Vampire Killer with Smooth scroll in Coleco

Page 2/4
1 | | 3 | 4

By Rataplan

Master (225)

Rataplan's picture

15-01-2020, 16:50

This is not a Vampire Killer port but a CastleVania port. I like Vampire Killer more, of course as I'm biassed towards MSX, but also because it has more of an explorer-feel to it, having to collect level keys and such. CastleVania is a great great game, but also one you can just walk to the exit.

It looks like the Coleco merely serves as a PSU for the SGM2 with access to the joystick ports. While I really like the hardware and certainly the development, for me this has nothing to do with Coleco anymore. Putting a big GPU and a fast CPU on a card, you can do anything. But how is that still Coleco? It has no charm for me.

Still, as Manual said, the same can be said for V9990 although at least that indeed still uses the rest of the MSX Smile

By tfh

Prophet (2068)

tfh's picture

15-01-2020, 17:23

Manuel wrote:

2. The V9990 is obviously along the lines of MSX video chips. So, it has the same spirit and would have been a logical follow up in the early 90s

Well... All we know is that there has been an MSX proto, just like for the PC-Engine and PC. And that is all we know. The rest is just "community guesses/hopes/wishes". The fact there is no backward compatibility means that this chip wasn't meant to be put INTO an MSX, unless they were going to do two video chips which I can't imagine.

And as for OPL4... Wel, then they can put it onto a PCB for the C64 as well and it will also be "c64" as much as it is "MSX":

https://youtu.be/RX4JfLCaBMU?t=393
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YM3526

By PingPong

Prophet (3501)

PingPong's picture

15-01-2020, 19:10

Problem with V9990 is philosophical : some msx people reject it because it lacks v99x8 compatibility. So it is perceived as a non msx thing.
But is is. The problem with V9990 is that there is no msx computer that has it in the main motherboard aside a v99x8.
But in the early days was common on pc to replace a cga with a ega. And no one complained that the pc would never be a pc.
So why we complain on msx?
V9990 is simple a new msx vdp originally created for msx. It never happened and changed its purpose as an expansion card.
Did you know that the C64 Vic II was created for arcade use then put in a C64?

By tfh

Prophet (2068)

tfh's picture

15-01-2020, 20:11

PingPong wrote:

Problem with V9990 is philosophical : some msx people reject it because it lacks v99x8 compatibility. So it is perceived as a non msx thing.
But is is. The problem with V9990 is that there is no msx computer that has it in the main motherboard aside a v99x8.
But in the early days was common on pc to replace a cga with a ega. And no one complained that the pc would never be a pc.
So why we complain on msx?

Weird comparisation. Completely different architecture and way of working. Noone needed to hook-up a monitor to their CGA to boot up a program and then switch to the EGA screen. Lots of systems didn't even have integrated graphics. And if you'd have an MSX with a V9990 only, no MSX software would work on it.

Quote:

V9990 is simple a new msx vdp originally created for msx.

Assumptions. Or do you have any documents to support this statement? As far as I know, the only MSX links are the fact it's Yamaha and there is a proto board (also for PC & PC-Engine)

Quote:

Did you know that the C64 Vic II was created for arcade use then put in a C64?

No, I didn't. As far as I know it was developed by MOS (later part of Commodore Semiconductor) especially for the C64/128: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_VIC-II
Which arcade machines used the VIC II? I can't find any info on that.

By Metalion

Paragon (1101)

Metalion's picture

15-01-2020, 20:45

tfh wrote:

Assumptions. Or do you have any documents to support this statement? As far as I know, the only MSX links are the fact it's Yamaha and there is a proto board (also for PC & PC-Engine)

It's not assumptions.

Go and read the V9978 datasheet on Grauw's website, which we KNOW was going to be the MSX3 VDP.
Then read the V9990 datasheet. And tell me it's not the very same videochip. Down to the name of screen modes.

It's indeed philosophical ... or dare I say even political. In the Outrun thread, someone said that we could have the same debate about Konami SCC. How true, how true ...

It's indeed an external sound chip which is absolutely NOT part of the MSX standard. You could have people arguing about it, and despising people who develop games with SCC. But of course, it's not the case. We even think collectively it's a bona fide part of the MSX standard and environment. Lots of people developing games with SCC sound. It was sold during the "official years" of the MSX, and by no one else than the greatest game editor of them all. And all that gave it somehow an aura of MSX authenticity. That's all. But it's no more part of the MSX than any other extension.

And let's not forget that the MSX standard was build itself on the principle of possible and open hardware extensions, which was not the case of other systems.

I think this pointless debate has to do with our perception of the fact that the video connection is external, whereas for example, the SCC outputs the sound through the MSX (therefore, it's "invisible"). I think we would not have this debate if the V9990 was simply an add-on chip working through the MSX, like the SCC.

Those pro/con debate in such a small community are useless and destructive. When I look at the pictures of Nijmegen 2019, I see about 40 people maximum. How much more in the world care about that obscure japanese 8-bit computer ? We're a bunch of survivors, and we fight and bicker about what should be right and what should not. Let's be happy about anything that happen on our old computers, whether we like it or not.

By tfh

Prophet (2068)

tfh's picture

15-01-2020, 21:28

Metalion wrote:
tfh wrote:

Assumptions. Or do you have any documents to support this statement? As far as I know, the only MSX links are the fact it's Yamaha and there is a proto board (also for PC & PC-Engine)

It's not assumptions.

Go and read the V9978 datasheet on Grauw's website, which we KNOW was going to be the MSX3 VDP.
Then read the V9990 datasheet. And tell me it's not the very same videochip. Down to the name of screen modes.

It's indeed philosophical ... or dare I say even political. In the Outrun thread, someone said that we could have the same debate about Konami SCC. How true, how true ...

But we're getting quite off topic here Smile

It's indeed an external sound chip which is absolutely NOT part of the MSX standard. You could have people arguing about it, and despising people who develop games with SCC. But of course, it's not the case. We even think collectively it's a bona fide part of the MSX standard and environment. Lots of people developing games with SCC sound. It was sold during the "official years" of the MSX, and by no one else than the greatest game editor of them all. And all that gave it somehow an aura of MSX authenticity. That's all. But it's no more part of the MSX than any other extension.

And let's not forget that the MSX standard was build itself on the principle of possible and open hardware extensions, which was not the case of other systems.

I think this pointless debate has to do with our perception of the fact that the video connection is external, whereas for example, the SCC outputs the sound through the MSX (therefore, it's "invisible"). I think we would not have this debate if the V9990 was simply an add-on chip working through the MSX, like the SCC.

Those pro/con debate in such a small community are useless and destructive. When I look at the pictures of Nijmegen 2019, I see about 40 people maximum. How much more in the world care about that obscure japanese 8-bit computer ? We're a bunch of survivors, and we fight and bicker about what should be right and what should not. Let's be happy about anything that happen on our old computers, whether we like it or not.

Well, I still don't consider the V9990 as being part of the MSX standard, just like OPL4. I do consider them extentions which can be of use.. But a game with V9990 GFX is for me just that. It's V9990 GFX, not MSX GFX.
This is not the absolute truth, just my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
What I do find quite weird is that in your message you are giving arguments about why it can be considered MSX, but are more or less tellng me I shouldn't put any arguments here why according to me it isn't.
If you don't want this discussion because it may hurt the limited MSX community: fine... But then don't start feeding arguments yourself Smile It's one or the other. Hannibal

But we're getting quite off topic here Smile

By Manuel

Ascended (16140)

Manuel's picture

15-01-2020, 22:46

tfh wrote:
Manuel wrote:

2. The V9990 is obviously along the lines of MSX video chips. So, it has the same spirit and would have been a logical follow up in the early 90s

Well... All we know is that there has been an MSX proto, just like for the PC-Engine and PC. And that is all we know. The rest is just "community guesses/hopes/wishes". The fact there is no backward compatibility means that this chip wasn't meant to be put INTO an MSX, unless they were going to do two video chips which I can't imagine.

The story is that the backwards compatiblity was removed after the MSX3 project with V9978 was canceled. Sure, I fully agree it's perhaps mostly speculation and guesses/hopes/wishes. But, don't you agree it's plausible that the V9990 is related to the other V99x8 series? Looking at the modes and design you can come to the same conclusion. Seen from the other side: no other commercially released video chip of that era comes closer to something "MSXish" than the V9990.

Quote:

And as for OPL4... Wel, then they can put it onto a PCB for the C64 as well and it will also be "c64" as much as it is "MSX":
https://youtu.be/RX4JfLCaBMU?t=393
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YM3526

Well, the MSX-AUDIO (based on the original OPL) and the OPLL/MSX-MUSIC were definitely in the MSX standard. The OPL2, OPL3 and OPL4 are simply follow up chips, which are even mostly compatible with them, just extended. So in my eyes, these are quite logical things to use as plausible extensions of the MSX standard.

By Manuel

Ascended (16140)

Manuel's picture

15-01-2020, 22:53

Metalion wrote:

When I look at the pictures of Nijmegen 2019, I see about 40 people maximum.

(offtopic...)
In total, we estimate that about 120 different people attended, thank you Smile

By gdx

Prophet (3320)

gdx's picture

16-01-2020, 01:39

The problem with SGM2 is that all the time used by Opcodes to develop this extension and specific games will not be used to develop Coleco games. The same remark can be made to the MSXVR.

The SGM1 was a better project because it improved the Coleco while adding part of the MSX and Adam.

About V9990 I think this is different because it's perceived as a part of MSX3 by a lot of users.

All this is arbitrary but it is impossible to have all the extensions. We must make a choice. I prefer to choose projects that do not divide the community too much, and especially the developers.

However, I understand that these kinds of projects interest people. This brings a little freshness.

By PingPong

Prophet (3501)

PingPong's picture

16-01-2020, 11:36

tfh wrote:
PingPong wrote:

Problem with V9990 is philosophical : some msx people reject it because it lacks v99x8 compatibility. So it is perceived as a non msx thing.
But is is. The problem with V9990 is that there is no msx computer that has it in the main motherboard aside a v99x8.
But in the early days was common on pc to replace a cga with a ega. And no one complained that the pc would never be a pc.
So why we complain on msx?

Weird comparisation. Completely different architecture and way of working. Noone needed to hook-up a monitor to their CGA to boot up a program and then switch to the EGA screen. Lots of systems didn't even have integrated graphics. And if you'd have an MSX with a V9990 only, no MSX software would work on it.

MSX has an architecture in most ways similar to pc expecitally when we talk about expandibility.
About the additional monitor, you should know that in the early days MS-DOS programs were debugged with a sw called codeview that used TWO GRAPHICS CARDS and TWO MONITORS. There was also a Electrical CAD Engineering sw that used another Graphic card with another monitor to output the circuit schema and the standard CGA 80x25 display to interact with console command with the CAD Designer. Nothing strange here.
Obviously, the additional gfx card was not working without a sw that specifically drive it. Exactly like MSX.
Was done because of the SAME REASONS in msx. TO achieve a better display than built-in one.

Quote:
Quote:

V9990 is simple a new msx vdp originally created for msx.

Assumptions.
Or do you have any documents to support this statement? As far as I know, the only MSX links are the fact it's Yamaha and there is a proto board (also for PC & PC-Engine)

The evidence: if you look at the way the interface with the host machine is realized you clearly see that is done for MSX then adapted as a general purpose gfx card.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Did you know that the C64 Vic II was created for arcade use then put in a C64?

No, I didn't. As far as I know it was developed by MOS (later part of Commodore Semiconductor) especially for the C64/128: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_VIC-II
Which arcade machines used the VIC II? I can't find any info on that.

Your informations are wrong. The VIC-II was originally intended as an arcade chip, but did not sell well. So when C64 come to light they tryed to recover the money by using on C64 itself.
It is because did not sell well as arcade chip that it is on c64, and it is also the reason there where no arcade machines based on VIC-II.

https://www.retro-game.it/la-storia-del-commodore-64/ is an italian site i quote the text here:

Quote:

Il design del Commodore 64 prende vita nel gennaio del 1981 quando gli ingegneri della Commodore MOS Technology decidono di realizzare un nuovo chip ad alte prestazioni grafiche e sonore per il mercato arcade. Nel novembre dello stesso anno, a chip ultimato, il presidente Commodore Jack Tramiel convertirà il progetto ad un uso casalingo implementando la nuova tecnologia in un computer da 64k.

Quote:

the c64 design came to light on jan 1981 when MOS Technology Engineering created a new gfx and sound chip for arcade businnes. ......

OT: the VIC-II chip was a good chip for home computers, but compared to arcade chips available at the time it was largely inferior, that's because commodore failed to sell it and recycled on C64.
Arcade machines of the era offered better gfx than the VIC-II could achieve.

Page 2/4
1 | | 3 | 4