll a single BG layer into itself vertically (though never actually overlapping).

I'd really like to know how that works, because I've noticed a few Turbo games lately that do some cool vertical bg moves and it seems to me that combined with h-sync scrolling + a few extra sprites, combined the Turbo should be able to easily replicate any kind of multi layered scrolling/movement, other than something that moves in 360 degrees.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 01:36:43 AM by Black Tiger »
http://www.superpcenginegrafx.net/forum

Active and drama free PC Engine forum

ccovell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2245
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #87 on: September 14, 2007, 02:36:29 AM »
How Magical Chase does it is pretty simple, and any game can have the same effect; the sections of the background in Stage 3 of Magical Chase are just unbroken horizontal bars (sky, clouds, a wooden floor and ceiling) -- these can be moved around at will just like the sections of a slide rule.  The wooden stumps, turrets, rivets, etc that poke out from the floor and ceiling are sprites.  It's the same technique that is done on countless other shmups.

Necromancer

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21374
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #88 on: September 14, 2007, 03:29:49 AM »
The Genesis had 3 years on the PcEngine and was twice its size and the games don't look any better. The genesis would be an utter waste of chips with out that extra background layer;  its all that it has to compete.

It was only one year (October 30, 1987 to October 29, 1988), but point taken.  The SNES had two years on the Genesis (November 21, 1990) and was superior in every way, except for the most important - clock speed.

Parallax can be faked in many different ways (and some you guys have yet to see...)

Quit teasing us, ya bastard!
U.S. Collection: 98% complete    157/161 titles

OldTurboBastard

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: Graphics: Turbo vs. Genesis - ye old debate
« Reply #89 on: September 14, 2007, 03:40:01 AM »

It's a close call for me.  Some games look best on the Turbo... while other games look better on the MD.
Like mentioned before.. it all boils down to who developed the games.  We can talk until we're
blue in the face about hardware... but what good is the hardware without great programmers?

It makes it so a lazy genesis programmer can accomplish cool things with the background that a clever, determined, programmer working with the turbo platform could never pull off as well.
"I saw this wino, he was eating grapes. I was like, "Dude, you have to wait." - hedberg