Printable View
As the title says...
Was there a specific reason these 2 titles run at 30 rather than 60 fps? Is it a limitation of the 32x hardware? If so, what? Or is that how the original arcade titles were?
Is the 32x capable of tossing large amounts of scaled sprites around at 60 fps?
The 32X probably isn't capable of running at a full 60FPS with After Burner and Space Harrier. I know the arcade version of After Burner definitely runs at 60FPS, no idea on Space Harrier.
Neither, I think both hit 60 FPS at times (with little on screen), but there's slowdown with more stuff going on, probably dropping below 30 FPS at times.
IIRC Joe Redifer mentioned Space Harrier having a highly variable framerate.
The CPUs simply aren't fast enough to do that rendering that fast... remember EVERYTHING on the 32x is software rendered except the Genesis layer. (it's a bit like old VGA PC games, just a CPU rendering with a simple framebuffer -though I think VGA actually had hardware scrolling and some other features helping with software blitting)
Character modes could also double as a graphical mode similar to "tiles", which I believe some games used, I know some apps replace a character to give text mode apps a REAL mouse cursor (and not a block).Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
Well tile graphics are pretty much synonymous with character graphics ("tiles" on the C64, A8-bit/5200, etc are referred to as character modes).Quote:
Originally Posted by evildragon
So yeah, that's another feature the 32x lacked, but given the framebuffer size, that wouldn't be all that useful except perhaps for allowing fullscreen highcolor graphics. (normally tile/character graphics are useful for situations with limited amounts of memory, and in cases with high-detail fullscreen graphics approximating a full bitmap display, they use more space due to indexing/pattern tables; the other trade-off is the necessary use of fast/expensive memory like VRAM or SRAM rather than DRAM used in most framebuffer systems of the time -with hardware acceleration faster memory types became more necessary as well, that and faster system buses -even VGA had outgrown ISA, of course)
In that context it makes you wonder why all the consoles tended to stick with tile based graphics through the 4th generation when a more flexible framebuffer+blitter type system could have offered benefits (especially one that had decent hardware sprites as well -unlike the Amiga). For the similar cost of VRAM or fast SRAM you could have plenty of DRAM for a double buffered framebuffer competitive with contemporary resolutions and color depths and then some. (8-bit chunky pixels would have been nice) Not to mention unified memory on top of all that (dedicated buses would have other advantages though). Actually this came up in a hypothetical discussion on Atariage, except using CPU grunt alone from a fast/cheap embedded RISC CPU was also suggested (actual a direct conversion of a consolidated Archimedes with a moderately faster CPU -which the AROM250 already was- was suggested).
The only console of the time (4th gen) that went that route was the Konix Multisystem (which also had an emphasis on polygonal 3D), but Konix drove that into the ground. (not sure why no one else didn't pick up the chipset given Konix had never gotten exclusivity from Flare: Atari certainly could have used it with Flare working with them... or Amstrad -a FAR better option than the GX4000...)
Well that and the Sega CD, but that used the Genesis graphics too. (the ASIC is more or less a flexible blitter which renders to a framebuffer and can convert bitmap frames to tiles on the fly)
But now I'm way off topic. I think the topic was already answered though, unless someone could argue that SH or AB could have been optimized more and 60 FPS could have been possible.
Yes, 32X Space Harrier has a variable framerate. Not sure what the arcade version runs at, I guess I could check the Saturn version since it is identical. I know arcade Out Run runs at 30fps, so maybe Space Harrier does, too.
I know Outrun for the Sega Ages has a code to bump it to 60FPS I can't remember if its on the other 2 games but I don't see why it would'nt.
Exactly. After Burner runs natively at 60fps on the Saturn so no need for a code. Space Harrier doesn't have that code. The Japanese version has more codes than the US version that WD brought over, though.
Honestly anything above 15fps is fine for me and i don't mind it lower than that for early 3d games so long as the controls aren't bad, i don't see what all the fuss is about with all the fps talk.
I would not bet on the Saturn games' framerates being identical to the arcade versions. We're talking about hardware eight to ten years removed from what the original games ran on. As I understand it technically, framebuffer is the biggest limitation to framerate next to the usual bandwidth, and CPU/GPU speed and prowess issues. In the 80s, memory was just flat expensive and Space Harrier came out right after the supposed "great crash."
It would certainly help if we knew more about the RAM and transfer speed from ROM of the Space Harrier hardware and X Board Hardware.
I thought the only difference was that they took out all of the remixed music? That is why Vic Ireland had said in manual for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
I'm guessing that if Space Harrier has an option to increase the frame rate to full speed, then the default frame rate must be more or less accurate. Unless they decided to make a gimped version the default mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by sheath
Same here, but then again, I grew up on 8-bit 3D games like The Eidolon and Rescue on Fractalus, which pushed 6 FPS. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by doomguy
If the Saturn can run After Burner 2 at full speed and 60fps, it is a good bet that Space Harrier runs at whatever it is supposed to run at, no less, no more.
Galaxy Force, on the other hand, runs at half the frame rate of the arcade. I think the Saturn could have done even better than that, but it's pretty good nonetheless. Galaxy Force runs on much more powerful arcade hardware than After Burner and especially Space Harrier.
I can stand 15 fps pertty well, but it depends on the genre... 12 sometimes... Or even les in some cases. (I find F-22 on the Genesis quite playable -the lack of rudder control is more annoying than the framerate)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
I've seen people who whine like little babies over 120 FPS! Can you imagine one of those idiots playing at 15 FPS? :D
Heh, I'm totally fine with 30 FPS for all games. (which is the best you'd get on an interlaced NTSC display anyway -25 hz PAL) 60 FPS is certainly noticeable though, past that not so much other than refresh flicker on good CRT monitors and LCD screens. (past 70-75 Hz and it gets harder to tell)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
For PC games the limits's been well beyond NTSC scan rate and resolution for a long time. (not since early 90s DOS games was it more comparable to 240p 60 Hz NTSC stuff -which is also what Amiga games tended to be, of course)
But by the late 90s, way past that, past standard "HD" resolution too, and a bit later actually past 1080p, though that's not so dramatic on PC monitors (even bigger ~20" displays), at least outside of reduced aliasing.
I recently played through Portal on my Turion laptop which only has an NVidia 7150 embedded video chipset which actually seems worse in some areas than my old Radeon 9600, heh. That often dropped below 15 fps... at least if I went past minimal detail settings or in some more populated areas.
Even at low detail the final battle was a bit frustrating with a lot of dropped frames. :D
At best it seemed to do 20-30 FPS fairly regularly though.
I'm more interested in building a good win9X machine to play some older PC gems than a newer gaming rig though. ;) Probably will do both eventually... if I can find the space.
Most VGA DOS games used 200p 70Hz, not 240p 60Hz. (240p 60Hz was Mode X, and is a hack mode)..
I put on some 3D shutter glasses at Best Buy. They flicker at 120Hz. Annoyed the piss out of me. They should flicker at least 600Hz (no matter what, over half the brightness of the screen is gone as a result). For an actual framerate, though, 60fps is more than fine.
Best buy was pissed when I said out loud after trying the glasses "This piece of crap gives me a headache!"..Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
I could tell they were trying to push me away from their 3D room.
What I meant was that it was generally similar in a rough sense... And actual VGA cards doubled the scan usually, didn't they: to comply with the 30 kHz minimum Vsync? (compared to CGA/TGA/EGA 160/320/640x200 60 Hz NTSC compatible modes) Though iirc many early VGA monitors specifically catered to CGA/EGA resolutions too, so that could be a factor. (later cards all scan doubled for those modes iirc and monitors didn't accept less than 30 kHz vsync)Quote:
Originally Posted by evildragon
I seem to recall you also mentioned the early MCGA only monitors though, not even supporting the higher res stuff. (but perhaps the 200 line CGA/TGA/EGA modes)
Anyway mode X was a tweak but extremely common as well as more flexible and desirable from several aspects (possibility of square pixels, double buffering in VGA RAM, higher resolution etc), the main reason not to use it was either early on before it was widely used or for developers catering to the lowest common denominator of VGA (ie MCGA and 64 kB VGA cards only having the RAM for 13h -or possibly 640x480 1bpp monochrome for the latter), and of course that would only apply to games offering only a single, fixed resolution, not variable options.
Tons of late DOS games used mode X, often with variable resolution options (320x240 was common, but also 400x300 I think, maybe some others, so long as they conformed to the sync range of low-end VGA monitors -which should at least go to 640x480 due to the 16-color mode). Then there;s a lot of late DOS games that went into 256 color SVGA modes, though largely just taking advantage of the larger amount of video RAM (base VGA would be 640x400 max and that's single buffered due to the 256 kB limit). 640x480x256 color became pretty common for several late DOS games, some going well well pas that with SVGA though. (like Quake up to 1440x900 and Duke Nukem 3D which went even higher iirc -all 256 color though, but there were a few highcolor DOS games, not sure if any were software rendered or that was only for ones with hardware acceleration)
How do Sega's old Master System 3D glasses compare to that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Yes, VGA was double scanned for 31KHz compatibility.
MCGA runs the same as VGA, but doesn't contain any of the EGA modes, and 640x480 is only 1-bit monochrome, no 16 colors.. MCGA does have CGA though, but no Tandy graphics (if I remember right). (MCGA is double scanner for the lower res stuff to 400 lines)..
Mode X doesn't work at all on MCGA. I tried, results in a funky frozen picture, in which case the CPU locks up too..
My favorite Mode X is 360x480, cause it allows 480 lines of picture, in 256 colors.. Mode X also can allow 800x600 16-colors on standard VGA hardware.
You can notice the flicker. But Sega's glasses, as uncomfortable as they are, are still more comfortable than Panasonic's. And a shit-ton cheaper. I think of Sega 3D as more of a novelty, it was cool for its time. But now you have that exact same technology, only flickering twice as fast and wireless and costing many times more and it's being pushed on us as a way to watch movies. I don't like 3D movies in the theater, either, and there is no flickering there.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
3D filming is no longer an art, just an annoyance.
I think regular filmography and photography are an art and should be kept the way it has been, because it just works.
Huh, I didn't know MCGA had the 640x480 mode, interesting, I'd assumed 64 kB VGA cards could, but not necessarily MCGA. (it's planar graphics, so all the software would have to do is stick to 1 bitplane and 64 kB would be sufficient, as I'd expect could be done with the 640x350 mode on 64 kB EGA cards, in fact that should allow 4 colors in that case with 2 bitplanes)Quote:
Originally Posted by evildragon
I really like 3D i think when when they stop waving things at your face it can be used to give games/films more immersion, i also thing making 3d film is really fun to do and cool to look at since you can use free software software these days which works surprisingly well.
Using software to make artificial 3D is doing it the crap way and you get crap results. The real way is to shoot it in 3D. You get much better results. The "free software" you are thinking about you probably saw on 4-chan as a way to convert Hentai to 3D or something.
what.... im talking about using two cameras to create anaglyph 3d videos with free yet effective software, when did hentai come into it?
Edit infact why did you even think about that seems very strange? hentai sickens me and i avoid even thinking about it
I saw some online tutorial somewhere on how to make 3D hentai.
3D anaglyph videos are very hard to do because the color red does not compress very well. I've done it. You have to be VERY careful when shooting as well. It is tempting to put the cameras close to things to get things to "pop out" and whatnot, but that is not a good idea. The problem with the cameras is that if they record on MiniDV, then the reds are already destroyed. Most cameras destroy the color red during recording, so anaglyph is very difficult with consumer video.
You must have been using some pretty poor software you can even use black and white footage and it should be no problem since the software afterwards adds the blue/red to the left/right images to create the 3d effect. Also if you use filters over the lenses like i have seen some do it not only destroys all of the colour but is less effective.
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p...dwindowpic.jpg
Here is a still from a compressed video i made get it on full screen and it still works very well.
That doesn't look very good, moe like a flat background placed behind the black border. Are you looking out of a screen-covered window? Also, the left eye is usually the red, not the right. I do the anaglyphic conversion myself, I do not rely on software. I like taking 3D photographs, but 3D video isn't as fun.
Here are a couple of many 3D photographs by me (red eye=left):
http://www.joeredifer.com/crap/redrocks3d.png
http://www.joeredifer.com/crap/sega3d.png
Your photos are very awesome mine isnt as good for a few reasons, although of course you can manually adjust settings in the movie software it will never be as good as a still in photoshop where you focus the effect for that moment, two i saved it in a low resolution by accident, im pretty new to this and placed the cameras to far apart then squashed them closer together which is why it looks like flat layers, and most stupid of all i forgot to open the bloody window! ah well im getting better but one of my cameras has died so i wont be making more for a while.
Edit the black border is just from when i print screened it but i forgot to crop it down, a really daft mistake as it nearly completely kills the effect.
This is from the very first bit of test footage i did i think completely uninteresting picture but the effect is ok.
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p...tle3dstill.jpg
here is the other one again cropped which looks better.
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p...dowpiccrop.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...edragon/3d.jpg
My attempt at 3D.. Epic fail, colors got butchered.
If you're interested in doing anaglyph 3D photos, you NEED to check out this page:
http://mitglied.multimania.de/stereo...comparison.htm
Half-color anaglyph in particular looks good. While optimized doesn't have any retinal rivalry, it also doesn't do red shades.
I'm not sure what he means by half-color anaglyphs. They do look very good, but his formulas do not help me as they do not make much sense.
EDIT... waitaminute... I think I might be starting to figure it out....
Gotta break out your old books on linear algebra. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Half-color
-----------
Start with two images: left and right. Combine them into one single image, anaglyph, where:
Ranaglyph = 0.299 Rleft + 0.587 Gleft + 0.114 Bleft
Ganaglyph = Gright
Banaglyph = Bright
But how do those numbers translate into an image editor? That is what I am trying to figure out right now. I have a scale of 2 to 255 currently. On half color it is easy because the right eye is 0, 1, 1.
EDIT: Hmmmm... I think I can get close enough with some simple math.
EDIT 2: Nope, can't figure out how to translate it.
Guess it can't be done in Photoshop. I wonder what these guys use with those silly formulas?
The movie software i use gives you a large range of types of anaglyph including half colour which does look much nicer, you can also do shutter glasses 3d and 3d avi videos which is useful if you ant to use the youtube 3d player